Sen. Coburn Presses Kagan On "Natural" Law

[Doubro1969]

I think she really meant .... "If you're fortunate enough for me to be concerned" with peoples "unalienabe rights"

[vederchi]

In other words. "Senator..........you'll have to give me truth serum to get the real answer you are looking for".

[todoke]

what an asshole

[Francebrasil]

Why does this senator remind me of the radical Mullahs plaguing the Muslim world? The Neo cons and the Taliban have a lot in common in their obtuse way of looking at laws and reading a text.

[ShaytanBozorg]

@Francebrasil, you're a fucking moron, a radical yourself, and probably not even American.

[Francebrasil]

@ShaytanBozorg You're wrong on all three points... What's new???

[ShaytanBozorg]

@Francebrasil, no, two are right, you nasty prick.

[supafly345]

This was pretty sweet. Its exciting to see someone standing up for the preference of thinking with the mind over the challenge of thinking with one's heart. When it comes to court decisions, for better or for worse, they must remain emotionless and enact the cold written law.

[SoOutThere]

I think she showed her position quite clearly. This is why people should be concerned with these types of people put in positions of "control" of law over others reality. As seen, they can paint black as white and the moon as the sun, without uttering a single intelligent sentence of relevance to the question.

They are wired and "programmed this way". This is how they get to the top. The good news, people are waking up to their charade and questioning authenticity.

[OlSpazzy]

@SoOutThere You do realize the Senator's line of questioning basically amounts to a religious litmus test, right? Separation of church and state, anyone? She was perfectly in line to dodge his bullshit question about her views on "natural laws", a wholly irrelevant matter for someone who's job is to interpret constitutional law.

Should she have to explain her position on "xenu law", too? Is it a legitimate question to ask what she thinks about Buddhist enlightenment?

The declaration is not law

[SecondAmdmt]

@OlSpazzy Obama was correct when he said "the Const. is a document of negative liberties". It was DESIGNED this way to prevent govt from infringing on peoples rights. Those rights are inherent and not GRANTED by the govt. If the govt can grant rights, it can take them away. This is also true with separation of church and state. The framers wanted to prevent the govt from infringing on our rights to/from religion, NOT keeping religion out of govt (do some honest homework).

[SecondAmdmt]

@OlSpazzy This is why his questioning is ENTIRELY relevant. If she doesn't believe we have inherent rights (Dec. of Ind.) then she believes all of the freedoms we enjoy are because the govt ALLOWS it. I'll bet you understood this concept well when GWB signed the PATRIOT Act.

[SoOutThere]

@OlSpazzy

>She was perfectly in line to dodge his bullshit question

How was it a bullshit question when it was trying to understand inherent rights and her from own personal perspective? It is a simple and valid question. Sorry you deem it bullshit.

Your point on xenu law makes no sense either.

[Doubro1969]

@OlSpazzy Not a religious litmus test, but an American litmus test. Her job is to interpret the Constitution and she must understand the Founding to do so. The Declaration of Independance created the country and was the basis and justification for creating an American government.

Natural law regards individual human rights that are given by the "Creator" or Nature or whatever you wish to call it. Even Atheists can value Humanity.

AN IDEA Not neccessarily religious, but neccessarily American.