Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
130 online now:
(130 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,312 Year: 6,424/6,534 Month: 617/650 Week: 155/232 Day: 1/39 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Justice Elena Kagan lie to Congress?
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 31 of 66 (895556)
07-05-2022 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Theodoric
07-05-2022 3:57 PM


Re: Why don't you try to.make an actual argument to discuss.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 07-05-2022 3:57 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-05-2022 9:17 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6837
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(4)
Message 32 of 66 (895557)
07-05-2022 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Sarah Bellum
07-05-2022 2:44 PM


Re: It's Politics
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2022 2:44 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-07-2022 9:19 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7433
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 33 of 66 (895558)
07-05-2022 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Sarah Bellum
07-05-2022 5:14 PM


Re: Why don't you try to.make an actual argument to discuss.
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2022 5:14 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-07-2022 9:28 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3438
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


(4)
Message 34 of 66 (895559)
07-05-2022 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Sarah Bellum
07-05-2022 5:27 PM


Re: Why don't you try to.make an actual argument to discuss.
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2022 5:27 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-07-2022 9:07 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6039
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(3)
Message 35 of 66 (895564)
07-05-2022 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sarah Bellum
07-04-2022 9:33 AM


Close the thread
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

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 44 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-07-2022 9:29 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 36 of 66 (895568)
07-06-2022 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Sarah Bellum
07-05-2022 5:22 PM


Re: Why don't you try to.make an actual argument to discuss.
quote
A "reversal" would scarcely be necessary. In Dobbs the Supreme Court didn't "ban" abortion, it merely returned us to the (very bad days) of pre-Roe abortion law.
Nevertheless it is what you suggested.
quote
All Congress has to do now is pass a law guaranteeing a right to an abortion. Such a law wouldn't be struck down by the Supreme Court (otherwise it would have already struck down laws in states like Oregon or Vermont).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2022 5:22 PM Sarah Bellum has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20988
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(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: 20988
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(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: 20988
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(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

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 40 of 66 (895583)
07-07-2022 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tanypteryx
07-05-2022 9:17 PM


Re: Why don't you try to.make an actual argument to discuss.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-05-2022 9:17 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 41 of 66 (895584)
07-07-2022 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
07-06-2022 10:41 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 07-06-2022 10:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 07-11-2022 10:51 AM Sarah Bellum has not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 42 of 66 (895585)
07-07-2022 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by AZPaul3
07-05-2022 5:39 PM


Re: It's Politics
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AZPaul3, posted 07-05-2022 5:39 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 43 of 66 (895586)
07-07-2022 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Theodoric
07-05-2022 6:32 PM


Re: Why don't you try to.make an actual argument to discuss.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 07-05-2022 6:32 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 07-07-2022 1:01 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 44 of 66 (895587)
07-07-2022 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by nwr
07-05-2022 10:59 PM


Re: Close the thread
I'm beginning to think maybe it is that time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by nwr, posted 07-05-2022 10:59 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 45 of 66 (895588)
07-07-2022 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Percy
07-06-2022 10:52 AM


Re: Why don't you try to.make an actual argument to discuss.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 07-06-2022 10:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Theodoric, posted 07-07-2022 1:02 PM Sarah Bellum has not replied
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 07-07-2022 1:26 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022