Elana Kagan: Well it depends on what the meaning of “did you write it” really means

I’ve somewhat avoided the Kagan nomination process until now, but the clip below is fairly staggering. You can read some history on this from Ed Morrissey, but the video is fairly self explanatory:



If the Republicans don’t filibuster this nomination, I will be extremely disappointed. She is obviously a fraud who won’t even admit that the government doesn’t have the authority to tell you want you can eat.

If the above isn’t enough for you, listen to her moment in the sun when she argued before the Supreme Court that it’s okay for the government to have the power to ban books because they’ve never banned books before:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

5 thoughts on “Elana Kagan: Well it depends on what the meaning of “did you write it” really means

  1. 1) Has it come to the point all [sic] democrats [sic] are socialist [sic]?

    No. Well, I guess if thinking that having parks, libraries, policemen, firefighters, ambulances, etc. is good for society makes someone a socialist in your eyes, then maybe.

    2) Does being a dem. [sic] mean you want political activist judges?

    No, and your statement is made all the more ironic given how “activist” the Roberts court is proving to be. Have you ever noticed that all the decisions you agree with are somehow “constitutional” while those that you disagree with are somehow “activist”?

    3) Does being a democrat [sic] mean you hold our constatution [sic] in comtempt [sic]?

    No, in general we think it's among the most brilliant political documents to ever be composed and we hold it to be the supreme law of our land.

    4) Does it mean you hate our form of goverment [sic] and it must be changed [sic] any way possible?

    No.

    5) Would you trade freedom for slavery?

    Obviously not, although I don't equate paying taxes with slavery, I equate it with being a grown-up.

    6) If not [sic] how can this lady possible [sic] get confermed [sic]?

    What in these hearings has led you to believe that she's a threat to the country? Concrete details and examples would be nice.

    7) Will all the dems [sic] vote for her just to please Obama with no consern [sic] for there [sic] country?

    What's she going to do to destroy the country? Seriously, what in these hearings has led you to believe that she seriously damage the court.

  2. It's going to take this country many many years to undo the damage Obama is doing with his nominations to the SCOTUS in only 2 years.

    Sotomayor, who as Glenn Beck pointed out, lied during her hearings about her stance on gun ownership and the 2nd amendment, and now this one.

  3. Has it come to the point all democrats are socialist? Does being a dem. mean you want political activist judges? Does being a democrat mean you hold our constatution in comtempt? Does it mean you hate our form of goverment and it must be changed any way possible? Would you trade freedom for slavery? If not how can this lady possible get confermed? Will all the dems vote for her just to please Obama with no consern for there country? GOD SAVE US!

  4. She speaks better lies than Obama does. No wonders O'man likes her, she's just another member of a family of good liars. It is hard to believe that this once a nation of brilliant people, is being run by stupid hearthless idiots! I'm sorry but I am soooo sick and tired of watching this great nations going down the tube.

  5. Wow, she definitely used to work for Slick Willy with that kind of a response. Right up there with his “That depends on what your definition of the word is is”

Comments are closed.