Its almost unbelievible ...

[christiefan915]

YouTube- Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

And liberal dumb-ass Democrats have the freakin' balls to think this clown is fit for the Supreme Court of the United States...

God fuckin' help us....

Never trust a video that gives a politician the last word.

...Politico picked up where the clip left off, offering a partial transcript of the mini-debate. Kagan noted that courts would question whether ordering people to eat fruits and vegetables had a substantial connection to interstate commerce. After all, she observed, non-economic activity is beyond the reach of the Commerce clause. Throwing the ball back in Coburn's court, she said, "We can come up with sort of, you know, just ridiculous-sounding laws, and the principal protector against bad laws is the political branches themselves."

But Coburn didn't like the idea of lawmakers being accountable for their own actions. He pressed Kagan to join him in a vision of a vigorous, clock-rewinding court that held lawmakers in check. As he put it, "What we find ourselves today on the Commerce clause is through a period of precedent-setting decisions we have allowed the federal government to become something that it was never entitled to become. And with that a diminishment of the liberties of the people of this country both financially and in terms of their own liberty."

Somehow I don't think it takes an expansive reading of the Commerce clause to wage two wars off-budget, cut taxes without cutting spending, and then go hundreds of billions of dollars deeper into the hole when a recession hits. But I digress. Kagan's answer illustrates the difference between how conservatives define judicial activism (advancing equity) and how liberals do (rejecting precedents):

I do think that very early in our history -- and especially I would look to Gibbons v. Ogden, where Chief Justice Marshall did in the first case about these issues -- essentially read that clause broadly and provide real deference to legislatures and provide real deference to Congress about the scope of that clause. Not that that clause doesn’t have any limits, but that deference should be provided to Congress with respect to matters that affect interstate commerce.

By the way, the courts have already recognized that insurance is a matter of interstate commerce. Requiring people to buy it can be seen as a necessary companion to regulations that require insurers to offer policies to everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Without the mandate to buy coverage, people would game the system by waiting to purchase insurance until they needed treatment. The sale of produce is interstate commerce, too, but it's hard to come up with a legitimate regulatory regime that relies on a mandate that people eat their fruits and vegetables.

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/07/elena-kagan-on-fruits-and-vegetables.html

 

[Damocles]

Never trust a video that gives a politician the last word.

...Politico picked up where the clip left off, offering a partial transcript of the mini-debate. Kagan noted that courts would question whether ordering people to eat fruits and vegetables had a substantial connection to interstate commerce. After all, she observed, non-economic activity is beyond the reach of the Commerce clause. Throwing the ball back in Coburn's court, she said, "We can come up with sort of, you know, just ridiculous-sounding laws, and the principal protector against bad laws is the political branches themselves."

But Coburn didn't like the idea of lawmakers being accountable for their own actions. He pressed Kagan to join him in a vision of a vigorous, clock-rewinding court that held lawmakers in check. As he put it, "What we find ourselves today on the Commerce clause is through a period of precedent-setting decisions we have allowed the federal government to become something that it was never entitled to become. And with that a diminishment of the liberties of the people of this country both financially and in terms of their own liberty."

Somehow I don't think it takes an expansive reading of the Commerce clause to wage two wars off-budget, cut taxes without cutting spending, and then go hundreds of billions of dollars deeper into the hole when a recession hits. But I digress. Kagan's answer illustrates the difference between how conservatives define judicial activism (advancing equity) and how liberals do (rejecting precedents):

I do think that very early in our history -- and especially I would look to Gibbons v. Ogden, where Chief Justice Marshall did in the first case about these issues -- essentially read that clause broadly and provide real deference to legislatures and provide real deference to Congress about the scope of that clause. Not that that clause doesn’t have any limits, but that deference should be provided to Congress with respect to matters that affect interstate commerce.

By the way, the courts have already recognized that insurance is a matter of interstate commerce. Requiring people to buy it can be seen as a necessary companion to regulations that require insurers to offer policies to everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Without the mandate to buy coverage, people would game the system by waiting to purchase insurance until they needed treatment. The sale of produce is interstate commerce, too, but it's hard to come up with a legitimate regulatory regime that relies on a mandate that people eat their fruits and vegetables.

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/07/elena-kagan-on-fruits-and-vegetables.html

This doesn't change anything. The reality is, forcing you to purchase something is beyond the power of the commerce clause. The Federal government does not have the power to force you to be a consumer. It is weak to pretend that food would be free in this one case and that it would not involve commerce to force you to purchase and consume specific government-approved vegetables...

The example may be "silly", but it places the reality into a bit of perspective.

