• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Kagan Sworn In

A

Anonymous

Guest
I was doing a little reading on the makeup of the Supreme Court- and while what stands out is that there are now 3 women and 6 men- but while reading something I noticed is that the religious beliefs are now 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jewish....
Must not be any Protestants that become Judges.... :???:

Elena Kagan Is Sworn In by Roberts to Become 112th Supreme Court Justice
By Laura Litvan - Aug 7, 2010 12:11 PM MT


Elena Kagan was sworn in as the 112th U.S. Supreme Court justice and its fourth woman ever, taking the oath of office at the high court two days after the Senate confirmed her.

Kagan, 50, the former dean of Harvard Law School, pledged to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich” as she took the second of two required oaths from Chief Justice John Roberts, who congratulated her and welcomed her to the court.

“We look forward to serving with you in our common calling,” Roberts said after administering the oath. A formal investiture will take place on Oct. 1, three days before the justices begin their next term.

The U.S. Senate voted 63-37 to approve her appointment by President Barack Obama after a summer of debate over the role of judges and the sharply divided court under Roberts. Only five Republicans supported her; one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, opposed her.

Kagan succeeds Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired after 35 years. She is likely to take his place as one of the four justices who take more liberal positions on such issues as abortion, gun rights and campaign finance.

With Kagan, the nine-member court will have three women for the first time. She joins Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s first appointee, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I was doing a little reading on the makeup of the Supreme Court- and while what stands out is that there are now 3 women and 6 men- but while reading something I noticed is that the religious beliefs are now 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jewish....
Must not be any Protestants that become Judges.... :???:
I had never heard that before, Oldtimer. Thanks for sharing that - it does seem kinda strange.

Count me as another one that disagrees with the Constitutional requirements and thinks that a Supreme Court Justice should have some judicial experience. I don't mind my county judge not being experienced, but I think by the time somebody gets elevated to the highest judicial position in the country, they should have some experience on the bench.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
I was doing a little reading on the makeup of the Supreme Court- and while what stands out is that there are now 3 women and 6 men- but while reading something I noticed is that the religious beliefs are now 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jewish....
Must not be any Protestants that become Judges.... :???:
I had never heard that before, Oldtimer. Thanks for sharing that - it does seem kinda strange.

Count me as another one that disagrees with the Constitutional requirements and thinks that a Supreme Court Justice should have some judicial experience. I don't mind my county judge not being experienced, but I think by the time somebody gets elevated to the highest judicial position in the country, they should have some experience on the bench.

A Judge with no experience was appointed by a President with no experience big surprise. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Before long it will be 9 jew judges. they already own congress, our foreign policy, and all of our media.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Tam said:
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
I was doing a little reading on the makeup of the Supreme Court- and while what stands out is that there are now 3 women and 6 men- but while reading something I noticed is that the religious beliefs are now 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jewish....
Must not be any Protestants that become Judges.... :???:
I had never heard that before, Oldtimer. Thanks for sharing that - it does seem kinda strange.

Count me as another one that disagrees with the Constitutional requirements and thinks that a Supreme Court Justice should have some judicial experience. I don't mind my county judge not being experienced, but I think by the time somebody gets elevated to the highest judicial position in the country, they should have some experience on the bench.

A Judge with no experience was appointed by a President with no experience big surprise. :wink:


That old judge...the one Roberts replaced, he NEVER was a jusdge until he was appt'ed to the SCOTUS....

What's your point?
 

Tam

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
Tam said:
Texan said:
I had never heard that before, Oldtimer. Thanks for sharing that - it does seem kinda strange.

Count me as another one that disagrees with the Constitutional requirements and thinks that a Supreme Court Justice should have some judicial experience. I don't mind my county judge not being experienced, but I think by the time somebody gets elevated to the highest judicial position in the country, they should have some experience on the bench.

A Judge with no experience was appointed by a President with no experience big surprise. :wink:


That old judge...the one Roberts replaced, he NEVER was a jusdge until he was appt'ed to the SCOTUS....

What's your point?


Here are the percentages of people with private sector business experience serving in previous administrations:

T. Roosevelt…….. 38%
Taft………………….40%
Wilson …………….. 52%
Harding…………….49%
Coolidge………….. 48%
Hoover…………….. 42%
F. Roosevelt……… 50%
Truman……………..50%
Eisenhower………. 57%
Kennedy………….. 30%
Johnson…………….47%
Nixon………………. 53%
Ford………………… 42%
Carter………………. 32%
Reagan……………..56%
GH Bush………….. 51%
Clinton …………….. 39%
GW Bush…………. 55%

And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is…………..

Obama……………. 8% !!!

