Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 29, 2010, 12:32:30 PM
-
Kagan: Foreign law can be useful in deciding cases
Associated Press ^ | June 29, 2010
Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:26:59 PM by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan says foreign law could be useful "for getting good ideas" when interpreting the U.S. Constitution but that justices should not feel bound by it.
Kagan was speaking Tuesday in response to questioning by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley on the role of international law in U.S. courts, which some conservatives oppose.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
________________________ ____________________
Palin is more important. ::) ::)
Good job obama voters. Kagan makes harriet meirs look great by comparison.
-
Yes it could be important but as she said it's personal preference. What you think judges aren't influenced by what's going on around them? They are people you know, not robots.
You're clutching at straws here if that's all you have.
-
Yes it could be important but as she said it's personal preference. What you think judges aren't influenced by what's going on around them? They are people you know, not robots.
You're clutching at straws here if that's all you have.
Good, when you go to court and try to enforce a contract and the judge rules against you citing a case in pakistan or iran, while the us law would have favored your position, lets see your reaction.
-
Good, when you go to court and try to enforce a contract and the judge rules against you citing a case in pakistan or iran, while the us law would have favored your position, lets see your reaction.
hahaha nice over reaction there buddy. Swing and a miss
-
hahaha nice over reaction there buddy. Swing and a miss
Exactly.
The article he posted himself doesn't say that foreign law WILL be used to decided US cases.
As usual... epic fear mongering failure.
-
Exactly.
The article he posted himself doesn't say that foreign law WILL be used to decided US cases.
As usual... epic fear mongering failure.
::) ::)
The fat dyke you supported Sotomayor lied in her hearings re: the 2nd amendment and we have no reason whatsoever to believe that this hag will be any different.
-
Exactly.
The article he posted himself doesn't say that foreign law WILL be used to decided US cases.
As usual... epic fear mongering failure.
Exactly. All she's saying is what everyone does - have influence from outside sources. Sh*t judges can be influenced by what a defendant wears to court or the lawyers voice or tone. Law is subjective and all she's saying is that influences from other countries could be helpful especially when deciding something that has no case law history in america.
But typical 333 over reacts.
-
But typical 333 over reacts.
Yep.
He can't do or post anything without a whine slant to it. WANGBC.
Oh look!!! The sky is falling.
-
Our entire foundation of Law is based on foreign law.
Magna Carta, also called Magna Carta Libertatum (the Great Charter of Liberty), is an English legal charter, originally issued in the year 1215. It was written in Latin and is known by its Latin name. The usual English translation of Magna Carta is Great Charter.
Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain rights (pertaining to freemen), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — and implicitly supported what became the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.
Magna Carta was arguably [according to whom?]the most significant [citation needed] early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today in the English speaking world. However, it was "far from unique, either in content or form" [1]. Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law [citation needed] and many constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.[2] Many clauses were renewed throughout the Middle Ages, and continued to be renewed as late as the 18th century. By the second half of the 19th century, however, most clauses in their original form had been repealed from English law.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I voluntarily stated that his own powers were under the law.
In practice, Magna Carta in the medieval period mostly did not limit the power of Kings; but by the time of the English Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law.
Magna Carta is normally understood to refer to a single document, that of 1215. Various amended versions of Magna Carta appeared in subsequent years however, and it is the 1297 version which remains on the statute books of England and Wales.
Magna Carta's "fame is primarily due, however, not to its intrinsic merits but the use parliamentarians made of it in their struggle with the Stuarts in the Seventeenth Century and the export of this myth to New England by the early settlers"[3].
-
Yep.
He can't do or post anything without a whine slant to it. WANGBC.
Oh look!!! The sky is falling.
Two uninformed left wing dolts chipe in. When assessing a case, you are supposed to look at legal precedent, the case law, the congressional intent, and the U.S. Constitution, not what Kenya does.
-
Our entire foundation of Law is based on foreign law.
Magna Carta, also called Magna Carta Libertatum (the Great Charter of Liberty), is an English legal charter, originally issued in the year 1215. It was written in Latin and is known by its Latin name. The usual English translation of Magna Carta is Great Charter.
Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain rights (pertaining to freemen), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — and implicitly supported what became the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.
Magna Carta was arguably [according to whom?]the most significant [citation needed] early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today in the English speaking world. However, it was "far from unique, either in content or form" [1]. Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law [citation needed] and many constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.[2] Many clauses were renewed throughout the Middle Ages, and continued to be renewed as late as the 18th century. By the second half of the 19th century, however, most clauses in their original form had been repealed from English law.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I voluntarily stated that his own powers were under the law.
In practice, Magna Carta in the medieval period mostly did not limit the power of Kings; but by the time of the English Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law.
Magna Carta is normally understood to refer to a single document, that of 1215. Various amended versions of Magna Carta appeared in subsequent years however, and it is the 1297 version which remains on the statute books of England and Wales.
Magna Carta's "fame is primarily due, however, not to its intrinsic merits but the use parliamentarians made of it in their struggle with the Stuarts in the Seventeenth Century and the export of this myth to New England by the early settlers"[3].
Sorry Tu, go to law school like George W. and myself and get back us.
What she was referring to is seeking a political solution to an issue where she can not find a legal one in American law. This is all to seek a pre-determined outcome when the legal precedent disagrees with what she wants to be the outcome.
You guys have absolutley no clue how dangerous this is.
-
Two uninformed left wing dolts chipe in. When assessing a case, you are supposed to look at legal precedent, the case law, the congressional intent, and the U.S. Constitution, not what Kenya does.
What cases have you tried 333?
-
::) ::)
The fat dyke you supported Sotomayor lied in her hearings re: the 2nd amendment and we have no reason whatsoever to believe that this hag will be any different.
can't believe that vote was 5-4 :( should have been 9-0
if Obama gets to pick more radical judges our constitution will be dismantled
-
So let me see.She kicks military recruiters off of Harvards campus because SHE disagrees with dont as dont tell.After she is resoundly overturned by the supreme court,she then allows access and actually has the balls in the hearings today to say she respects the military.
This alone should disqualify her as a candidate.However,the reason no republican should vote for her is because the little community organiser voted against both Roberts and Alito,BOTH of whom were FAR more qualified then Kagen and Sotomyor.Republicans should simply apply the same standards to Obamas appointees that he applies.They are liberals,therefore they dont get on the court.Just as he voted againt both Roberts and Alito simply because they were conservative[and white].Perhaps Obama was pissed off because Roberts makes him look like a light weight.
-
Sorry Tu, go to law school like George W. and myself and get back us.
What she was referring to is seeking a political solution to an issue where she can not find a legal one in American law. This is all to seek a pre-determined outcome when the legal precedent disagrees with what she wants to be the outcome.
You guys have absolutley no clue how dangerous this is.
I think you are over reacting to be honest.
We often site international law when it comes to human rights and things of that nature... And we expect other countries in the western world to also abide by our laws when it comes to certain things.
I think in this instance you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
-
What cases have you tried 333?
I have tried cases on the NYS State level, handled a few appeals, have a few Federal cases going, and took classes in Con Law in law school.
How about you KC?
-
1) I dislike kagan
2) This argument is silly - our entire system is based on foreign law, as are most societies dating back to, well, the code of hammurabi (sp?) the first law set?
3) Epic attempt to label her as foreign loving, american hating because she studies what works/fails in other nations. Sad move by repubs who know she's getting the job and they can't stop it because they ran two goats in 2008 and backed bush, resulting in so many lost house/senate seats...
-
I think you are over reacting to be honest.
We often site international law when it comes to human rights and things of that nature... And we expect other countries in the western world to also abide by our laws when it comes to certain things.
I think in this instance you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
You are confusing two things.
The congress passing law that conforms to international norms can be in conformance with the U.S. Con. For example, banning the death penalty, etc.
That is not what she is saying. A perfect example is lets say the AZ law on immigration comes before the court and the U.S. legal precedent says its ok for whatsoever reason. And following u.s. legal precedent, the justices should uphold the law, however she seeks a different outcome. What she is saying is that she should or think its useful to look at foreign law to decide how to rule on a case as to whether its constitutional or not.
