Tea party quiet on Kagan--so far

While I understand the frustration with politicians, why don't the Tea Baggers get their own candidates to run? Who do they think the alternative is?

The only people I see running for office are other "A" personalities, who want to be career politicians who earn their salaries/insurance/pensions (if they'd ever freakin' retire before they are 100 years old already!!!) from the vary taxes they rail against.

Who cares what the toothless Teabagger simpletons think....

The "Teabaggers" are nothing more than the whackjob Republican base nuts who are to embarrassed to call themselves "Republicans" after the disasterous Bush presidency.

And I love how all of these Teabag clowns are claiming to be Constitutional scholars and wanting people to believe that somehow Pres Obama is subverting the Constitution.

First of all, most of these right wing dumbarses couldn't spell the word "Constitution" if their life depended on it.

And secondly, if they actually did know anything about the Constitution they would have been ticked off about how Bush & Cheney spent eight of the last ten years of this decade peeing on it.

Right wing idiots on parade:
http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/3983339.html#cutid1

Funny stuff. The MSM, doesn't seem to even know that there is a Tea Party.

Now, the MSM wants to know the Tea Party's opinion on Kagan. Well, not really you are complaining that the Tea Party is slow to give you an opinion that you are going to rush to get on the front page, correct? Funny stuff.

You are the ones that are slow. Where is the reporting about the rally that had over a million people in Washington last year? The MSM are the s-l-o-w ones here. That's why no one reads newspapers, watchs NBC, CBS, ABC not to mention CNN and the bird droppings as MSNBC. But hey, you got your guy elected.

So, you are implying Kagan is NOT a radical? That her position of trying to ban military recruiters from the Harvard campus is not out of the mainstream? Are you implying Kagan's position of "Redistribution of Speech" is not out of the mainstream? "Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech."

Why should this political hack sit on the Supreme Court? Other than serving in the Clinton Administration - at the same time, claiming the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy is a human rights violation of the first order. We all recall the Clinton Administration enacted this policy....

Do we really need a Chicago political hack on the Supreme Court????

Pres Obama could nominate Jesus to the court and the Teabagger tools (Republican base) would still call him an evil Commie-Socialist-Fascist-Nazi who wants to pull the plug on Granny and eat 'Merican babies.

Seeing as how the Repubs already put two far right wing activist extremists on the court (Roberts, Alito) during Bush Jr's reign, they can take their phony fake outrage over Elena Kagan and shove it.

Here is something the the Tax Enough Already Party is probably more interested in:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Federal-budget-deficit-hits-apf-3497705338.html?x=0

Record high deficit for the month of April - a month that is normally a surplus, but under BO, its a deficit.

Suppose they gave a tea party, and no one came?

---------------------------------------------------------
So, you are implying Kagan is NOT a radical? That her position of trying to ban military recruiters from the Harvard campus is not out of the
Posted by: Steve Lobber | May 12, 2010 7:34 PM
------------------------------------------------------

Slobber,

Quit your crying, would ya. Chickenhawk Repugs like you never back up any of your phony tough guy talk and actually sign up for the military anyway.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFGit_tZDqs

Bush Jr just got done putting two of the most extreme radical right wing justices ever (Roberts, Alito) on the court and they've done nothing but legislate from the bench ever since.

Go pound sand, Wingnutters.

The Collective is meeting as we type. We will hear from the Borg, shortly. I think I saw Neut Getrich and Dickie Armey running for the curtain, behind which, is the Borg's microphone !! Although, I think, Run, Sarah, Run, beat them to it !! I just hope she doesn't quit !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Posted by: tired of right wing extremists | May 12, 2010 8:16 PM
>>>>>>
"HHH", why don't you find something new to copy and paste?

"Bush Jr just got done putting two of the most extreme radical right wing justices ever (Roberts, Alito) on the court and they've done nothing but legislate from the bench ever since."

