or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Elena Kagan represents a new vision of liberal American justice?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Elena Kagan represents a new vision of liberal American justice?

Poll Results: Is Kagan a good choice?

Poll expired: Sep 6, 2010  
  • 50% (8)
    No.
  • 0% (0)
    Yes.
  • 50% (8)
    Not sure.
16 Total Votes  
post #1 of 74
Thread Starter 
She's the nominee according to NBC- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_569499.html

Your thoughts?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2 of 74
Don't know.

Election have consequences.
post #3 of 74
Stands to reason that a President without any previous executive experience would pick a Supreme Court judge without any previous judicial experience.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #4 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Your thoughts?

I can't legally refer to the president's nominee as Justice Kagan since Ms. Kagan has no judge experience in any capacity. Certainly a strange though not unprecedented nomination of that type of nominee. Her thoughts on Solomon's law went against the existing justices on the Supreme Court; i.e., she fought in the federal courts against the legislation introduced by Congressman Jerry Solomon, a Korean War veteran, and signed into law by a Democrat president, Bill Clinton, to allow military recruiters to meet with students and to allow the Reserved Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) on campuses around the country, so I can't wait to hear her explain that...
post #5 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Stands to reason that a President without any previous executive experience would pick a Supreme Court judge without any previous judicial experience.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/suprem...opriorexp.html

Blah blah inflammatory I hate Obama comment blah blah.

There exist 40 previous cases of presidents doing the same damn thing.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #6 of 74
My post never implied that this had not been done before.
Only said that it is not surprising, given that it encapsulates Obama's history and thinking perfectly.

We live in times where taking shortcuts is the preferred route and partisanship overrides all other factors.

Be honest BR. Had Bush nominated someone with this thin of a resume, the Democrats would have spent months yelling about how unqualified she is. Yet everyone's going to come into this thread and divide the discussion purely along party lines.

The Dems are losing whatever high ground they had to object to the previous administration.
That's going to come back to bite them later on.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #7 of 74
Had bush nominated Kagan herself, the Dems would be bashing her conservativism. The only reason they support her now is that she's Obama's pick. Just like the only reason the Conservatives oppose her is because she's Obama's pick.

This time, let's hope the Republicans can successively block the nomination of this conservative, so that we can get someone more liberal that will be beter for the country.
post #8 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

My post never implied that this had not been done before.
Only said that it is not surprising, given that it encapsulates Obama's history and thinking perfectly.

We live in times where taking shortcuts is the preferred route and partisanship overrides all other factors.

Be honest BR. Had Bush nominated someone with this thin of a resume, the Democrats would have spent months yelling about how unqualified she is. Yet everyone's going to come into this thread and divide the discussion purely along party lines.

The Dems are losing whatever high ground they had to object to the previous administration.
That's going to come back to bite them later on.

Yea Bush did that ... Harriet Miers. THAT worked out well. Kagan seems like a better pick than Miers was. Plus we'll remember Kagan when Ted Olsen gets nominated
post #9 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Had bush nominated Kagan herself, the Dems would be bashing her conservativism. The only reason they support her now is that she's Obama's pick. Just like the only reason the Conservatives oppose her is because she's Obama's pick.

This time, let's hope the Republicans can successively block the nomination of this conservative, so that we can get someone more liberal that will be beter for the country.

So you think conservatives would normally support someone who threw recruiters off campus due to "Don't ask, don't tell" but now will not due to it being Obama doing the nominating?

I'd love to see some support for that point.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #10 of 74

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #11 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So you think conservatives would normally support someone who threw recruiters off campus...

The point is not "Don't ask/Don't Tell" but rather that a university - during wartime - would deny military ROTC recruiters while receiving public funds. Harvard was wrong in this instance, as was Elena Kagan!

On this issue I am struck by how much Kagan resembles Obama - no experience whatsoever.
post #12 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So you think conservatives would normally support someone who threw recruiters off campus due to "Don't ask, don't tell" but now will not due to it being Obama doing the nominating?

I'd love to see some support for that point.

If she were Bush's pick, yes, they would support her. Imagine the opposition to Clarence Thomas had he been a Democrat pick! Harriet Miers was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans.
post #13 of 74
If Harriet Miers had been overwhelmingly supported by Republicans, she would not have withdrawn her nomination.

It must be nice to have to live in fairyland though as opposed to say.... reality.

Quote:
Miers's nomination was criticized from people all over the political spectrum based on her never having served as a judge, her perceived lack of intellectual rigor, her close personal ties to Bush, and her lack of a clear record on issues likely to be encountered as a Supreme Court Justice. Many notable conservatives vigorously criticized her nomination, and numerous conservative groups normally considered part of Bush's political base planned to mount an organized opposition campaign.

