Elena Kagan was left stuttering and stammering in her effort to answer Senator Tom Coburn's question, "Do we have the power to tell people what to eat every day?". Coburn's question had Kagan near-speechless during the Senate Judiciary Supreme Court confirmation hearing because the question was a mine-field called Obama-care.
Transcript:
Senator. Tom Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, "Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits - every day. And I got it through Congress and it's now the law of the land. Tsk. Gotta do it. Does that violate the commerce clause?
Elena Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law
![]()
Coburn: Yeah, I got one that's real similar to it that I think is equally dumb. I'm not going to mention which one it is.
Kagan: But I think that the question about whether it is a dumb law is different from the question of whether the question of it's constitutional.And , and uh, and uh, I think the courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are, er, uh, senseless, just because they're senseless.
Senator Coburn: Well, I think the question is. Do we have the power to tell people what to eat every day?
Kagan: eh, Sen, Senator Coburn... i, it's, uh stuttering
Sen. Coburn: What is the extent of the commerce clause? We have the wide embrace of the commerce of clause - which these guys who wrote this never ever fathomed that we would be so stupid to take away our liberties away by expanding the commerce clause this way.
Do we want someone on the Supreme Court who believes government should have the power to demand senseless things of American citizens?
Note: Remember mom's favorite nag - "If someone tells you to jump off a bridge, would you jump?". Elena Kagan believes that government should even have "the power to tell people what to eat". Isn't the idea of someone sitting on the Supreme Court with such a radical view of government power vs your liberty - a dangerous jump?
Dallas -- Dallas organic gardeners were alarmed that Dallas regulations against community gardening was an "anti-organic conspiracy, funded by Big Chemicals." "Being a government, the city naturally assumes it must find a way to regulate community gardens and then come up with tax money to pay for the regulating. But the gardeners don't understand how growing beans can possibly require all that much regulation." Dallas Observer
|
Conservative call to action:Kagan threat to free speech
|
|
(Video of Best Jokes she has told & slide of Funny Faces)
|
Comments
Whew. That video was hard to watch. Coburn had Kagan cold. She was stammering, she was stuttering, she was reaching for an answer she didn't have. She knew the question was a minefield and she knew the name of the minefield was - Obamacare.
But Coburn blew it. Instead of letting her stew in her own inadequacy to side-step the question, Coburn pulled her off the hook he caught her on. Coburn got carried away, anxious to show Kagan, if she couldn't answer it - he could. The sound of his own voice was just too tempting, I guess.
Doesn't Kagan look immensely relieved to let Coburn expound on what he thinks?
Sometimes winning is as simple as knowing when to shut the heck up! Kagan knew, Coburn hasn't learned yet.
@DEV
my thoughts exactly.
Seatbet? (Check) Protective Equipment? (Check) Well alright alright...
It is an odd question, who wouldn't stammer? Also don't the rightward ilk want a strict constitutionalist? If shes as dangerously liberal as many of the (and I like this phrase all of a sudden) rightward ilk have portrayed her as wouldn't you be concerned by someone who might vote to weaken gun rights (bup bup Im mostly with you on this so just be still) just because she thought a gun in every home felt silly?
Part one concluded, tune in for our next episode when we find out Blaine is really Rex's twin brother once removed...
Part two, return of the sith...
Secondly I have to disagree with Dev from something prior that is nonetheless prescient.
"And just like that - the question could be asked and answered - if Kagan isn't gay, what a chance to "clear her name" or if she is gay, be open about it, like well, like Camille Paglia. After all, who wants a secretive, evasive, lying, cowardly phony for Justice of the Supreme Court?"
If Ms. Kagan is a homosexual then that is her business. If were not asking John Roberts or Sonia Sotomayor what behavior, what position they prefer int he bedroom what grants us an all access pass into the private and L to the E to the G-A-L sexual behavior of Ms. Kagan?
"Clear her name" gay sex isn't an homicide rap...
"be open about it" why should she have to be, this world has shown its frosty ways to those who are Out Gay Americans, why should Ms. Kagan be compelled to put on display what is her private business?
to be continued in the thrilling end of our tril
Sales 101 teaches after you make your point and ask for the order, 'he who talks first looses'.
"who wants a secretive, evasive, lying, cowardly phony for Justice of the Supreme Court?"
I have the most trouble with this remark so there will be no pith in this last comment. Someone who feels the need to remain in the closet is not any of the above charges. It is no doubt an epic struggle, one that some end up rejecting in favor of suicide or denial. Depending on your section of this country you are either merely tolerated or loathed with the heat of a supernova.
