Google Webmaster Tools
 
Picture
How well do you know this woman? Do you want her to be the next Supreme Court justice? She's never been a judge, and her paper trail is short, but is that enough to prove that she is not a clear and present danger to the Constitution?

Share your feelings in this online poll.
 


Comments

Mountaineer
07/01/2010 12:53

I think the question is a little backward....it should be asked, "is that enough to prove she is NOT a clear and present danger to the Constitution". I think, in lawyer-speak, the burden of proof is (or, at least, should be) on those who are seeking to advance her nomination.

That being said, I voted for #3 (though #4 is just as correct, I think).

Reply
Mountaineer
07/01/2010 12:55

And one other point....she refused to state whether she believed the Constitution would prohibit the government from forcing you to eat three servings of fruits and vegetables per day.

I think that's Exhibit A, B, and C as to her view of the proper role of government.

Reply
Dave C.
07/01/2010 13:35

Mountaineer,

Like you I favor #3 and #4. You're right - the wording is a bit backwards. I had changed some of the content without re-reading the last sentence again. It's fixed now.

Reply
S.Faux link
07/01/2010 13:55

Dave C.:

She would NOT be my first choice, but I think she is a shew in. I am hoping for the best. Someone with a sense of humor cannot be all bad. That is my hope.

So, I voted "get used to it."

Reply
Tony
07/23/2010 03:41

Well, she isn't impartial by any means, and quite the left-leaning activist.
We keep an eye on her over in MA. After all she did in Harvard:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/10b/kagan/index.html

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply

Google Analytics