Given the Bush family history of semi-conservatism, and the Souter nomination, this was among the main points of contention at the time as well....

Quote:
Since September 1994, Miers has contributed to the campaigns of various Republicans (at about the same time she began to work for George W. Bush), including Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Phil Gramm, and Pete Sessions, with recorded contributions to Republican candidates and causes totaling nearly $12,000. Her earlier political history shows support for the Democrats during the 1980s, with recorded contributions to Democratic candidates and causes, including the Democratic National Committee, the Senate campaign of Lloyd Bentsen and the 1988 presidential campaign of Al Gore, totaling $3,000. Her last recorded contribution to a Democratic cause or campaign was in 1988. Ed Gillespie said that she was a "conservative Democrat" at the time.

BTW, this sort of semi-support is exactly why I won't be voting for Meg Whitman here in California for governor. I won't even if she is the Republican nominee in the fall. I did the same with Ar-NALD as well.

So now there is proof that not only did Republicans do as you contend, the reality is they did quite the opposite. They took what they viewed as a questionable candidate and ran her out of town.

Quote:
After Miers failed in these private meetings, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback began drafting a letter asking the President's office to turn over legal memoranda and briefs Miers had written for Bush, in order to elucidate her views on political matters.[31] Brownback and Graham knew the memos were protected by executive privilege, that the White House was not required to turn them over, and that Miers could refuse to deliver the memos and then ostensibly step down on principle.[31] Miers would later use this request as part of a face-saving exit strategy for stepping down - in her letter withdrawing her nomination, she pointed to the senators' request for confidential documents as potentially damaging the executive branch's independence.

They may have done it nicely. They may have written the requests and done it in a politically expedient manner, but what they did not do, as you have claimed is support the candidate no matter what and then alter their view just because it was Obama.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 74
To protect the personal security and welbeing of Saudi royalty/princes, Kagan stuck a big fat middle finger up at family members bereaved as a result of the 9/11 attacks. Some 6000 family members had filed lawsuits against the Saudi elite.

Quote:
Kagan posited “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” because of “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.

Kagan to Saudi princes: "Funneling $$$ to terrorists" is OK, and the US supreme court agrees.
Kagan to thousands of American families: Go fvck yourselves.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #15 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Had bush nominated Kagan herself, the Dems would be bashing her conservativism. The only reason they support her now is that she's Obama's pick. Just like the only reason the Conservatives oppose her is because she's Obama's pick.

This time, let's hope the Republicans can successively block the nomination of this conservative, so that we can get someone more liberal that will be beter for the country.

I haven't seen anything to indicate she's a liberal loon. I also haven't seen anything that encourages me, such as experience or statements indicating she believes it is the sole job of the court to interpret the US Constitution.

As for being "conservative," there isn't much to suggest that. And while I realize you're liberal yourself, what exactly do you mean by intimating that a liberal on the court would be better for the country? I can't see how. It seems to me that the courts liberals have decided things like---oh--- Kelo v. New London, which effectively ends private property ownership in this country.

It is the liberals of the court that have relied on foreign law and precedent to decide cases, rather than the US Constitution. This leads to a government that is not bound by said document, as it was clearly supposed to be. Take healthcare: Liberals tend to support the healthcare bill, or don't believe it goes far enough. An ideological liberal on the court would likely support the recent law, despite its clear problems under the 4th, 9th and 10th amendments. Disregarding the Constitution is not beneficial for the Republic. At least, that's my opinion. But you may differ. Perhaps you fall into the camp of feeling that change is not possible because we are bound to such an antiquated document, created by a bunch of slave-loving, traitorous white men.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #16 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If she were Bush's pick, yes, they would support her. Imagine the opposition to Clarence Thomas had he been a Democrat pick! Harriet Miers was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans.

Revisionist history tonton. Miers was a head scratcher on both sides of the aisle.
post #17 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

To protect the personal security and welbeing of Saudi royalty/princes, Kagan stuck a big fat middle finger up at family members bereaved as a result of the 9/11 attacks. Some 6000 family members had filed lawsuits against the Saudi elite.



Kagan to Saudi princes: "Funneling $$$ to terrorists" is OK, and the US supreme court agrees.
Kagan to thousands of American families: Go fvck yourselves.

The Solicitor General often takes positions that they personally would not take. Solicitor General acts for the President and the united states and so it's unfair to pull out something she did as Solicitor General and use it as an example of her own feeling or how she would act as a judge.
post #18 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

The Solicitor General often takes positions that they personally would not take. Solicitor General acts for the President and the united states and so it's unfair to pull out something she did as Solicitor General and use it as an example of her own feeling or how she would act as a judge.

I don't know Kagan's personal thoughts on the matter, and I don't care.

