Soon we will see the mashing and grinding of teeth as Kagan wins appointment to
the court and Obama has another data point proving here is nothing to lose
politically, if he creates a new huge national monument in Utah. :-)
I am so pleased to see that Utah's senators have a spine and a conscience.
You do not have freedom of speech in Utah, Hatch does not know that!Freedom of speech to me and you are 2 different things.
My goodness, people, y'all need to relax a little. Flashback hit the nail on
the head. I could see the outcry by conservatives if Kagan were replacing
Scalia. But she's taking Stevens' place, one of the most liberal members of the
court!So, we're at a status quo. Stevens obviously waited to retire
until a Democrat was in office so that a like-minded justice would replace him.
Did anyone really anticipate anything different? I may not agree with
everything that Kagan has done or said, but she's extremely bright and has a
strong CV. She's going to get confirmed.I tend to lean a little
right of center politically, but this nomination doesn't offend me. Personally,
I like to see a healthy mix on the Supreme Court.
RE: Furry1993 | 4:21 p.mActually it skewed it BACK To center from
the left.Clearly you have a biased view of certian judges both
politically and ideologically, if you compare their rulings to the
constitution, you will see they are very much closer to the original intent
and meanings than the others. they do not have the luxury of
creating their own intents and meaings, that is NOT their job.but obviously you are quite biased towards those who will twist and redefine
the constitution with very liberal interpretations, in other
words, ignore the constitution and rule however you desire.
To GC1 | 12:29 p.m. June 30, 2010 **So, if this were the case,
wouldn't the worst supreme court candidate nominee in the past 25 years
(Thomas), be the result of electing a VERY poor candidate to be president of the
United States (Bush Sr.)? **You've left out a Bush. Yes, the worst
Supreme Court candidate nominees in the past 25 years included Thomas -- he is
indeed the worst -- but also Roberts and Alito, who skewed the Supreme Court off
the center and into the far right and didn't tell the truth during their
confirmation hearings about how they'd "respect" precedent (and then didn't in
the Citizens United case).
I am scratching my head trying to figure out why Hatch's questions were
"brilliant." Not that they were bad questions, but I am not sure why their
value was so appealing to Sessions and apparently the DN.
Sessions calls Hatch's questions "brilliant" and questions her lack of judicial
experience and "political" focus. When Hatch was considered a prime candidate
for the court, he presented the same profile, would Sessions have judged Hatch
with the same yardstick? Pathetically partisan. PS. Not scared:
"nothing will change"?? The age of the liberal wing is dropping dramatically
while the good old boys are only getting older.
Senator Hatch had some good questions, at least he didn't waste time asking what
she did on Christmas or if she's "team Edward" or "team Jacob"
"She will replace a much more liberal judge and nothing will change."It's so rare to read common sense here.
We have Fox New and talk radio spreading lies.“. She claimed
she didn't know what that meant which was a lie... she just feared being labeled
as a progressive because a progressive is a socialist.”There’s
the truth.“Progressive Pro*gress"ive, a. [Cf. F. progressif.][1913 Webster]1. Moving forward; proceeding onward;
advancing; evincing progress; increasing; as, progressive motion or course; --
opposed to retrograde. [1913 Webster]2. Improving; as, art is in a
progressive state. [1913 Webster]3. (U. S. History) Of or pertaining to
the Progressive party. [Webster 1913 Suppl.]4. Favoring improvement,
change, progress, or reform, especially in a political context; -- used of
people. Contrasted with conservative. [PJC]
Note for Patriot: Who died and made Justice Scalia the expert of
note on all things Constitutional. Last I heard there were nine justices on the
Court. 4 of whom disagree strongly with Justice Scalia and 4 who sometimes
agree with him.Perhaps it would be good to go back and look at the
background of the Constitution once in a while. I'm sorry, but I am
definitely not in the everything Scalia says is right school of thought.
@RantBullySo, if this were the case, wouldn't the worst supreme court
candidate nominee in the past 25 years (Thomas), be the result of electing a
VERY poor candidate to be president of the United States (Bush Sr.)?
RantBully | 12:04 p.m. June 30, 2010 "Bad Supreme Court nominations"Why do you think she is bad?
RobertBennett | 11:10 a.m. June 30, 2010 Lane Myer, I wish you were
right.I fear what Obama does.He will get his way. -------As a duly elected President with enough votes in the
Senate, he WILL get this nomination through. She will replace
a much more liberal judge and nothing will change.OK?
Bad Supreme Court nominations like Kagan are the result of electing poor
candidates to be President of the United States. This is the most damaging
aspect of the election of Obama.
My2Cents said, "The Supreme Court has the last word in all matters it
reviews...."That's true only because we the people allow it to be
so. We the people established the federal government and we can fix any and all
problems created by any of the three branches simply by directing our elected
repersentatives to do it.The problem is that most voters are idiots
(both major parties). We have the government we deserve.
