Yes let's nominate an anti-military Judge. Sure it's *only* because of DADT, not because she's a dirty hippy. Fuck her.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/its-kagan/

How exactly can you be judicially anti-military? I don't understand where people are getting that from her record. Dirty hippydom aside, I can't get my head around that particular line of argument.



Some commentators have claimed that Kagan’s position on the Solomon Amendment reflects an anti-military bias. That criticism is unsound. Harvard’s position – which predates Kagan’s tenure as dean – was not directed at the military but instead is a categorical nondiscrimination rule applicable to all potential employers. It is a position that is widely shared among American law schools.

It is fair to infer from the fact that Kagan did not attempt to repeal Harvard’s policy, and instead implemented it in full in the wake of the Third Circuit’s ruling despite the stay of the mandate, and moreover wrote to the student body in unambiguous terms, that Kagan personally supports the policy in full. But that is just to say that Kagan believes in the principle of nondiscrimination, including with respect to homosexuals.

So homophobia is your real issue?

Actually that was the point of my first line. The only way to oppose her is to be "anti-homosexual". Kind of like anyone who opposed Palin was sexist, or Obama Racist. Stop playing those cards.

I could give exactly two shits about who the soldier/sailor/airman/marine/(and even coasty these days) wants to fuck, provided they do their damn job.

This bitch, and her agenda keeps good IV League trained students out of our officer corps. We *need* them, and people like them. Highly skilled, well educated people. Our military should be an entire cross section of our nation. Liberal hippies, and gun toting rednecks alike.

These fools and their lofty ideals are doing the exact opposite of their goal. They want to punish the military "for their discrimination" and boot them off their campus.

Once again, they're doing it wrong. Wouldn't it be better then to get your own people inside the belly of the beast so to speak? If you're so concerned about good troops getting booted for their sexual preference; why not encourage some of your law students to enter the service to protect those individuals? Or to help sway the opinions of your common soldiers.

Instead they stand apart, condemn us, deny us, and act like a pack of idiots with nothing better to do but point out how better than us they are.

Fuck Them. And Fuck her. This boils down to exactly one thing, it was an easy way for her to deny support for wars the "hippies" don't support. All veiled in the cloth of anti-discrimination.

Do you have some letter or decision she penned or something informing that? I'm really confused, because irrespective of any value judgments, I'm seriously not finding what you're talking about. You can debate the pragmatism of a bunch of academics making a stand on some pet issue, however from what I'm seeing the DADT-inspired foot-stamping was in 1996, years before she joined Harvard's law college, and she merely continued it in 2002 until rescinding it when push came to shove; so, this seems to be attacking a position I'm not sure she ever really took?

The Solomon amendment was changed to block all federal funding to a school that didn't permit military recruiters on it's campus in 2001. She fought against the amendment in court and won an initial victory in federal appeals court. They ruled that the 5 sided nuthouse couldn't block federal funding based on if a school banning recruiters. She kicked them out, later the Supreme Court overturned that ruling, and they were forced to again allow military recruiters on their campus.

Harvard wanted to have their cake and eat it too but couldn't; she tried to force the issue and lost. Now It looks awfully suspicious to me that one of the first things she did in 2003 was to attack something that had stood for two years already. All around the time our more unpopular war started. I find it very hard to believe that they aren't connected.

As well, if she does get into the Supreme court I can't help but think she'll try again. And I'm sorry but if you want the government money, you have to support it, not just the shiney parts but the ones you don't like as well. I don't just get to fight the wars I like, I have to fight all of them.

Add to it her stark lack of bench time as a judge, and I'm just not getting a warm fuzzy feeling here.

Attacking an amendment she found fault with might be construed as just that among those without an axe to grind or an agenda against her nomination.

/shrug

'nstead they stand apart, condemn us, deny us, and act like a pack of idiots with nothing better to do but point out how better than us they are.'

- Very Byzantium thing to do. The upper classes waged a publicity and policy war against the army for years, until finally they managed to get 'one of their own' placed on the Imperial Throne who punished and humiliated the army so much that, when the Turks invaded in 1071, the army was in such a miserable state that it literally collapsed and left Anatolia wide open to Turkish conquest.

Just a thought...

Add to it her stark lack of bench time as a judge, and I'm just not getting a warm fuzzy feeling here.

The issue with her financial relationship with Government Sachs and the lack of direct judicial experience would be my areas of concern. Obviously you feel strongly about her stance on the Solomon issue, but I don't think that will resonate with too many other people who aren't already hating her for being a Democratic nominee anyway. I skimmed an article earlier that was ranting on how her lack of children "obviously disqualified" her.

Kagan on this issue:

"Throughout her tenure at Harvard, Kagan sent nearly identical emails to students explaining how she was torn by the decision: She saw merit in the military’s purpose and those who protested its policies.

“I believe discrimination against gays and lesbians seeking to enter military service is wrong—both unwise and unjust,” Kagan wrote students on Sept. 27, 2007. “And this wrong harms the fabric of our own community by denying an opportunity to some of our students that other of our students have. The military is a noble profession, which provides extraordinary service to each of us every day. But this simple fact heightens, rather than excuses, the inequity in this case. The Law School remains firmly committed to the principle of equal opportunity for all persons, without regard to sexual orientation. And I look forward to the time when all our students can pursue any career path they desire, including the path of devoting their professional lives to the defense of this country.”"

Clearly she deserves being called a "Dirty Hippie".

Meh, a retcon 4-5 years after the fact. When it stopped being popular to denounce the war. Still not convinced.

It's sad how thinly veiled the partisan hackery is in these justice confirmations.

[QUOTE]This bitch, and her agenda keeps good IV League trained students out of our officer corps./QUOTE]
Wow, I was unaware that a degree from Harvard came with the stipulation that a graduate could never enter into military service!

Take off your "this is Sparta" colored glasses for a moment and re-read the posted E-Mail.
She plainly says the military is a noble occupation but its DADT policy remains a discriminitory policy.

Do you not defend a nation thats built upon the right to protest and dissent? tell me what other mechanism would a university have to express thier dissent??

FYI the policy never prevented any of the students from joining and participating in the ROTC. it was basically fine wanna hate on the gays then take your ball and find another yard to play in.