[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
So, when do you think she’ll officially come out of the closet?[/quote]
As soon as we can prove she is the daughter of Beaker![/quote]
Beaker is prettier. Is being an absolute troll a requirement for being a female in the supreme court?
I think we need a Megan Fox on the high court. At least she’s ot.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
So, when do you think she’ll officially come out of the closet?[/quote]
As soon as we can prove she is the daughter of Beaker![/quote]
Beaker is prettier. Is being an absolute troll a requirement for being a female in the supreme court?
I think we need a Megan Fox on the high court. At least she’s ot.[/quote]
Showed her (Kagan) pic to some of my students. They then debated if she was the ugliest woman on the planet, with every girl saying she was an obvious lesbian. LOL!! Man, I love my students!!
One concern to have is that she might have anger issues. Being uber ugly might make her hate everyone else who looks like a normal human.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
So, when do you think she’ll officially come out of the closet?[/quote]
As soon as we can prove she is the daughter of Beaker![/quote]
Beaker is prettier. Is being an absolute troll a requirement for being a female in the supreme court?
I think we need a Megan Fox on the high court. At least she’s ot.[/quote]
I dont think it will happen. Megan Fox is 25? Kagan is 100. To get on the USSC you will have to be 50 years old or older in my opinion. Other than McCain’s wife I think it will be hard to find a hottie at that age. I have been known to be wrong.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I find it hard to believe this person has no experience as a judge. This cannot be true. No way. [/quote]
Where have you people been? This is not new either for nominations or Supreme Court justices. As a lawyer, it’s not something I’m a fan of either. But it’s not like this is some big departure. I hope you all complained as loudly against Harriet Miers (who was objectively less qualified even if you liked her positions better). But I doubt you did. I hope you all complain the next time a Republican president does this. But I doubt you will.
From what we can tell of her, she’s much less liberal than a lot of people Barack could have nominated. You should be happy about that.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
So, when do you think she’ll officially come out of the closet?[/quote]
As soon as we can prove she is the daughter of Beaker![/quote]
Beaker is prettier. Is being an absolute troll a requirement for being a female in the supreme court?
I think we need a Megan Fox on the high court. At least she’s ot.[/quote]
Showed her (Kagan) pic to some of my students. They then debated if she was the ugliest woman on the planet, with every girl saying she was an obvious lesbian. LOL!! Man, I love my students!!
One concern to have is that she might have anger issues. Being uber ugly might make her hate everyone else who looks like a normal human.
[/quote]
wow, I feel sorry for the closeted lesbian in your class.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
So, when do you think she’ll officially come out of the closet?[/quote]
As soon as we can prove she is the daughter of Beaker![/quote]
Beaker is prettier. Is being an absolute troll a requirement for being a female in the supreme court?
I think we need a Megan Fox on the high court. At least she’s ot.[/quote]
Showed her (Kagan) pic to some of my students. They then debated if she was the ugliest woman on the planet, with every girl saying she was an obvious lesbian. LOL!! Man, I love my students!!
One concern to have is that she might have anger issues. Being uber ugly might make her hate everyone else who looks like a normal human.
[/quote]
Almost all of the women (with the possible exception of Sandra) and many of the men on the Supreme Court have been pretty ugly. Now and historically.
She is a devil…
"In a scathing concurrence to the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Kaganâ??s argument.
â??The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,â?? he wrote.
â??Its theory, if accepted, would empower the government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations â?? as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.â??
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that Kagan was defending a law that represents an illegitimate attempt to use â??censorship to control thought.â??
This nomination is another example of Obama giving back to his cronies. This is a friend of his that shares his same views. You might not think she is as liberal as she could have been, but how can we make that determination without any rulings from her past? I hear her thesis from Princeton is on the level of radicalism as Michelle Obama’s thesis. Neither is locked down so I think you can view them both online.
JUST IN
SHE IS NOT GAY. Negative on Gayness. She is Straight People.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100512/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2018
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
JUST IN
SHE IS NOT GAY. Negative on Gayness. She is Straight People.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100512/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2018[/quote]
Until when? When she steps down in old age and signs a seven-figure book deal that tells her life story?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
JUST IN
SHE IS NOT GAY. Negative on Gayness. She is Straight People.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100512/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2018[/quote]
Until when? When she steps down in old age and signs a seven-figure book deal that tells her life story?[/quote]
LOL…true enough…Well she does have people telling us they saw her dating men in college 30 years ago, which is TOTALLY TRUE… and no real lesbian ever did that.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
JUST IN
SHE IS NOT GAY. Negative on Gayness. She is Straight People.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100512/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2018[/quote]
Until when? When she steps down in old age and signs a seven-figure book deal that tells her life story?[/quote]
LOL…true enough…Well she does have people telling us they saw her dating men in college 30 years ago, which is TOTALLY TRUE… and no real lesbian ever did that.
[/quote]
Lol. I don’t even know that there’s been that much. People have said she professed interest in certain men and invited them to dinner parties. Nothing concrete about any relationship (sexual or otherwise).
She could just be asexual. There are people like that. Also, there may be a supply problem. She’s not exactly easy on the eyes. I don’t really care if she’s gay or not. There are other reasons to be concerned about the nomination, though no moreso in my opinon than others who were on the shortlist.
Interesting…