Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Justice Elena Kagan lie to Congress?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 3 of 66 (895501)
07-04-2022 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sarah Bellum
07-04-2022 9:33 AM


Might Kagan have clarified during followup (hint, hint, you might want to look up a fuller accounting of what she said).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-04-2022 9:33 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2022 2:37 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 37 of 66 (895574)
07-06-2022 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Sarah Bellum
07-05-2022 2:36 PM


Sarah Bellum writes:
Do you really think she changed her mind? Or simply told a convenient lie? Or maybe there was a third alternative, that she used enough cleverly chosen verbiage so that what she said wasn't a lie, but could be interpreted by her listeners in disparate ways?
You're applying a common and utterly fallacious discussion style:
  1. Make an assertion.
  2. Ignore the substance in all responses.
  3. Repeat original assertion.
  4. Return to step 2.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2022 2:36 PM Sarah Bellum has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 38 of 66 (895577)
07-06-2022 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Sarah Bellum
07-05-2022 2:37 PM


Sarah Bellum writes:
Percy writes:
Might Kagan have clarified during followup (hint, hint, you might want to look up a fuller accounting of what she said).
Oh, I'm quite sure she revised and extended her remarks!
It would be more accurate to say that once she saw her comment being interpreted out of context that she described the context:
quote
Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation's citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
  —Kagan in letter to Arlen Specter
You're making the same claim made at the time way back in 2009 and 2010 that she was trying to mislead the committee that she would not vote to create a right to same-sex marriage, except that this wasn't a hearing for a spot on the Supreme Court. It was a hearing for a position as solicitor general, and the question was, given her public support for same sex marriage, whether she could support the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court at the time. And of course there was no constitutional right to same-sex marriage at the time. The Supreme Court hadn't ruled that there was one yet.
But it has been argued that she was being deceptive and answered this way in order to improve her chances for a nomination to the Supreme Court. This is from the hearings on Kagan's Supreme Court nomination:
Senator KylLet me switch subjects here. During the Solicitor General hearing—the hearing for your nomination as SOMETHING, you said in response to question by Senator Cornyn, quote, ‘‘There is no Federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.’’ Now, to me that means the Constitution cannot properly be read to include such a right. Is that what you meant to say?
Ms. KaganSenator Kyl, that question was asked me in my role as Solicitor General. The question came to me from Senator Cornyn because Senator Cornyn acknowledged and stated what is true which is that I had opposed and stated opposition to the ‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell’’ policy and Senator Cornyn asked me, given that stated opposition, could you perform the role of Solicitor General and particularly, I think, could you with appropriate vigor defend the constitutionality Doma?
And my answer was meant to say, yes, I absolutely could defend vigorously the constitutionality of Doma, that I understood what the state of the law was and that I understood what my professional responsibilities were. And if that case had come to the Supreme Court this year, I certainly would have been at the podium——
Senator KylWith all due respect, Doma’s constitutionality is a different question than your statement. And there were no qualifications on it, you said, ‘‘there is no Federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage’’ period. Now, are you qualifying that now? Are you saying that you meant something different by those clear words that you expressed to Senator Cornyn? And I didn’t take it out of context.
Ms. KaganI was absolutely saying that I understood the state of the law and that I accepted the state of the law——
Senator KylSo you’re only saying then that as of right now the Court hasn’t declared there to be a Federal constitutional right; is that all you’re saying?
Ms. KaganI am saying that I very much understood, accepted the state of the law and that I was going to perform all my obligations as Solicitor General consistent with that understanding and consistent with that acceptance.
Senator KylSo you wouldn’t tell us today then whether you believe that the Constitution could be properly read to include such a right?
Ms. KaganI don’t think that that would be appropriate. As Senator Grassley and I talked about, there is a case that’s pending, the case may or some other case might come before the Court, and so I couldn’t go any further than that.
Senator KylSo then when you said, ‘‘there is no Federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage’’ what you meant by that was the Court has not held that there is a Federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage?
Ms. KaganThe question was, could I perform my responsibilities as Solicitor General? Did I understand the law, did I accept the state of the law? And the answer was yes as to both.
Is that clear enough?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2022 2:37 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-07-2022 9:09 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 39 of 66 (895578)
07-06-2022 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Sarah Bellum
07-05-2022 3:15 PM


Re: Why don't you try to.make an actual argument to discuss.
Sarah Bellum writes:
Oh, no, if President Biden could appoint, say, four new justices, which he can, given Democrat control of Congress...
Democrats don't have real control of Congress. They head the committees, but their voting advantage is so slight as to be meaningless. Their House majority is small, and their Senate majority is by the slimmest possible of margins. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass most legislation, including to expand the court unless they suspend the filibuster rules, which seems unlikely.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2022 3:15 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-07-2022 9:36 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 50 of 66 (895597)
07-07-2022 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Sarah Bellum
07-07-2022 9:36 AM


Re: Why don't you try to.make an actual argument to discuss.
Sarah Bellum writes:
In the days of majority leader Lyndon Johnson people like Manchin and Sinema wouldn't have been able to pull their stunts.
Lyndon Johnson was Senate majority leader in the 85th Congress (1957-1959) with a 2 seat majority.
He was Senate majority leader again in the 86th Congress (1959-1961) with a 28 seat majority.
Chuck Shumer is Senate majority leader today in the 117th Congress (2021-2023) with a 0 seat majority with the Vice President casting the tie vote.
You are correct that Manchin and Sinema wouldn't be able to wield the power they do were they in either of Johnson's Congresses, but it has nothing to do with Johnson and everything to do with the fact that he had an actual majority, especially in the 86th Congress.
Though I can't say I agree with the specifics of your other comments, I understand how you could feel that way. Robert Heinlein once wrote that the mere fact of desiring public office should be disqualifying.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-07-2022 9:36 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-10-2022 2:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 52 of 66 (895599)
07-07-2022 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Sarah Bellum
07-07-2022 1:25 PM


Re: Why don't you try to.make an actual argument to discuss.
Sarah Bellum writes:
This just proves my point. You say "Many quotes attributed to famous people are not true," which is certainly a true statement. Everyone knows it's true. So there's no need to provide references for it. So you didn't provide references. And of course nobody is calling you out for not providing references.
I don't know if anyone's bothered to document the degree of misattribution of quotes on the Internet, but I can't count the number of times I've noted that it wasn't actually so-and-so who said such-and such.
I don't know if it's true, but it feels like most quotes get attributed to Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. As Mark Twain said, "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-07-2022 1:25 PM Sarah Bellum has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 60 of 66 (895693)
07-11-2022 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Sarah Bellum
07-07-2022 9:09 AM


Sarah Bellum writes:
So does this mean you're going for the third alternative, that she used enough cleverly chosen verbiage so that what she said wasn't a lie, but could be interpreted by her listeners in disparate ways?
I quoted the relevant actual exchange from her confirmation hearings on her nomination to the Supreme Court. If you want to point to the parts of it you're thinking of then we can talk about it, but this message contains far too little information, just suggestions she was lying while not bothering to indicate where she lied.
I'm still wondering why you're focused on Kagan when three justices responsible for overturning Roe clearly and unambiguously lied during their confirmation hearings.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-07-2022 9:09 AM Sarah Bellum has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 64 of 66 (896483)
08-10-2022 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Sarah Bellum
08-10-2022 2:19 PM


Re: Why don't you try to.make an actual argument to discuss.
It's like you didn't understand anything I said.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-10-2022 2:19 PM Sarah Bellum has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Theodoric, posted 08-10-2022 4:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024