Yep! Thats right! Only Eight Percent!!!..the least by far of the last 19 presidents!! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what’s best for GM…Chrysler… Wall Street… and you and me?

How can the president of a major nation and society…the one with the most successful economic system in world history… stand and talk about business when he’s never worked for one?.. or about jobs when he has never really had one??!

And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers.! They’ve spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs….or as “community organizers” ..when they should have been in an employment line.

So when Blanche Lincoln points out that nobody in the Obama administration has any idea what it’s like to actually make a payroll, she’s completely correct.

Just noticing that Obama and his Administration have little to NO business experience so no big surprise that he would appoint another academic verses an experienced Judge. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
I was doing a little readingon the makeupof theSupreme Court- and while what standsout is that there are now 3 women and 6 men- but while reading something I noticed is that the religious beliefs are now 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jewish.... Must not be any Protestants that become Judges.... :???:
I had never heard that before,Oldtimer. Thanks for sharing that - it does seem kinda strange. Count me as anotherone that disagrees with the Constitutional requirements and thinks that aSupreme Court Justice should have some judicial experience. I don't mind my county judge not being experienced, but I think by the time somebody gets elevated to the highest judicial position in the country, they should have some experienceon the bench.
A Judge with no experience was appointed by a President with no experience big surprise. :wink:

The most influential Jurist in the last 100 years- Chief Justice Earl Warren- appointed by Ike in 1953- never sat a day on the bench before becoming Chief Justice!!! He was the Governor of California when appointed- altho he had practiced law as a D.A. and Attorney General- and was waiting to be appointed to the same position Kagan held (Solicitor General) ...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Religious backgrounds of judges never bothered me at all, especially if they can demonstrate that religious beliefs don't influence their decisions.

Now, nominate one who's a Muslin and I'd probably have a problem with that.

We've already got one in the White House.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Religious backgrounds of judges never bothered me at all, especially if they can demonstrate that religious beliefs don't influence their decisions.

Now, nominate one who's a Muslin and I'd probably have a problem with that.

We've already got one in the White House.

There is no evidence that Muslims ever attacked us on 9/11 other than the brainwashing that took place starting about 30 minutes after the second plane hit.

Mossad agents from Israel were arrested however on 9/11 and released by the Bush Administration.

George Bush Sr. and Jr. were both partners with the Bin Laden family.

We have no murdered over 1.3 million Iraqi men, women, and children for their oil as no one ever said they attacked us on 9/11.

Yet, you have a problem with Muslims and not Jews?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
shaumei said:
Whitewing said:
Religious backgrounds of judges never bothered me at all, especially if they can demonstrate that religious beliefs don't influence their decisions.

Now, nominate one who's a Muslin and I'd probably have a problem with that.

We've already got one in the White House.

There is no evidence that Muslims ever attacked us on 9/11 other than the brainwashing that took place starting about 30 minutes after the second plane hit.

Mossad agents from Israel were arrested however on 9/11 and released by the Bush Administration.

George Bush Sr. and Jr. were both partners with the Bin Laden family.

We have no murdered over 1.3 million Iraqi men, women, and children for their oil as no one ever said they attacked us on 9/11.

Yet, you have a problem with Muslims and not Jews?

Please provide a source for your comment about our murdering 1.3 million Iraqi men, women, and children.....and I'm not talking about your imagination.

Also, while you're at it, please explain and/or show links about how the US has benefited from Iraqi oil.

I'll hold my breath.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Western Oil Benefits:

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2010/gb2010034_232444.htm

From 2009 Deaths in Iraq:

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/SouadAlAzzawi_Numbers.htm

There are multiple sources all over the net about this info. Not a secret unless you watch mass media and believe them.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
shaumei said:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2010/gb2010034_232444.htm

Thanks for proving my point.

BP (England) Shell (The Hague) China National Petroleum Company, Petronas (Malaysia) and DNO (Norway) have all won bids.

ExxonMobil, the lone US based company (a publicly traded company) to have won a bid will be paid $1.6 billion per year.

Now, one would have to ask, if the US murdered all those Iraqis for their oil, what the hell are we doing letting the likes of CNCP, Petronas, Shell, DNO and others win contracts....especially after all the American blood and treasure we've spent there?

Doesn't add up.

We controlled the country, why would we do that?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
shaumei said:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2010/gb2010034_232444.htm

From 2009 Deaths in Iraq:

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/SouadAlAzzawi_Numbers.htm

That's certainly a scientific source. I know I'm a believer now.

Oh, I note from that same source as well that if all goes to plan, ExxonMobil, after their initial investment, will recoup US expenditures in only 379 years IF they hit maximum production levels.
 
Top