@Patriot"she just feared being labeled as a progressive because a
progressive is a socialist."Well, if progressives are socialists,
let's just roll back all the things that "progressives" in U.S. history have
done, such as:Improved educational systemsChild labor lawsRegulation of large corporations (monopolies)Enactment of safe food and
drugs lawsLabor laws (8 hour days, safety, min. wage, workers comp)National parksFocus on local municipal issues, such as better ways to
provide essential services, etc.You are twisting the meaning of the
word progressive to fit your own usage of the term. There is a difference
between a progressive and a socialist, but some people lump them together to
create a reaction. As far as your use of "legal" progressive, there are
Republicans that feel the same way about the Constitution.The
Constitution is an amazing document, but it CAN be changed, through an amendment
process created and approved by the Founding Fathers. Not to mention the fact
that the world and technology have changed in 225 years, and the SCOTUS is
forced to adapt rulings based on ideas and technologies that hadn't been thought
of back then.
Lane Myer, I wish you were right.I fear what Obama does.He will get
RobertBennett | 10:12 a.m. June 30, 2010 Kagan will get in.The
Constitution will be disregarded.I do not understand what you
are saying. Does Obama have the right to nominate Kagan per the constitution?
Does the Senate have the right to approve of her per the constitution? Will she
replace a conservative on the SC? Nothing will change with this
appointment.The constitution has been followed.
Kagan's reputation will be destroyed by Republicans.Even if
appointed to the SCOTUS her legacy will be one of someone who received a
position for which she was not qualified.This is just another step
of the Republican Ramp-Up to the mid-term elections.With the aide of
foreign money flooding the Republicans, they will win at least 100 seats in the
house and should pick up at least 10 seats in the senate.Just
remember voters to put the power back where it belongs in the hands of
corporations and lobbyists.Trust us. Anything less will
be seen as an abject failure on the part of RNC Steele and Co.
Kagan will get in.The Constitution will be disregarded.Obama will be
smiling once again.Thanks alot Hatch.We will remember you in 2012.
Patriot: " A legal progressive is someone who believes the constituion is an
old , out dated document that can and should be changed to fit new laws. "Why did our Founders give us an amendment system? Did they assume
that they got everything exactly right? Do you think they got everything
exactly right?Is our court right now "activist" in favor of
business?Are they going against decades of precidence to rule in
favor of businesses?
Al,Whether or not Obama was right and the Supreme Court was wrong,
it was refreshing to see a President stand in front of those he was confronting
and look them in the face as he did so.So many times, people will go
on talk shows and criticize others or, even worse, send their minions to do so
rather than encounter them personally. The Supreme Court is not
infallable, especially on 5-4 votes. They should be able to take public
criticism and listen. That is what good jurists would do.
Questions not answered. Kagan was asked by one senator if she was a legal
progressive. She claimed she didn't know what that meant which was a lie... she
just feared being labeled as a progressive because a progressive is a socialist.
A legal progressive is someone who believes the constituion is an old , out
dated document that can and should be changed to fit new laws. There are alot of
legal progressives in the democratic party today who would just as soon do away
with the constitution or at the very least see it as a hinderance to doing what
they want (Obama). Justice Scalia ruled that the constitution is a standard -
unchanging - and all laws are weighed against it. This woman is afraid to show
her true colors (a legal progressive) and there needs to be a senator who will
hammer this point home and not let her wiggle off the hook.
@ dustmanYour bigotry is showing
The Authority | 9:01 a.m. June 30, 2010 "Hatch has done a lot for this
state. If you think getting rid of him will do anything to help conservative
policies in Washington, you're dreaming."Really? I didn't
realize that. Will you enlighten me about what he has done "for this state?"
There must be a long list, but the top three will do.PS - sCHIPS is
for the whole nation, not just little ol' Utah.
@ sparkut You said: "I am sure if President Bush spoke against the
supreme court in a similar way the same people decrying how disrepectful
President Obama has been would be congratulating Mr Bush for how incredibly
right it would be for him to do such a thing."That's just the point,
President Bush did NOT disrespect the Supreme Court in a State of the Union
speech or at any other time in public. Your point is null and void.
Hatch does not represent the people who voted for him. He represents
corporations above people every time.
Hatch has done a lot for this state. If you think getting rid of him will do
anything to help conservative policies in Washington, you're dreaming.
Hope all of you obama supporters or willing to learn to speak chinees after they
own us, but don't worry about illegals from Mexico the chinees aren't as nice
and giving as us Americans.they won't let you guys come and live on their tax
dollars you'll have to pay taxes or go back to mexico, if you come back they
will make examples of you.but we Americans who have wrked so hard to make this a
great country will pay the real price.
PLEASE UTAH!!!!!, Get someone besides Hatch in there. Same guy, same
results....aaaaaahhhhhh!!!!! He's milked out tax dollars enough. All you old
people need to stop voting for him!!!!
Kagan WILL get the job.Hatch WILL be without a job in 2012. Where were you Hatch when Utah needed you?
I am sure if President Bush spoke against the supreme court in a similar way the
same people decrying how disrepectful President Obama has been would be
congratulating Mr Bush for how incredibly right it would be for him to do such a
thing.President Obama is not the first President to speak out on a
supreme court ruling. The supreme court is not perfect either and may very well
make a wrong decision and I think the President should say something. To Sarah Nicole, I find that President Obama has acted far more presidential
than Mr Bush ever did.
