First black justice called original Constitution "defective"
Republican National Chairman Michael Steele is calling Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to account for her comments in support of Thurgood Marshall, the first black justice on the nation's highest court.
Steele's statement is attracting plenty of attention from liberal bloggers, who never miss a chance to whack the Republican Party's first black chairman. Minutes after Obama announced his nomination, Steele said that Senate Republicans would raise "serious and tough questions" about Kagan's legal philosophy. That includes comments she made in support of Marshall, who described the Constitution as originally drafted and conceived as "defective."
But a prominent Republican blogger, conservative scholar Abigail Thernstrom, was critical of Steele as well, advising the RNC chairman and staff to "try thinking before you speak." Steele's words also provoked private concern from Republican strategists, who questioned the wisdom of attacking Kagan for words she wrote praising Marshall after his death in 1993.
GO HERE to read more.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
17 comments:
I am not a Republican, but I do not see any problem with Steele's comments.
Of course none of us can criticize her as a candidate. She is a homosexual.
She gets a free pass.
How can you say no to a homosexual candidate?
Are you people really that blinded by partisan politics? Steele has to be an absolute partisan wack job or a fool if he thinks this is an issue to debate. Of course the original constitution was defective which is why it has been repeatedly amended and why we have rules set up to amend the document. This includes amendments that gave Steele's own ancestors equal rights in this country. Isn't this common sense or am I just taking crazy pills?!
I don't like to throw around the phrase, but when you are that blatantly turn a blind eye to the "defects" of this country and her history in order to advance your own career, well I think most of us would consider that the exact definition of an Uncle Tom.
What does her sexuality have to do with her ability to do the job? Why can't you guys have a healthy debate by focusing on issues?
Alex,
Her sexuality has nothing to do with the job. However, it has everything to do with why she was chosen. She is a compromised person. Therefore her ties to Goldmann Sachs will be swept under the rug - if it even comes up! Because of her sexuality, she will be appointed. No one can say no to a person who is homosexual. If they do, then, the reaction will be about discrimination.
She should be rejected because of her corruptness and compromised behavioral problems. However, she will be appointed in spite of her corruption with Goldmann Sachs - BECAUSE of her bahavioral problems (homosexuality).
I hope that clears it up
9:21
You seem to miss the fact that when the constitution is ammended, the amendment process is done by a majority of the states, not by some left wing wacko queer activist judge who thinks (s)he wants to frame it in her own image.
Obama picked this nut job because he's confidant that if placed on the bench (s)he will pass down decisions that have nothing to do with the constitution as written and amended.
So quit taking the crazy pills, they're are twisting your judgement.
Yeah, 9:50, she's the wack job, and you are totally rational. Please.
hey dummy at 9:50, the supreme court cannot change the constitution! Sheesh, read a book son before you start trying to bash someone.
-9:21
Steele is a knucklehead and an embarrassment as head of the RNC. Kagan will sail through the process without difficulty, so why has Steele picked such a petty topic to criticize. If everytime Obama or the Democrats do anything Steele is going to whine, when he does have a substantative issue to complain about, no one, including Republicans like myself, will listen. It's called choosing your battles.
10:05
If they can't functionlly change the constitution then show me where it says there is a seperation of church and state in the constitution.
Show that one to me sheesh yourself dummy
Left wing activist judges have been chipping away at the constitution for years.
Show me where in the constitution a local government can take away private property. Show that one to me idiot!
The "defective" portion of the quote relates to blacks and slavery. The original Constitution does not deal with this issue where "all men are created equal". The original Constitution kicks the can down the road. In this respect any rational person must agree, the Constitution is "defective".
Steele really had to dig for this one and this is all he got?
10:30 The name calling shows you really don't have a valid point.
As drafted in 1789, the U.S Constitution applied to less than 40% of the American population. Slaves did not receive any of the Constitutional guarantees, and women were specifically excluded from voting.
As drafted and adopted, the Constitution WAS defective for more than 6 out of every 10 people living in America.
4:09 But that is OK with the old white straight men posting on here. That's what they mean when they say "give us our country back"
To 10:05 - The First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
However, I agree with you that the SCt, while not authorized to amend the Constitution does make decisions on its interpretation which can have broad impacts as though the document was amended. But, that is the beauty of the document and the system. Having provisions for amendment does not equal defective. The fact is that many drafters knew they would need to address slavery and, as said by another, kicked the can down the road. They knew what they needed to accomplish to have the states come together and fight for independence from the King and left the slavery issue to be dealt with once the government staggered to its feet. A practical, albeit unfortunate, decision. But without that decision, this Great Experiment that is the USA would not exist.
"great experiment". Why do you guys think the founder fathers were so much better than man today? They were out for the same thing; "money, power, respect". Which means they were out to get there's even if it meant keeping a boot on someone else's neck.
I'm a proud American, but my pride is rooted in truth, not some mystical view of history.
Post a Comment