It is not cowardice to keep a life private, it is a choice dependent on each persons level of comfort with the world around them and not one single soul should be pushed to shatter that privacy for any job, any honor, or to satisfy the curiosities or whims of a single person, or any group of people.
Why is that the freedom whose sanctity can be trampled? I ask that to any who replies. And don't go quoting old words, put your scrub brush away if the good lord wants to smite homosexuals he can do it himself.
Bg, hi there. I wonder if 'knowing when to shut-up' is an art lost to most politicians. "The sound of music' (their own voice) and all of that?
Hey Jason,
This is one of those debates that, imo, reads as a victory for Coburn and displays as a tie.
Problem is - the soundbite will heard across the nation - and Elena loses completely on that one.
No matter, kind sir, your justice nominee is going to scoot right into Steven's seat and be there for long enough for you to regret it, I bet. *wink*
Well, sheesh, Jason --
Can I just ask her, "How long have you been a practicing homosexual?"
Ah, but Jason, how do you answer all of the gays, lesbians, transvestites, otherwise gender/sexually impaired who want her to "come out" because, by so doing, they feel she will help legitimize their cause?
Andrew Sullivan: So, is she gay? "To put it another way: Is Obama actually going to use a Supreme Court nominee to advance the cause of the closet (as well as kill any court imposition of marriage equality)? And can we have a clear, factual statement as to the truth? In a free society in the 21st Century, it is not illegitimate to ask. And it is cowardly not to tell."
More Sullivan: "Since the issue of this tiny minority - and the right of the huge majority to determine its rights and equality - is a live issue for the court in the next generation, and since it would be bizarre to argue that a Justice's sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue, it is only logical that this question should be clarified."
More Andrew Sullivan: "It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish. We know she is Jewish, and it is a fact simply and rightly put in the public square. If she were to hide her Jewishness, it would seem rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing. And yet we have been told by many that she is gay ... and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively."
Sooooooooooo Jason,
If you think my words sounded harsh -
Do we really want or need someone who is - "rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing" serving as a Supreme Court justice?
Elena Kagan is a human being, with feelings and dignity and a right to choose how she presents herself to the world. But she is also now a very, very public figure, seeking a lifetime appointment, with extraordinary power, in a liberal administration from a liberal university, in the twenty-first century. We all accept that when we enter public life, we surrender certain things...I want to know no details or specifics. But I do think a simple answer to a simple question about a core part of someone's identity should be possible. And I think a deliberate avoidance of this question is dangerous to public transparency and to the integrity of the process and potentially more invasive of someone's actual privacy in the long run than a simple, dignified statement that could get us past all of this now. And I think there is a real danger of treating emotional orientation as different from any other aspect of someone's personal life in a manner that is actually deeply complicit in prejudice an
Ones sexuality does not have to define them, neither does their religion. This is a hunting expedition. All heterosexual Judges aren't expected to be biased against homosexual causes but for some reason a supposedly gay Justice would be reflexively support homosexual causes with no attention to the details of the case? Forgive me but as a leftward Judge would she not already be likely on the side of broadened homosexual rights?
As for her responsibility to the gay community, perhaps Ms. Kagan doesn't want to be a Gay icon, perhaps she just wants to be a good judge and a private person.
It seems like Ms. Kagan's rights are being woefully under-served in your argument. Again most other candidates don't have their sexuality challenged, presumably because they are not rumored to be anything but "mainstream" thats a sad comment on this nation that still regards homosexuality as something to be pointed at. Something to be caged by archaic views and laws.
Way to go, Dev. I like a good debate--like this one! BTW, you're winning. The underlying issue is *honesty*, the concept of which escapes leftist politicians like Kagan.
It's all an act, a scam; Kagan is just another actor in the big Chicago sting operation going on inside the beltway.
Semper Fi!
Hmmm
Kagan continues to omit what the Supreme Court is actually supposed to do. It has little to do with what politicians "want"
or even "need". The Job of the Supreme Court is to act as a check and balance against the other 2 branches. The framers intended that the Court did this by ensuring that anything that the other 2 branches might do, did NOT violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is not the job of the Court to attempt to interpret anything other than the Constitution. Of course the reason Kagan never frames here job in this manner is simple. She has NO intentionof upholding the Constitution/Bill of Rights because they are getting in the way of the elites attempt at total control of our lives. And of course total control of our money. Kagan will attempt to complete the dismantling of the Bill of Rights and destroy whats left of our once great Republic. That is her Job
DDearborn is correct. This woman isn't the least bit interested in upholding our constitution.... that is painfully obvious even now.
