C
cbus4life
Posts: 2,849
May 13, 2010 9:19am
Because she says that she isn't? Seems pretty simple.Little Danny wrote: I saw this article earlier and I thiought it was interesting. Friends are now stating Kagan is not gay.
If she is gay, why are people denying it? Why would this administration deny it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/elena-kagans-gay-lesbian-sexuality-rumors_n_573185.html
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
May 13, 2010 10:27am
Who cares; it is her perspective on the first amendment that should be rasing the alarms.
C
cbus4life
Posts: 2,849
May 13, 2010 10:36am
http://mediamatters.org/research/201005120055QuakerOats wrote: Who cares; it is her perspective on the first amendment that should be rasing the alarms.
Hell, even Megyn Kelly on Fox didn't have much fear about Kagan and free speach issues. She's pretty mainstream, and really no cause for concern.
SQ_Crazies
Posts: 7,977
May 13, 2010 10:39am
Just because you can't imagine who would be tappin' that doesn't mean someone is gay. I mean really, we probably all know a dude that would take her to bed...unfortunately lol.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
May 13, 2010 11:07am
Is there an actual pending case that you're concerned with? Is there reason to believe that she would vote differently than the gentleman she would be replacing?QuakerOats wrote: Who cares; it is her perspective on the first amendment that should be rasing the alarms.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
May 13, 2010 11:56am
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
May 13, 2010 12:38pm
The dude in that link was carrying an unlicensed pistol in DC. It isn't against the constitution if that dude was arrested.
2nd Amendment doesn't mean you can carry a gun anywhere you damn well please.
2nd Amendment doesn't mean you can carry a gun anywhere you damn well please.
C
cbus4life
Posts: 2,849
May 13, 2010 12:45pm
During her Solicitor General hearing, Kagan said that “There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’”
She has claimed that it provides "strong but not unlimited protection," which is pretty much the mainstream view on both the 1st and 2nd amendment.
Not worried at all. The "not unlimted" part refers to things like the unlicensed pistol in D.C.
Not really seeing why anyone should be worried...
She has claimed that it provides "strong but not unlimited protection," which is pretty much the mainstream view on both the 1st and 2nd amendment.
Not worried at all. The "not unlimted" part refers to things like the unlicensed pistol in D.C.
Not really seeing why anyone should be worried...
S
stlouiedipalma
Posts: 1,797
May 13, 2010 12:48pm
Quaker...QuakerOats wrote: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/05/biden-aide-ron-klain-nominee-kagan-is-a-legal-progressive.html
".. a legal progressive..."
And we all know that progressive is code for socialist ........... the beat goes on .........
Is that kinda like "community organizer" is code for something else?
I see some remarkable similarities with Kagan and Sotomayor. I also see an easy confirmation, regardless of what her opposition may say or wish.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
May 13, 2010 12:59pm
I'm waiting for the nazi and commy reference.....lol.
C
cbus4life
Posts: 2,849
May 13, 2010 1:00pm
Check out the last mediamatters link i posted.ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I'm waiting for the nazi and commy reference.....lol.
Rush has thrown it out there, only a matter of time until Quaker does as well...
fish82
Posts: 4,111
May 13, 2010 1:06pm
C
cbus4life
Posts: 2,849
May 13, 2010 1:13pm
Stupid comment by Obama.fish82 wrote: Interesting......
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-flashback-a-supreme-court-nominee-with-no-judicial-experience-requires-extreme-scrutiny/
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
May 13, 2010 2:07pm
If she is the best he can do, and he wants her for the job, well .......... that speaks volumes.
Change we can believe in ...............................
Change we can believe in ...............................
C
cbus4life
Posts: 2,849
May 13, 2010 2:10pm
Who would you have preferred he nominate?QuakerOats wrote: If she is the best he can do, and he wants her for the job, well .......... that speaks volumes.
Change we can believe in ...............................
Thread Bomber
Posts: 1,851
May 13, 2010 2:20pm
Answer:
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
May 13, 2010 2:21pm
Glen Beckcbus4life wrote:Who would you have preferred he nominate?QuakerOats wrote: If she is the best he can do, and he wants her for the job, well .......... that speaks volumes.
Change we can believe in ...............................
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
May 13, 2010 4:00pm
Quaker would have preferred Rush.cbus4life wrote:Who would you have preferred he nominate?QuakerOats wrote: If she is the best he can do, and he wants her for the job, well .......... that speaks volumes.
Change we can believe in ...............................