 

[Canceled1]

Damn if she isn't the spittin' image of my friend's dead-beat husband.

This woman lends a whole new meaning to "Homely as a mud hen".

 

[Bonestorm]

This doesn't change anything. The reality is, forcing you to purchase something is beyond the power of the commerce clause. The Federal government does not have the power to force you to be a consumer. It is weak to pretend that food would be free in this one case and that it would not involve commerce to force you to purchase and consume specific government-approved vegetables...

The example may be "silly", but it places the reality into a bit of perspective.

I watched the video. It consists of Coburn prattling on and on and on and on like politicians do while Kagan does the most that any recent Supreme Court nominee does when presented a hypothetical - she gave the basic legal standard applicable to the question presented rather than opining on the specifics of the hypothetical presented: Congress cannot regulate non-economic activity (such telling what people they have to eat) through the commerce clause.

 

[christiefan915]

This doesn't change anything. The reality is, forcing you to purchase something is beyond the power of the commerce clause. The Federal government does not have the power to force you to be a consumer. It is weak to pretend that food would be free in this one case and that it would not involve commerce to force you to purchase and consume specific government-approved vegetables...

The example may be "silly", but it places the reality into a bit of perspective.

Take it up with the hypothetical Congress that passed such an act, and the hypothetical President who signed it into law. After all, judges aren't supposed to legislate from the bench.

 

[Damocles]

I watched the video. It consists of Coburn prattling on and on and on and on like politicians do while Kagan does the most that any recent Supreme Court nominee does when presented a hypothetical - she gave the basic legal standard applicable to the question presented rather than opining on the specifics of the hypothetical presented: Congress cannot regulate non-economic activity (such telling what people they have to eat) through the commerce clause.

Again, pretending that the forced purchase of specific items wouldn't be "commerce" is just silly.

 

[Damocles]

Take it up with the hypothetical Congress that passed such an act, and the hypothetical President who signed it into law. After all, judges aren't supposed to legislate from the bench.

They are supposed to rule on whether laws are constitutional. It is best to take up that kind of question with somebody who might sit on that bench. In this case, would it be constitutional to force people to be consumers? As I stated, IMO it would not. You cannot force people to be a consumer, the commerce clause doesn't give the Feds that kind of power.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, pretending that the forced purchase of specific items wouldn't be "commerce" is just silly.

And also like all recent SCOTUS nominees, Kagan answered the question presented and only the question presented, specifically, "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 that’s now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the commerce clause?"

The question presented was about non-economic activity and Kagan answered it.

 

[Damocles]

And also like all recent SCOTUS nominees, Kagan answered the question presented and only the question presented, specifically, "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 that’s now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the commerce clause?"

The question presented was about non-economic activity and Kagan answered it.

Only if you cut off the portion of your brain that understands that people must purchase before they consume would that possibly not be part of commerce. IMO, she tried to make an excuse for how she would rule on the federally enforced purchase of health care insurance.

 

[Bonestorm]

Only if you cut off the portion of your brain that understands that people must purchase before they consume would that possibly not be part of commerce. IMO, she tried to make an excuse for how she would rule on the federally enforced purchase of health care insurance.

Well, if Coburn wanted an answer to a question regarding whether Congress has the power to compel people to purchase stuff throguh the commerce clause he should have asked it. He didn't. Instead, he asked whether Congress can tell people that they have to eat certain things.

Kagan's a smart, well-prepared, well-trained lawyer. She answered the question he asked and, frankly, gave more of a response to a hypothetical than most nominees would.

 

[Damocles]

Well, if Coburn wanted an answer to a question regarding whether Congress has the power to compel people to purchase stuff throguh the commerce clause he should have asked it. He didn't. Instead, he asked whether Congress can tell people that they have to eat certain things.

Kagan's a smart, well-prepared, well-trained lawyer. She answered the question he asked and, frankly, gave more of a response to a hypothetical than most nominees would.

I agree, the guy should have been better prepared with a better question. Like, "If I were to make a law that told you that you had to purchase 1 serving of specific vegetables each day..."

However, pretending that it isn't about commerce to ask if the government can force you to consume is silly, she played a childish game to give herself an excuse for a later ruling. Every person alive today with a knowledge of stores, including my youngest daughter, knows that to consume you have to purchase.

 

[DamnYankee]

These hearings are a farce, and here is a perfect example why.

During Stomayor's confirmation hearing, she said that 'she supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms'.

This was a lie, because in the McDonald vs. Chicago case, she wrote a dissenting opinion:

...the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.

Until such time that the Senate has the balls to impeach judges for these offenses, these hearings will continue to be a joke.