Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (306959)	5/26/2009 10:17:41 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

Maybe. TWT.

To: FJB who wrote (306959)	5/26/2009 10:31:47 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

From this, I came to the opinion Kagan and Wood would have been worse picks: Dean Kagan has taken positions that are disturbingly out of the mainstream. For example, driven by her view that the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy adopted by a Democrat Congress and President Clinton is “a profound wrong–a moral injustice of the first order,” she argued that it violates the First Amendment for the United States to withhold funds from colleges that ban the military from recruiting on campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this view. ... Judge Wood’s judicial views have on occasion been far outside mainstream legal thought and appear driven by her personal policy views. In NOW v. Scheidler, she wrote an opinion applying RICO – a statute designed for mob prosecutions – to prevent pro-life activists from engaging in protests. The Supreme Court reversed with Justices Ginsburg’s and Breyer’s concurrence. NOW v. Scheidler, 537 U.S. 393, 402 (2003). -Judge Wood has betrayed a consistent hostility to religious litigants and religious interests. For example, Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 867 (7th Cir. 2006), she would have voted to allow a public university to revoke the student organization charter of the Christian Legal Society because it declined to extend membership to homosexuals. She also authored an opinion refusing to allow prisons to require inmate participation in drug rehabilitation programs that used “explicit religious content,” even where such programs were the only ones available, effectively allowing inmates to refuse treatment entirely. Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996).” Message 25614782 And Nadine opined: Given that the next SCOTUS judge will be ultra liberal, conservatives should prefer the weaker candidate. Remember, the real reason that Robert Bork's nomination set off such a pitched battle was not merely that he was conservative, but that he was a powerful legal thinker who could sway others. Perhaps we should be grateful that Obama seems determined to limit himself to a Latina, instead of looking for the strongest candidate. Message 25614832 The rap on Sotomayor is she thinks judges ought to make law, has a bullying temperament on the bench, and isn't the brainiest judge around. The things we know about the other nominees that were rejected are worse imo. Just trying to be realistic.