And as you correctly suggest, perhaps I should have posted this:

Solicitor General "on behalf of the President and the United States", to Saudi princes: "Funneling $$$ to terrorists" is OK, and the US supreme court agrees.

Solicitor General "on behalf of the President and the United States" to thousands of American families: Go fvck yourselves.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #19 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Revisionist history tonton. Miers was a head scratcher on both sides of the aisle.

I stand corrected on Miers.
post #20 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

...what exactly do you mean by intimating that a liberal on the court would be better for the country?

Roe V. Wade is absolutely better for the country if it stands. Liberalization of LGBT rights, such as outlawing Texas' highly discriminatory sodomy law as well as anti-same sex marriage laws and DADT-like policies is way better for the country. And on the politico-economic front, there's the horrid Citizens United decision.
post #21 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Roe V. Wade is absolutely better for the country if it stands.

I don't know about that. I'm not exactly a staunch pro-lifer, but I also have a problem with the federal government inventing "rights" that end up taking choice AWAY from state and local governments If it was on the ballot it in my state, I'd vote to keep it legal. But it likely won't be, because the USSC has decreed that it's everyone's "right."

Quote:

Liberalization of LGBT rights, such as outlawing Texas' highly discriminatory sodomy law as well as anti-same sex marriage laws and DADT-like policies is way better for the country.

It might be better for those who are LGBT...I don't know if liberalization of said policies is better (or worse) for the country. The problem with the Texas sodomy thing is that here again, it's a state issue. I don't agree with the law, but I don't live in Texas. When the USSC decides you have a federal right to certain things because they occur in your home, you have a right to pretty much anything, from polygamy to incest. And by extension, the court is now making it impossible for Texas to define sodomy at ALL.

(Incidentally, this is the same argument Senator Rick Santorum made at the time the case was heard. Of course, the media made it out to seem like he was comparing gay relations to the aforementioned crimes, which was not the point at all).


Quote:
And on the politico-economic front, there's the horrid Citizens United decision.

I definitely don't agree there. Election laws such as McCain-Feingold (for example) are already unconstitutional in my opinion, and have made things worse. This is a freedom of speech issue, and one that I think was decided correctly. Speaking of which, what about limits on speech within certain timeframes prior to an election? Is that something you support?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #22 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Roe V. Wade is absolutely better for the country if it stands. Liberalization of LGBT rights, such as outlawing Texas' highly discriminatory sodomy law as well as anti-same sex marriage laws and DADT-like policies is way better for the country. And on the politico-economic front, there's the horrid Citizens United decision.

Logically, the Texas anti-sodomy law should not be interpreted as an "anti gay" ruling. First, not all gay men practice sodomy... (I know quite a lot of gay men, after all this is Los Angeles!), and from what I've gathered, a proportion do not like it, or don't engage. Secondly, what is to stop heterosexual couples from sodomy? Rumor has it that a heterosexual couple has all the necessary parts to permit such, and its quite possible that some might take advantage....

However, there is other possibility: Lawmakers in Texas were crafting this measure as anti-gay discrimination, because they are divorced from certain realities... after all, it is Texas.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #23 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Logically, the Texas anti-sodomy law should not be interpreted as an "anti gay" ruling. First, not all gay men practice sodomy... (I know quite a lot of gay men, after all this is Los Angeles!), and from what I've gathered, a proportion do not like it, or don't engage. Secondly, what is to stop heterosexual couples from sodomy? Rumor has it that a heterosexual couple has all the necessary parts to permit such, and its quite possible that some might take advantage....

However, there is other possibility: Lawmakers in Texas were crafting this measure as anti-gay discrimination, because they are divorced from certain realities... after all, it is Texas.

Yeah, that really doesn't matter. Even if the measure was anti-gay, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents Texas from having such a law. It therefore becomes an issue of "privacy." If the court decides that the law is unconstitutional on those grounds, it thereby pretty much legalizes ANY activity within your home, barring those that affect non-consenting parties. In turn, this violates the 10th amendment, because it now tells Texas and other states that they are not allowed to define sodomy at all.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #24 of 74
Roe V. Wade invented a right that does not exist in the constitution. I say that as someone that is prochoice.
post #25 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yeah, that really doesn't matter. Even if the measure was anti-gay, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents Texas from having such a law. It therefore becomes an issue of "privacy." If the court decides that the law is unconstitutional on those grounds, it thereby pretty much legalizes ANY activity within your home, barring those that affect non-consenting parties. In turn, this violates the 10th amendment, because it now tells Texas and other states that they are not allowed to define sodomy at all.