* * * * *
Posted by: Equal Time | May 13, 2010 12:03 AM
.
I doubt the truth of this statement. I haven’t seen them legislating from the bench in the cases I’ve read; and I’ve probably read more cases than you have. So, do you care to tell us how they have legislated from the bench? Could you try using examples instead of simply shooting your arrogant and obnoxious mouth off?
.
And FYI, in a Military Times survey of 1,800 active duty troops conducted last month 41% of those queried identified themselves as Republicans and 32% identified themselves as Independents. See http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/04/military_poll_advance_041110w/ If you do the math, it shows that, at the most, only 27% of military personnel could have identified themselves as Democrats in the survey.

She'll be confirmed. We need another progressive on the Court to remind us how deeply flawed our country is, how much we appreciate smug liberals, and how much we need their enlightenment. Nice article in the Trib the other day about Kagan praising a 1987 speech by former Justice Marshall, where he evidently took issue with people celebrating the bicentennial of the Constitution. He pointed out that the Constitution was "deeply flawed from the beginning" and that the Constitution "does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of 'liberty',' 'justice' and 'equality' . . ."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sc-dc-kagan-court-20100511,0,3898935.story

He further stated in the same speech, "Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document . . ."

-------

That's fantastic. A "living" document. WTF is that even supposed to mean? That it is like an impressionist painting open to your interpretation? To be adapted to circumstances as you see fit? That is the very definition of an activist judge. Someone who allows their own personal beliefs, prejudices, sympathies, etc. to trump the actual text and intent of the document they swore to uphold. The activist judge believes, as Marshall did, that the Constitution is inherently flawed, and it is up to him to alter it under the guise of interpretation.

--------

Most progressive judicial nominees lie like dogs during committee hearings and say that they honor the founding principles of the Constitution, and that they will adhere to them. I can at least respect Marshall’s honesty for basically admitting he is an activist judge, and how he believes it was his job to help reshape what he considers a deeply flawed document. I don’t expect Kagan to be this honest with her answers to committee questions. It is difficult to tell what kind of Justice she will make, but if she is indeed a disciple of the type of thinking espoused by Marshall, I think she is a terrible choice for the Supreme Court.

That's fantastic. A "living" document. WTF is that even supposed to mean? That it is like an impressionist painting open to your interpretation? To be adapted to circumstances as you see fit? That is the very definition of an activist judge. Someone who allows their own personal beliefs, prejudices, sympathies, etc. to trump the actual text and intent of the document they swore to uphold.
Posted by: Herbie H. | May 13, 2010 10:55 AM

Herbie, Arrogant progressives seem to actually believe that THEY are going to rewrite the greatest legal document in human history. Funny that they can't be honest with themselves and the people that would be affected by their utopian agenda. Progressives, if you believe that your ideas are so great, why don't you put them out there to be debated? Answer, because every time you do, you lose. So, you sneak around deceitfully in order to worm you way into power.

Unfortunately, you overlooked the May 11 comments from the Independence Hall Tea Party Association, one of the nation's largest Tea Party organizations:

http://www.independencehalltpa.com/Media.php

Teri Adams
President
Independence Hall Tea Party Association

We'll I've got a possible clue as to why the Tea Party for all its references to the Constitution hasn't jumped on this....

Director of the Tea Party Express on the Tea Party..... from the View.

"Purely about the money movement. No social issues."http://www.hulu.com/watch/147528/the-view-hot-topics-tea-party

Posted by: Teri Adams | May 13, 2010 3:52 PM

Yeah the LSM has "overlooked" quite a bit in the last few years, mainly that old archaic substance: truth.

You are being overly generous to reporters by describing their slanted propaganda as simply "overlooking."

They also seemed to somehow miss the fact that Obama is a marxist, and that over One Million citizens marched on DC to demand that our government listen and stop the socialist agenda. Don't hold your breath that the LSM will ever catch on, since they're all for selling out the country and destroying freedom. I hope they enjoy what their future holds: government controls on what they can and can't say.