""President Barack Obama said he wanted to honor the legacy of Associate Justice John Paul Stevens with his nominee. If so, he has chosen to honor it in the breach with a nominee who is likely to dismantle a significant part of Stevens’ legacy. As with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has decided to nominate someone who is demonstrably more conservative than the person she is replacing on some issues –potentially moving the Court to the right. I discussed on the nomination on this segment of Countdown.
For many liberals and civil libertarians, the Kagan nomination is a terrible act of betrayal after the President campaigned so heavily on the issue of the Supreme Court during his campaign. He is now replacing a liberal icon with someone who has testified that she does not believe in core protections for accused individuals in the war on terror. During her confirmation hearing Kagan testified that she believed that anyone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be stripped of protections and held under indefinite detention without a trial — agreeing with the Bush Administration....."""
Given corporate liberal control-freaks such as Miss Kagan, who needs conservatives.
LAWFUL, adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction (Bierce).
1 comment:
Your quote from Bierce is a gem. Bierce's book is my father's favourite, EVER!
It connects with Discussions I've had elsewhere, with L. J. Kramer, on the legal-moral interface, of course!
(Call me neo-Thrasymachus!).
Post a Comment