I'm not arguing that Lynn's comments indicate that she is a moderate. Look at the specifics that AU brought up, and it's a good indication of the outliers of her opinions or advocacy. The most "right-leaning" actions of her career are pretty tame but her body of work is largely unknown in comparison to other nominees because she seems to arguing on behalf of someone else or carrying forward policies put in place by her predecessor.

Today I heard someone say she's the cure for Viagra.

Didn't she play Spence on The King of Queens?

She's a socialist.

With an altered nose, she'd look exactly like a pig.

I don't know much about her policies and opinions. . . All I know is that she looks like a lezzie. I'll assume most of you are thinking the same, but are just afraid to say it.

(not that her being a lesbian would affect my opinion of her, but her being one and hiding it would)

(05-10-2010 03:45 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Center for Military Preparedness issues statement

http://www.cmrlink.org/PeopleintheNews.asp?docID=384

You mean the one with this "woman"(to put it nicely)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7Jieekke...re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19sLj2zK3qM&NR=1

(05-10-2010 10:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  With an altered nose, she'd look exactly like a pig.

Nice. You can't make a good argument as to why she shouldn't be confirmed so just bash her for her looks. Typical.

(05-11-2010 02:53 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 10:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  With an altered nose, she'd look exactly like a pig.

Nice. You can't make a good argument as to why she shouldn't be confirmed so just bash her for her looks. Typical.

Copying a liberal tactic. I does work both ways.

Let her own words damn her.

Quote:In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152305

Lets go back to her days at Princeton. Thisa woman is a ticking Leftist Time Bomb.

"Yet a glance back at Kagan’s undergraduate years at Princeton reveals a young woman who, even if restrained, was passionate about political life. Her senior thesis, the editorials published under her tenure as editorial chairman of The Daily Princetonian and her campus activities, as well as the words of those who worked closely with her at Princeton, shed light on Kagan’s commitment to political activism and her liberal beliefs.

A history major, Kagan had a strong interest in political history — especially labor movements and radical politics — and was passionately committed to her studies. History professor Sean Wilentz, who advised Kagan on her senior thesis, described her as “one of the most extraordinary people I’ve met in my life, let alone teaching at Princeton.

Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness,” she wrote in her thesis. “Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation.”

She called the story of the socialist movement’s demise “a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America ... In unity lies their only hope.”

Though shielded from her friends, Kagan’s political beliefs emerged most clearly in an opinion piece she wrote for the ‘Prince’ a few weeks after that 1980 election night, in which she described her disappointment at Holtzman’s loss and her own liberal views. “I absorbed ... liberal principles early,” she said. “More to the point, I have retained them fairly intact to this day.”

In the piece, Kagan also expressed her dissatisfaction with the state of the political left at the time, lamenting the demise of “real Democrats — not the closet Republicans that one sees so often these days” and the success of “anonymous but Moral Majority-backed ... avengers of ‘innocent life’ and the B-1 Bomber, these beneficiaries of a general turn to the right and a profound disorganization on the left.”

She hoped that the future would “be marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore.”




http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/05/03/26081/[/i]

(05-11-2010 07:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Let her own words damn her.

Quote:In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:
"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152305

If "uncoerced" truly means uncoerced, than I am OK with this statement.
But I rather fear that it is codespeak for extending the reach of PC.

(05-11-2010 07:35 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness,” she wrote in her thesis. “Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation.”

What kind of f'n doublespeak is this?

Socialism is the one that requires conformity. It is the one that doesn't allow for things to be altered.

Capitalism is all about alterations. New markets, competition, disruptive technologies. That's capitalism. Socialism abhors all of those things.

This kind of nonsense is praised by Princeton professors?

(05-11-2010 02:53 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 10:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  With an altered nose, she'd look exactly like a pig.

Nice. You can't make a good argument as to why she shouldn't be confirmed so just bash her for her looks. Typical.

As a liberal, how do you feel about Obama not nominating any women for SCOTUS?

(05-11-2010 12:38 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-11-2010 02:53 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 10:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  With an altered nose, she'd look exactly like a pig.

Nice. You can't make a good argument as to why she shouldn't be confirmed so just bash her for her looks. Typical.

As a liberal, how do you feel about Obama not nominating any women for SCOTUS?

(05-11-2010 12:44 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-11-2010 12:38 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-11-2010 02:53 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 10:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  With an altered nose, she'd look exactly like a pig.

Nice. You can't make a good argument as to why she shouldn't be confirmed so just bash her for her looks. Typical.

As a liberal, how do you feel about Obama not nominating any women for SCOTUS?

nice.

As for her appearance - looks like a female Bob Costas.

I have no doubt that she is a leftist, but not so far left as Sotermier. Good strategy - go with the far left candidate in his first appointment, when he still had political capital to spend. Now that his party faces a tough battle in November, go with a bit more of a traditional liberal for his second pick.

She will be confirmed.

(05-11-2010 05:14 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  As for her appearance - looks like a female Bob Costas.

I have no doubt that she is a leftist, but not so far left as Sotermier. Good strategy - go with the far left candidate in his first appointment, when he still had political capital to spend. Now that his party faces a tough battle in November, go with a bit more of a traditional liberal for his second pick.

She will be confirmed.

Probably, but not without a huge election year fight.

(05-11-2010 05:14 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  As for her appearance - looks like a female Bob Costas.

I have no doubt that she is a leftist, but not so far left as Sotermier. Good strategy - go with the far left candidate in his first appointment, when he still had political capital to spend. Now that his party faces a tough battle in November, go with a bit more of a traditional liberal for his second pick.

She will be confirmed.

She has the potential of being another Harriet Miers. Just depends on how dirty the Republicans want to get.

(05-11-2010 08:03 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(05-11-2010 05:14 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  As for her appearance - looks like a female Bob Costas.

I have no doubt that she is a leftist, but not so far left as Sotermier. Good strategy - go with the far left candidate in his first appointment, when he still had political capital to spend. Now that his party faces a tough battle in November, go with a bit more of a traditional liberal for his second pick.

She will be confirmed.

She has the potential of being another Harriet Miers. Just depends on how dirty the Republicans want to get.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't remeber any dirty tricks with Miers. Wasn't it was the Republicans who torpedoed Miers because even they didn't think she was qualified/conservative enough (details are fuzzy)?