So exactly what acts within the home that don't affect non-consenting parties do you think should be banned? You see, that's where you and Santorum are wrong. Bestiality and incest both DO affect non-consenting parties. So they cannot be used as examples in this argument. And if sodomy is not a crime (as it should not be), why do any states have to define it?
post #26 of 74
Uh oh... a socialist manifesto discovered in Kagan's attic... now who would have suspected that!

Elena Kagan's Thesis in 90 Seconds: Radical. Socialist. Marxist. She Must Be Blocked From the Supreme Court At All Costs.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...0-seconds.html


Recall the embargo on Michelle Obamas college thesis!
post #27 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Uh oh... a socialist manifesto discovered in Kagan's attic... now who would have suspected that!

Elena Kagan's Thesis in 90 Seconds: Radical. Socialist. Marxist. She Must Be Blocked From the Supreme Court At All Costs.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...0-seconds.html


Recall the embargo on Michelle Obamas college thesis!

I've not read the entire thesis. But I have read the 90-second summary provided at the link you provided here. To be honest, most of what I see reads like scholarly observations and descriptions of what she was studying. It's not entirely clear at all that she actually sympathizes with the socialist movement and from what saw I could hardly call this her "socialist manifesto."

Possibly the closest she gets is in these two statements:

Quote:
The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America.

A key phrase here though is "for those who." Is it certain that she includes herself in that group?

However, this next statement is perhaps more clear that she sympathizes:

Quote:
American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.

And maybe those are enough to demonstrate her sympathies and alignment with radical socialist ideas and people. Not sure.

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that she's been selected because she'll be a perfect Obama stooge/rubber-stamp. But I'd like to see something more than this. I doubt we will privacy, national security and all that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #28 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

A key phrase here though is "for those who." Is it certain that she includes herself in that group?

Funny... I thought the key phrase here was: "still wish to change America"! Me and the rest of America are quite frustrated with these Obama disciples who wish to change democracy. Both president and supreme court justice take an oath to support this nation - it's about time we explain to them what that oath entails...
post #29 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Funny... I thought the key phrase here was: "still wish to change America"!

The "key phrase" I was referring to was related to the line being drawn to what she wrote and how she feels or relates to what she wrote. Does she share the same ideals as what she was writing about? That's what I was trying to get to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Me and the rest of America are quite frustrated with these Obama disciples who wish to change democracy.

A couple of things. First I don't agree with most (maybe all) of the things Barack Obama is doing and wants to do. Second, I actually would like to see some change come to America too, but it would be very different from the change that Most elected politicians seems to want. Third, we need to get back to both calling ourselves and acting like a republic more than a democracy. That's one of the core problems.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Both president and supreme court justice take an oath to support this nation - it's about time we explain to them what that oath entails...

Actually all of them (including congress...and most members of both parties) need to be reminded of their oath and responsibility uphold the constitution.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #30 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Uh oh... a socialist manifesto discovered in Kagan's attic... now who would have suspected that!

Elena Kagan's Thesis in 90 Seconds: Radical. Socialist. Marxist. She Must Be Blocked From the Supreme Court At All Costs.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...0-seconds.html


Recall the embargo on Michelle Obamas college thesis!

Bit of a dowdification there. I'm seeing the smoking gun.
post #31 of 74

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #32 of 74
She is a lesbian, correct?
I find it interesting Obama has declared her family- namely her brother, off-limits to the press, even when he agreed to be interviewed. Wonder what dirty secrets will surface after the iron curtain of secrecy is breached? So much for openness and transparency...
post #33 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

She is a lesbian, correct?

post #34 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

She is a lesbian, correct?
I find it interesting Obama has declared her family- namely her brother, off-limits to the press, even when he agreed to be interviewed. Wonder what dirty secrets will surface after the iron curtain of secrecy is breached? So much for openness and transparency...

I could care less if she's a lesbian. But did Obama really her brother off limits ? Does he still think it's his job to direct the press? Are they still following his marching orders?
post #35 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I could care less if she's a lesbian. But did Obama really her brother off limits ? Does he still think it's his job to direct the press? Are they still following his marching orders?

From a lefty site-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_576591.html

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...brother&st=cse
post #36 of 74
As usual, the trivia obscures the significant.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #37 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

As usual, the trivia obscures the significant.

The veil of secrecy and her most likely being a lesbian are trivial? Given she has no judicial record, what would you consider significant?
post #38 of 74
Thread Starter 
Come on guys, this isn't about someone you want to fuck or someone that wants to fuck you.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #39 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I could care less if she's a lesbian. But did Obama really her brother off limits ?

Who would Baracky do that? Is her brother a terrorist?
post #40 of 74
I remember back in the ole days, when lefties went apoplectic at the suggestion that a U.S. President was directly interfering with the Freedom of the Press, and also hiding information related to judicial nominees.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Elena Kagan represents a new vision of liberal American justice?