Support for Kagan a Matter of Confidence (Must Watch) - Disturbing Audio

[faceit]

Run time: 08:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8yh0QVDL1E   Posted on YouTube: May 11, 2010 By YouTube Member: StartLoving3 Views on YouTube: 267   Posted on DU: May 12, 2010 By DU Member: faceit Views on DU: 1318

 


They are touting Kagan as some type of grand consensus builder and asserting her total lack of judicial experience will be compensated by this quality. After listening to this audio, it is clear that it is a totally bogus argument.

This woman is simply NOT qualified for the position.

It is excrutiating to listen to her stammer her way through this exchange with Roberts. This audio is where she attempts to argue against unlimited corporate money in elections. She lost this case, but worst, she wasn't even able to MAKE it.

This nomination is incredibly important. Everyone who is concerned about the importance of this position and getting it right needs to hear this audio.

This is not about Obama. This is not about partisan politics. This is about appointing a qualified person to the highest court in the land. With her non-existent judicial experience, this nomination should be opposed.

[faceit]

1. I don't quite understand this recommend/unrecommend feature

I posted this like five seconds ago, and it was unrecommended.

I don't get it. Who would have time to even watch the video?

[babylonsister]

2. Could be because some people on this dem board actually

think this Dem President knows what he's doing? :shrug:

[faceit]

5. Excuse me? Just why should I blindly trust a President who opened

the country to off-shore drilling after running specifically AGAINST it, in his campaign?

Why should I trust blindly trust a President who appointed Timothy Geithner as secretary of the treasury? The Gold Man Sachs Poster Boy.

And, oil man Ken Salazaar as Secretary of the Interior?

The President who advocated for the public option while he made a deal to kill it.

The President who stepped in last december to kill the drug reimportation bill when it looked like it might pass Congress?

Yeah. He knows what he is doing.

Listening to the audio, it is clear that this is a brilliant choice. Sure.

[babylonsister]

9. You asked a question, I answered it. I don't think you should blindly

do anything, I frankly don't care what you do, and I'm definitely not going to argue with you.

[Jim Sagle]

20. Which is the same attitude Obama has toward his base and toward the American people in general.

He frankly doesn't care what we think, and he's definitely not going to argue with us.

As a private citizen you have a perfect right to that attitude. As "our" president (yeah, right) he's going to have that attitude shoved right back down his throat.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[icee]

16. That was simply great, faceit. Be careful, though.

[icee]

17. Dup

[monmouth]

3. If she is not confirmed I will not be sad...n/t

[tabatha]

4. I would wait until I had heard about

50 exchanges before making a judgment. I don't know about you, but I am not perfect.

But with someone with such a low count trying to make a case against her, well I am encouraged.

[faceit]

6. Encourage by what?

Perfect?

That is incompetent. This is the HIGHEST court in the land. A position that could be held for decades. She stammered and stuttered and she couldn't even call him out on the fact that his argument was completely bogus.

Not Supreme Court material.

No judicial experience. Former paid Goldman Sachs advisor. Agreed with Lindsey Graham on his position on terrorist detention and stated the 'whole world' is a battlefield. Argued againt late term abortions under Clinton.

You listen to this audio and you are encouraged? Weird.

[liberation]

14. That would be fine if we were discussing nominations for Charlie Brown's Christmas Specials...

... this is the highest court in the land. This is not a place for unqualified people to learn life lessons and seek redemption.

Obama is proposing a person who is not a judge to sit at the top bench in our nation. This is not about "building consensus" this is about qualified people to interpret and defend the constitution. Good grief.

[icee]

18. Low count? This is a basis for being encouraged, or dis-encouraged,

for that matter?

[suzanner]

7. "Er, um, dah, blumlumlum, derr"- yep, that's supreme justice material.

Obviously Roberts thinks slapdown is respectful and good manners. And she just took it. Well. She'll have to learn, "Excuse me?!" and other such phrases. Oh please, President, pick someone who has faster wit than that. Great post. Thanks.

[pattmarty]

8. Almost everyone is missing the point in his naming her. Why not..........

...........just appoint a fucking liberal in the first place and fight through the Senate? Why have to take heat (from the right AND LEFT) on naming Kagan? He should have named a qualified "liberal" and he (I believe) would have gotten the 60 votes to confirm. The Republicans do this all the time, so what's the big deal?

[FiveGoodMen]

11. He doesn't WANT a liberal.

His Chief of Staff thinks we're "fucking retarded".

[pattmarty]

13. bingo!

[liberation]

15. Exactly, I don't know who much bigger Obama et al have to make their middle fingers...

... before liberals start getting the memo.

[BootinUp]

12. Very lame. One minute out of a more than 30 minute argument. Link to all of it here.

http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2009/09/09/09092009_fullscotusarugment.mp3

Kagen starts at 38:50

[icee]

19. Yes, very short. But that was a point, counterpoint, and a close

(and win) by the Chief Justice. Had one not known who these parties are, one might have easily assumed it was a Father talking to a recalcitrant adolescent.

[Prana69]

21. Sounded to me like...

.... The Honourable Porky Pig arguing on behalf of the government.

A-blee...A-blee...A-blee...A-blee...A-blee...A-blee

[bitchkitty]

22. Holy crap. DIsturbing audio indeed. n/t