| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Washington, DC – In a surprisingly frank discussion of her philosophy on judging that drew praise from Democrats and sharp criticism from Republicans, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan admitted today that she prefers to roll her dice behind a screen in case she needs to modify the results to better suit the game she is running.
“The GM screen was created for a reason,” she said, testifying before the Senate Judicial Committee during the second day of her confirmation hearings. Kagan went on to clarify, “It is extremely important that the players feel that the game is fair, but at times the rules, strictly applied, produce a gaming experience that is satisfying to no one. Those are the times when a good judge knows to ‘fudge’ a bit, for the sake of everyone at the table.”
The comments came in response to questioning by Senator Al Franken (D-WI), who has in recent weeks expressed concerns over some of Kagan’s writings during her time as legal counsel for the Clinton Administration. Franken and other Democrats had suggested that briefs written during that time hinted at a belief in a powerful executive branch, similar to the philosophy put forward by members of the Bush Administration after Sept. 11. Today’s comments, however, drew praise from the Democrats on the Judicial Committee. “It’s important for any judge to understand that her decisions affect real people,” said Franken. “Game rules are not straitjackets and judges are not automatons; by seeking to apply the rules in a way that benefits everyone, Ms. Kagan is demonstrating true judicial quality.”
Republicans on the Committee, however, pounced on the remarks as signs that Kagan would be a “results-oriented judge.” Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Committee, had some of the strongest criticism of Kagan’s remarks. “That a nominee would admit to such behavior is really quite shocking,” he said, “and raises serious concerns about her fitness for the Supreme Court. Why bother having dice at all? Perhaps Ms. Kagan would be better off simply playing make-believe, or Cops and Robbers on the playground. If the dice say a character dies, that should be that. It is clear to me that Ms. Kagan’s position is distinctly outside the gaming mainstream.”
Other GMs were largely unavailable for comment, thanks to a large World of Warcraft raid scheduled for this afternoon.
Sorry about hijacking your humor thread, but I wondered what people thought of this comment I caught.
Kagan: I do believe that rights need a textual basis in the constitution and they might have that basis in general clauses, but there needs to be textual basis in the constitution for any right.
My personal opinion. Thank god for Rhode Island.
|
Sorry about hijacking your humor thread, but I wondered what people thought of this comment I caught.
Kagan: I do believe that rights need a textual basis in the constitution and they might have that basis in general clauses, but there needs to be textual basis in the constitution for any right.
My personal opinion. Thank god for Rhode Island.
I don't even know what that means...
(both kagan's and your statement)
Carpy DM:
DM Fiat and GM screen's go together like a peanut butter and banana sandwich. Thanks for bringing this to the attention of right-thinking referees on these boards.
The rest of you Neanderthals are invited to my next show, so I can figure out what's wrong with you in front of a live studio audience.
Dm Phil
Washington, DC – In a surprisingly frank discussion of her philosophy on judging that drew praise from Democrats and sharp criticism from Republicans, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan admitted today that she prefers to roll her dice behind a screen in case she needs to modify the results to better suit the game she is running.
“The GM screen was created for a reason,” she said, testifying before the Senate Judicial Committee during the second day of her confirmation hearings. Kagan went on to clarify, “It is extremely important that the players feel that the game is fair, but at times the rules, strictly applied, produce a gaming experience that is satisfying to no one. Those are the times when a good judge knows to ‘fudge’ a bit, for the sake of everyone at the table.”
The comments came in response to questioning by Senator Al Franken (D-WI), who has in recent weeks expressed concerns over some of Kagan’s writings during her time as legal counsel for the Clinton Administration. Franken and other Democrats had suggested that briefs written during that time hinted at a belief in a powerful executive branch, similar to the philosophy put forward by members of the Bush Administration after Sept. 11. Today’s comments, however, drew praise from the Democrats on the Judicial Committee. “It’s important for any judge to understand that her decisions affect real people,” said Franken. “Game rules are not straitjackets and judges are not automatons; by seeking to apply the rules in a way that benefits everyone, Ms. Kagan is demonstrating true judicial quality.”
Republicans on the Committee, however, pounced on the remarks as signs that Kagan would be a “results-oriented judge.” Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Committee, had some of the strongest criticism of Kagan’s remarks. “That a nominee would admit to such behavior is really quite shocking,” he said, “and raises serious concerns about her fitness for the Supreme Court. Why bother having dice at all? Perhaps Ms. Kagan...