I really admire Senator Hatch. He knows what he is doing and he's not afraid to
ask the questions and get the necessary answers to make sure the right people
get into certain positions. You keep doing what you're doing Sen. Hatch..because
you at least know what you're doing. Can't yet say that about the person in the
seat of President.
Ooops! I meant politicians from Utah!
"Sen. Orrin Hatch grills Elena Kagan on First Amendment" by Joseph DoughertyHatch didn't grill Kagan, even the story does not substantiate the title of
the article. More than anything, it seems everybody was having a good time.It seems that the DN many times tries to make the senators and politicians as
great fighters. Well, most of that happens only in the mind of the reporter. No
harm done other than the disservice to the DN'readers. On the other hand,
possibly the DN publishes only what their readers want to read, sacrificing the
truth in the process. No big deal!
I also wish they would quit playing this dog and pony show and ask real
questions and not accept jokes and laughs around the pertinent questions given
If you think Hatch was unimpressive and arrogant what does that make Kagan?
Kagan has no intention of being down the middle voice of the court and she still
has absolutely no time on the bench so how does that qualify her other than a
clerking position and maybe very limited roles in the last few years? She
doesn't impress me at all and at the same time niether does Sotomayor.
The headline and premise of this article was that Hatch is thought to have asked
a brilliant line of questions according to another Republican senator. Why would
the DN use a quote from another Republican senator saying Hatch was brilliant?
This is an example of the DN trying to lead the reader to a conclusion. In
reading the article, we discover that Hatch used his turn to question Kagan to
give a speech, not use a brilliant line of questioning. The Deseret News'
deception in this case is antithetical to Deseret Media's mission statement. The
DN should report a summary of what Hatch said, not lead the reader to a
conclusion. The former is news, the latter is propaganda.
Dog and Pony show.Hatch making a big deal out of something he cannot
change or influence yet scoring big points with ignorant Utahn voters who think
that he's actually making a difference there in talking to Kagan. Sigh...
Kagen replacing Stevens...What will be different about the makeup of the Supreme
Court? Nothing. So what's the big deal if she makes it through the hearings
and Senate vote? Nothing will change. Sotomeyer said that she felt gun
ownership was an individual right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Of course
she voted in the minority on the recent Chicago case. Unexpected? No.
Obama has yet to act presidential in any of his dealings. I'd love to see it
happen, but it hasn't yet.
Hatch was very unimpressive and arrogant. But what's new?
The president checks the Judicial system by nominating the judges, not by
disrespecting them. It isn't the place of the President to try and embarrass or
guilt the Supreme Court Justices into making decisions he endorses. Trying to
browbeat the other branches into conformity isn't "checks and balances", it's
The Supreme Court has the last word in all matters it reviews. The problems is
the petty problems the Supreme Court has chosen to review. Most should have been
thrown out as non constitutional matters, limits on contributions and spending
by candidates is a legislative matter.Orin Hatch is right to
establish the motives and personal beliefs on a Supreme Court Judge. The real
objective is to keep a separation of powers. Each element of government has
individual powers and the Supreme Court covers matters in legal and justice
system, Legislators control the legislative branch, Obama is the administrative
branch. These separation of powers have been breached and each trying to control
the other. The Supreme Court has involved itself in matters that are not of
constitutional rights or laws, Obama has made attempts to control all three
powers. That is not his job or responsibility to oversee or make objectionable
remarks about. Obama is supposed to be a leader and a president, not a dictator
to tell each division of government what to do. Criticizing other departments of
government shows how shallow and egotistical Obama is. He is overstepping his
Re:CadillaqJaq"...a disgusting display of arrogance" IMO was
President Obama's demagoguery of the Supreme Court during his State of the Union
address. No respect. Less than presidential."The President has the
right and duty to call the Supreme Court and Congress out when he feels they
have made the wrong decisions because should act as a check on the Supreme Court
and Congress just like they are supposed to act as a check on each other and the
Executive.Executive deference to any other branch would be as
inappropriate as legislative deference to the President or the Supreme Court or
the Court being overly deferential to the President or Congress. Our system of
government fails if the President doesn't take the opportunity to speak openly
to the American people and Congress during State of the Unions.If
Supreme Court decisions which may not be at the forefront of the public's mind
are important to the President he should boldly speak to the American people and
denounce the Courts decision so we can decide who we believe is right and if
necessary urge members of Congress to propose an amendment to correct a Supreme
"...a disgusting display of arrogance" IMO was President Obama's demagoguery of
the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address. No respect. Less than
I watched Senator Hatch today. He spent half of it railing against Obama for
chastising the court for saying that corporations are people, which it should
have been. But this was about Kagan, not about the grandstanding by our
illustrious, as it were, senator. It was a disgusting display of arrogance.
If the republicans (HATCH included) hadn't been so aloof from their constituents
and spent so much time power grabbing and holding hands with democrats, we
might still have a voice in this debate. As it stands now this liberal activist
will be appointed.Flush the Washington toilet. Change the
country...no shots fired>