That's judicial anarchy, not legal process.
-
I have tried cases on the NYS State level, handled a few appeals, have a few Federal cases going, and took classes in Con Law in law school.
How about you KC?
So you're a former judge?
-
1) I dislike kagan
2) This argument is silly - our entire system is based on foreign law, as are most societies dating back to, well, the code of hammurabi (sp?) the first law set?
3) Epic attempt to label her as foreign loving, american hating because she studies what works/fails in other nations. Sad move by repubs who know she's getting the job and they can't stop it because they ran two goats in 2008 and backed bush, resulting in so many lost house/senate seats...
Ok moron - please find me one U.S. Sup Ct ruling citing the code of hammurabi as the justification for its ruling. ::) ::)
-
whats wrong with american constitutional law?? does it make too much sense ?
-
1) I dislike kagan
2) This argument is silly - our entire system is based on foreign law, as are most societies dating back to, well, the code of hammurabi (sp?) the first law set?
3) Epic attempt to label her as foreign loving, american hating because she studies what works/fails in other nations. Sad move by repubs who know she's getting the job and they can't stop it because they ran two goats in 2008 and backed bush, resulting in so many lost house/senate seats...
No she hates Americas military.She proved that all by herself.Backed Bush?You mean the guy that won two terms?
-
So when this the U.S. Const has the 2nd Amend this hag is saying she can look to foreign laws for "good ideas" in ways to invalidate it based on her political views, not legal views.
You morons are so ignorant of basic civics and education on these issues its scary.
-
Ok moron - please find me one U.S. Sup Ct ruling citing the code of hammurabi as the justification for its ruling. ::) ::)
I said it was based on foreign law leading back to the C of H. And yes, there are a lot of similarities:
Um, eye for an eye?
All men created equal?
False accusations?
Building regulations?
Unborn having rights?
Medical malpractice?
I was a poli sci major for a year ;)
-
I said it was based on foreign law leading back to the C of H. And yes, there are a lot of similarities:
Um, eye for an eye?
All men created equal?
False accusations?
Building regulations?
Unborn having rights?
Medical malpractice?
I was a poli sci major for a year ;)
Guess what, I went through law school and have spent years reading on these issues.
The Sup. Ct have never issued a ruling citing the code of hammurabi as the basis of its decision.
Good try at kneepadding Kagan though.
-
I never said it did. Again.
our entire system is based on foreign law, as are most societies dating back to, well, the code of hammurabi (sp?) the first law set?
We might be based on another nation, who is based on another nation, going way back to C of H.
-
I never said it did. Again.
We might be based on another nation, who is based on another nation, going way back to C of H.
Our system is based on the Constitution adopted by the States. Not Kenyan law, not hammurabi, not Saudi Arabian law, etc.
-
More disgusting treason from this hag.
-
Our system is based on the Constitution adopted by the States. Not Kenyan law, not hammurabi, not Saudi Arabian law, etc.
Did the states just make theirs up from scratch?
-
Did the states just make theirs up from scratch?
Dude, please educate yourself. You are regressing. State laws must not run afoul the U.S. Constitution. This was why the ruling this week on the 2nd was so big.
If your two new bffs kagan and sotomayor had their way, 240's glocks go bye bye.
-
240 - how would you have felt if Alito gave testimony that he thought it was ok to consult fortune cookies to decide on how to rule on a case since fortune cookies come from principals of confuscious? ?
-
Dude, please educate yourself. You are regressing. State laws must not run afoul the U.S. Constitution. This was why the ruling this week on the 2nd was so big.
If your two new bffs kagan and sotomayor had their way, 240's glocks go bye bye.
did you not see the 8 times i've said kagan sucks, in the last 2 days?
I think you really WANT me to be a lib lover, rather than a RINO hater ;)
-
did you not see the 8 times i've said kagan sucks, in the last 2 days?
I think you really WANT me to be a lib lover, rather than a RINO hater ;)
Many times its very hard to tell with you.
-
Why am I not surprised? The only good thing about Kagan is she will not impact the balance of the court (liberal replacing a liberal).