"I don't care who you are. That's funny!"
Sorry about hijacking your humor thread, but I wondered what people thought of this comment I caught.
Kagan: I do believe that rights need a textual basis in the constitution and they might have that basis in general clauses, but there needs to be textual basis in the constitution for any right.
My personal opinion. Thank god for Rhode Island.
I don't even know what that means...
(both kagan's and your statement)
She is saying, as I understand it, something can't be claimed as a "right" if you can't point to actual text in the constitution that indicates it. It doesn't have to 100% obviously but there has to be actual textual support for the claim.
This is actual a bit of a paradox, because on its face, it would seem to contradict the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
But since that IS in the constitution, I guess then her comment isn't saying there has to be support because the 9th amendment gives it support but then there is textual support so *head explodes*
As for my comment about Rhode Island, RI was the last colony to sign the constitution, and only after several states had ratified the bill of rights.
Sorry about hijacking your humor thread, but I wondered what people thought of this comment I caught.
Kagan: I do believe that rights need a textual basis in the constitution and they might have that basis in general clauses, but there needs to be textual basis in the constitution for any right.
My personal opinion. Thank god for Rhode Island.
I don't even know what that means...
(both kagan's and your statement)
Kagan's comments suggest that she adheres to a philosophy that there are no fundamental human rights; you only have the rights granted to you by the state.
There is very little in her work to contextualize her frame of reference. She is a true stealth candidate. I'm sure she hasn't worked this hard her entire life to keep her positions secret because she has my best interest at heart.
Kagan's comments suggest that she adheres to a philosophy that there are no fundamental human rights; you only have the rights granted to you by the state.
There is very little in her work to contextualize her frame of reference. She is a true stealth candidate. I'm sure she hasn't worked this hard her entire life to keep her positions secret because she has my best interest at heart.
I suspect that she, like most of us, has her own best interest at heart. ;-)
Washington, DC – In a surprisingly frank discussion of her philosophy on judging that drew praise from Democrats and sharp criticism from Republicans, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan admitted today that she prefers to roll her dice behind a screen in case she needs to modify the results to better suit the game she is running.
“The GM screen was created for a reason,” she said, testifying before the Senate Judicial Committee during the second day of her confirmation hearings. Kagan went on to clarify, “It is extremely important that the players feel that the game is fair, but at times the rules, strictly applied, produce a gaming experience that is satisfying to no one. Those are the times when a good judge knows to ‘fudge’ a bit, for the sake of everyone at the table.”
The comments came in response to questioning by Senator Al Franken (D-WI), who has in recent weeks expressed concerns over some of Kagan’s writings during her time as legal counsel for the Clinton Administration. Franken and other Democrats had suggested that briefs written during that time hinted at a belief in a powerful executive branch, similar to the philosophy put forward by members of the Bush Administration after Sept. 11. Today’s comments, however, drew praise from the Democrats on the Judicial Committee. “It’s important for any judge to understand that her decisions affect real people,” said Franken. “Game rules are not straitjackets and judges are not automatons; by seeking to apply the rules in a way that benefits everyone, Ms. Kagan is demonstrating true judicial quality.”
Republicans on the Committee, however, pounced on the remarks as signs that Kagan would be a “results-oriented judge.” Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Committee, had some of the strongest criticism of Kagan’s remarks. “That a nominee would admit to such behavior is really quite shocking,” he said, “and raises serious concerns about her fitness for the Supreme Court. Why bother having dice at all? Perhaps Ms. Kagan...
Excellent post. :D
Somebody, I say somebody is playing fox in the hen house!
Somebody, I say somebody is playing fox in the hen house!Mmmmm....chicken.
*grabs for a napkin for the drool*
My ghost post is better than your ghost post.
I like it better when the douchey political thread gets hi-jacked by teh funny, rather than vice versa.
La, yes.
I'm just glad it finally got read.... ;)
Welcome to Paizo, Carpy. Great name.
Welcome to Paizo, Carpy. Great name.
What he said.
excellent parody
I love these boards.
Welcome to Paizo, Carpy. Great name.What he said.
+2
(realizes with horror that he called the Judiciary Committee the "Judicial Committee" every single time...)