The exchange between coburn (politicus mediocritis) and kagan (homo libtardus) clearly demonstrate the need for an immediate domicilicus cleansing of the apparatus stupido unendus.
It is unfortunate that the "appointing" parade of leftist lunatics will continue unchecked until the professional assassins
of our constitution are voted out their totalitarian "comfie" zones.
The exchange between coburn (politicus mediocritis) and kagan (homo libtardus) clearly demonstrateS the need for an immediate domicilicus cleansing of the apparatus stupido unendus.
It is unfortunate that the "appointing" parade of leftist lunatics will continue unchecked until the professional assassins
of our constitution are voted out their totalitarian "comfie" zones.
1 of 2
For the record despite the fact that I once authored a piece calling Kagan the "perfect choice" the article focused more on her ability to skirt through confirmation, and less on her fitness to sit on the bench. This was prior to her nomination and while I did and do respect her career achievements I would be uncomfortable with (were I in the position to "advise and consent", the position to examine her abilities as a jurist) her lack of courtroom experience.
Having a long illustrious career as a judge is not a requirement of a USSC appointment. Thurgood Marshall was a brilliant trial lawyer, an advocate, a Solicitor General like Ms. Kagan prior to his appointment and if I'm not mistaken Judge Rehnquist did not serve as a judge prior to his selection either. And there are of course others of varying skill and acclaim.
I'm running short on words here so I'll continue above...
(2 of 2) Ms. Kagan's lack of judicial experience, the lack of decisions denies us the ability to not weigh her "philosophies" but see how she has applied them. And that is the ultimate deficit with regard to Ms. Kagan, because talk is one thing but action is another.
Is she qualified, I think yes, yes she is. But is she the best candidate? Well thats a matter of perspective, say what you will about Diane Wood but at least she has a record, a record that surely doomed her nomination. Ms. Kagan is safe, shes has no controversy because shes never really had to put her name to something valid and open to interpretation and criticism.
Is she the first nominee selected because they were the "safe choice"? Absolutely not, and really thats my chief concern, our rabid politics, our partisan gamesmanship robbing this country of the best and brightest in place of the middling and safe.
Reply instructions/suggestions:
There really is little point or value in a tirade against the liberalism of Diane Wood. Obviously she wont be celebrated on here as a great mind, you hate her, I get it. But I am of the leftish persuasion so to me shes fine.
Just a suggestion that perhaps we sidestep all the unnecessary word play and get to the heart of the matter which is why must we suffer through middling judges administration after administration?
I'm sure that will help, I know how Conservatives love receiving instructions from the left or anyone really...
I have no idea how to spell Pinata, apologies for that...
In keeping with the promoting of all/any of that which is repulsive in lieu of sound jurisprudence, the duhbominator pandered to yet another terrorist sub species by NOT choosing Garland (the most experienced, recognized and respected of the
trifling trio. Why? Prolly b cuze is considered a moderate).
"But I am of the leftish persuasion so to me shes fine."
Yes, by all means, if we can't have someone who does not consider LIFE sacrosanct (DW) interpreting the constitution, let's instead have someone who considers NOTHING sacrosanct.
Reply instructions/suggestions:
There really is little point or value in a tirade against the liberalism of Diane Wood. Obviously she wont be celebrated on here as a great mind, you hate her, I get it. But I am of the leftish persuasion so to me shes fine.
Just a suggestion that perhaps we sidestep all the unnecessary word play and get to the heart of the matter which is why must we suffer through middling judges administration after administration?
I'm sure that will help, I know how Conservatives love receiving instructions from the left or anyone really...
I have no idea how to spell Pinata, apologies for that...
TERM LIMITS, including those of supreme court justices would not necessarily prevent the longstanding tradition of subverting the constitution by (politically motivated) judical appointment.
But it would limit the destruction.
repeated due to a refresh error sorry,
I'm not going to be dragged into a political philosophy debate, we differ. Plain and simple, theres no point in discussing it and carrying on and on with it. Its a Democrat President whose going to select a left leaning judge, I swallowed down Roberts and Alito, you'll take Sotomayor and apparently Kagan.
The point is this President and those before them have surrendered to the process and deprived this country of the highest quality Judges. Others though seem hung up on established law, established election results, and a nominees bedroom preference.
Our inane fixations are to blame for the compromised process, we get the Government we deserve.
