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: DMaA who wrote (370912)	6/30/2010 10:16:47 AM
From: Bill	1 Recommendation Respond to of 794338

And they don't like the climate data, so they change it. Same old story.

To: DMaA who wrote (370912)	6/30/2010 10:40:50 AM
From: Brumar89	4 Recommendations Respond to of 794338

" If Kagan twisted science to advance her political agenda, why wouldn't she do the same to the law?" .......... In notes released by the White House it now looks as though Kagan herself—a senior Clinton White House staffer with no medical background—proposed the “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” language, and sent it to ACOG, which then included that language in its final statement. What’s described in these memos is easily the most serious and flagrant violation of the boundary between scientific expertise and politics I have ever encountered. A White House official formulating a substantive policy position for a supposedly impartial physicians’ group, and a position at odds with what that group’s own policy committee had actually concluded? If Kagan twisted science to advance her political agenda, why wouldn't she do the same to the law? weeklystandard.com Of course she would, that's why Obama appointed her! That's what liberals are counting on her to do. Based on this information, Kagan should be rejected on ethical grounds.