-
Why am I not surprised? The only good thing about Kagan is she will not impact the balance of the court (liberal replacing a liberal).
Pray for Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas.
The SC is reason enough for any sane person to vote for whoever the GOP puts up in 2012.
-
hahaha nice over reaction there buddy. Swing and a miss
Hahahaa ;D
-
Hahahaa ;D
So which foregin law do you want Kagan to consult when deciding 1st Amendment cases?
Saudi Arabian?
Kenyan?
N. Korean?
Iranian?
-
can we use n korean law when deciding how to handle illegal immigrants please?????????
-
and how about iranian law for people in the government that commit treason, and also when it comes to matters of the fags and lesbos
-
A lying hypocrite to boot.
________________________ ________________________ _______
Kagan Shifts on Disclosure of Legal Views at Hearings
Source: NY Times
By CHARLIE SAVAGE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: June 29, 2010
WASHINGTON — At the opening of questioning in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Solicitor General Elena Kagan quickly backpedaled from her past call for nominees to speak more openly about their constitutional views.
Under questioning by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, Ms. Kagan said she thought it would be inappropriate for her to talk about how she might rule only on pending cases or ’cases “that might come before the court in the future” — as well as to answer questions that were “veiled” efforts to get at such issues of current or future controversy.
Moreover, she said, she also now believed that “it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to talk about past cases” by essentially grading Supreme Court precedents, because those issues, too, might someday come again before the court.
In a 1995 book review, Ms. Kagan wrote that recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings had taken on “an air of vacuity and farce” because nominees would not engage in a meaningful discussion of legal issues, declining to answer any question that might “have some bearing on a case that might some day come before the Court.” She called on senators and future nominees to engage in a much more open and detailed discussion of legal issues.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/us/30kagan.html
-
Pray for Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas.
The SC is reason enough for any sane person to vote for whoever the GOP puts up in 2012.
I created several threads about judicial appointments before the election, but they didn't get any traction. The appointments are one of the least discussed issues during campaigns, which is unfortunate because judicial appointments are one of the most significant impacts the president has on the country.
-
240 - please tell me which foreign law you want kagan to use to interpret the 2nd amendment,
-
OOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSS SSSSSS
________________________ ___________-
A Smoking Gun in the Kagan Case?
http://powerlineblog.com/ ^
Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 8:56:05 PM by macquire
The note does appear to be in Kagan's handwriting; you can see a sample of her writing here. Unless there is some other interpretation of these documents that does not occur to me, it appears that Elena Kagan participated in a gigantic scientific deception. On behalf of the Clinton White House, she deliberately subverted what was supposed to be an objective scientific process. The ACOG report was certainly seen in that light by the federal courts. Federal Judge Richard Kopf was deeply impressed by the scientific integrity of the report; he wrote: "Before and during the task force meeting," he concluded, "neither ACOG nor the task force members conversed with other individuals or organizations, including congressmen and doctors who provided congressional testimony, concerning the topics addressed" in the ACOG statement. This statement was obviously false. The federal courts were victimized by a gross deception and a perversion of both the scientific process and the judicial process, carried out, the evidence appears to show, by Elena Kagan. Ms. Kagan has a great deal of explaining to do. Unless she can come up with an innocent explanation for these documents, she should not be confirmed.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
-
240 - please tell me which foreign law you want kagan to use to interpret the 2nd amendment,
??? none that I can think of.
however, I think it would be asinine for anybody to say "We will NEVER examine any foreign law when dealing with our own".
It would be extremely closed minded. Much like taking options off the table. They asked a stupid Q on this one.
She should not get the job based upon her position on guns - but not for this. Another example of pissing and moaning about little things.
-
??? none that I can think of.
however, I think it would be asinine for anybody to say "We will NEVER examine any foreign law when dealing with our own".
It would be extremely closed minded. Much like taking options off the table. They asked a stupid Q on this one.
She should not get the job based upon her position on guns - but not for this. Another example of pissing and moaning about little things.
Ask GW if he thinks this is a small thing, its not. Its huge to people in the legal community.