I'm opposed to the idea of term limits in theory, a people charged with the construction of their Government should also be trusted to adequately recognize when it is not working and also not be penalized when it is...
In theory...
However name recognition is the hidden engine that guides so many of the apathetic voters in this country, and really isn't a vote in the hands of the uninformed like a gun in the hands of a child?
Term limits are a check against the ease of the familiar, and in this imperfect world they should be enforced with regard to the court.
However, and I'm arguing with myself as much as anyone else. The court is not supposed to be subject to political whims like the other branches of our Government. It is an interpretive body that should be politically blind. If it were as it should be then there would be no need, just like our Government on the whole, were it ideal. But they are both obviously not, and thus perhaps a check is needed.
We get the government that the slimmest (could be slimiest also)
of a majority (the country ideoligically is polarized) elect.
TERM LIMITS at ALL levels would lessen the impact of these tragedies (could also be characterized as comedies!).
A polite observation, Ms. you seem to have a hearty disdain for democracy when it doesn't swing you way.
Yes, yes were a Republic, I am aware-but our representatives are elected Democratically.
D. ,
Stuttering seems to be a malady systemic to the obomination cartel.
polite observation, Ms. you seem to have a hearty disdain for democracy when it doesn't swing you way.
Yes, yes were a Republic, I am aware-but our representatives are elected Democratically.
--------------------------------------------------------------
jason,
I have a healthy (and RESPONSIBLE) disdain for ALL corrupt, incompetent, elected officials.
It seems though that your view of corruption and incompetence are based solely on ideology and a bias that existed well before the oath of office had been taken.
Stepped on caterpillars and all that...
Not to say that this President hasn't made missteps, I'm certainly not afflicted with that delusion, but I'd hazard to guess you were ready to declare him guilty of such failures before he had an opportunity to disabuse you of those notions.
I don't think that that is "healthy". Essentially its your way or hell in a hand basket. The intellectual rigidity is fascinating because in what I've seen from you it doesn't fit. Bright, articulate, and a padlocked mind? It's an off equation.
"It seems"...........
"but I'd hazard to guess"
----------------------------------------------------------
And you would be (consistently) WRONG, and INNEFECTIVE in YOUR defense of the "circus of absurdity" currently PERMEATING ALL of government.
INEFECTIVE(on N)
INEFFECTIVE(the word obviously hates me,LOL!)
"Not to say that this President hasn't made missteps"..........
What a marvelous way to understate the BLUDGEONING of the constitution and the kleptocrats who do so.
"Essentially its your way or hell in a hand basket"
No, ESSENTIALLY it is the ABILITY to discern between that which is right and the myriad of other possibilities, and to have the integrity to implement those principles.
The LAZY alternative is to pronounce (therefore decry) oneself a liberal.
In daze of yore, buffoonery of this magnitude was rewarded with a pointy hat.
In modern times it is rewarded with nominations to various offices sought by the DEMOCRATIC party.
You know the definition of right is in the eye of the beholder. I don't firmly know that agree with that. And I'll ask flat out was there ever a time when you thought that man, Barack Obama was less then evil, was their hope in your for good results?
More then that do you, have you for the length of his time in office hoped he failed?
(from earlier)
"...............you'll take Sotomayor and apparently Kagan."
This tragic inevitability preceeds one of proportionately more importance.
And that would be the recognition (though i doubt you would admit it) that the ever failing (and prohibitively expensive) social engineering experiment currently ringleadered by the traitor in chief is/was not such a good idea.
"And I'll ask flat out was there ever a time when you thought that (THE ?) man, Barack Obama was less then evil?"
I have never met him. Your using of the word "evil" to describe him, is giving him too much UNEARNED credit.
His marxist policies are doomed to failure as history has so often proven.
More thAn that..........?
If only I put the care and concern into my replies and their grammatical purity as you do into a new and sharp nickname for the President in every post.
You didn't answer my question, not even a little.
Perhaps your interrogative did not produce the/YOUR desired/expected results.
There was No equivocation in my reply. The conclusion by you that there was no answer is thererfore inaccurate.
"If only I put the care and concern into my replies and their grammatical purity as you do into a new and sharp nickname for the President in every post."
-------------------------------------------------------------
If ONLY you could?
Mayhaps(undeniably archaic, perchance then?) you will blame Bush for this inadequacy also?
If my plethora of appellations for "his ungodliness" is disconcerting to you, consider that invoking his current (and numerous) alias(es) just makes me "feel soooooooooo dirty".
When did I blame or mention George W. Bush? Notice the lack of pithy nickname...
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!