|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Justice Elena Kagan lie to Congress? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 850 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
No, no, of course not! And the next time I make mention of something that's common knowledge and you don't understand it, rest assured, I'll hunt up references and explain it to you. I'll even use short words, if necessary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
So it was like the legend of Galileo muttering "eppur si muove" . . . and Elena Kagan was quietly adding " . . . there is no federal constitutional right not right now, but there will be if I ever get on the Supreme Court" Why do you try to force a lie into her mouth? There is no controversy here with Kagan. Why try to manufacture one? Kavanaugh and Gorsuch actually lied under oath during their confirmation. There is no comparison with Kagan's statements except in the twisted mind of the right-wing trolls. Stop lying about this crap. There will be no impeachment of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch so quit trying to lie some kind of stupid defense for them.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.1 |
You are making a claim of a statement by people. Much different.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.7
|
And the next time I make mention of something that's common knowledge and you don't understand it, rest assured, I'll hunt up references and explain it to you. I'll even use short words, if necessary. You know, talking down to people doesn't make you sound well informed or super smart, it just makes you sound like a rude, arrogant asshole.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 8.7
|
This thread seems to exist for the sole purpose of posting personal attacks against Justice Kagan. Or perhaps the intention is to attack liberals.
Maybe it is time to close this thread.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17918 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote Nevertheless it is what you suggested.
quote I suggest that even if cases against these laws had come to the Supreme Court - and who would file such cases on what grounds? - they could hardly have prevailed while Roe stood. A Federal law could more easily be challenged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22947 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
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:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22947 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
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 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:
Is that clear enough? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22947 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 850 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
That moron patronizingly implied I'd erred in not posting references to something that is common knowledge, then, when I did post references (instead of saying "Look it up yourself, I'm not responsible for your ignorance!"), they condescendingly replied "Was that so hard?" and then lectured smugly, "That is how we do things in this forum."
I'm beginning to agree with nwr. Maybe it is time to close this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 850 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 850 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
The point is, of course, that nobody lied in their testimony. Back when Robert Bork was nominated, Senators weren't quite so dim as they are nowadays (and I'm talking about you Senator Collins!) and voted against him, despite what he may or may not have said at the hearings. Because they considered other things about his record than the tiny fraction of it that consisted of his words at a Congressional hearing!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 850 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
It all depends. If I'd quoted from Grover Cleveland's second inaugural, you might ask for references. If I'd quoted from Lincoln's, maybe not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 850 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
I'm beginning to think maybe it is that time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 850 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
In the days of majority leader Lyndon Johnson people like Manchin and Sinema wouldn't have been able to pull their stunts.
But nowadays Congress seems to be a place that passes vague legislation (or more commonly blocks it) and hopes properly placed people in the federal bureaucracy do what they want. Oh, and they also try to get people appointed to the courts to do what they want (or more commonly block what they don't want). Then they use the controversy to raise money for the next election.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024