Obama is set to appoint yet another judicial activist to the US Supreme Court.
Kagan, whose only qualification appears to be that she is a radical who went to Harvard with Obama, counts Aharon Bharak as her judicial hero.
Bharak is widely viewed as having raised the Israeli Supreme Court above the government.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=153381
Kagan has little experience beyond academia and no judicial experience whatsoever.
What does the future hold for democracy as the benches become increasingly weighted with those who would seek to enforce their own views upon government and society instead of simply applying the laws that they are sworn to uphold?
What say will the people have in determining their own collective future?
Or is Kagan's appointment beneficial simply on the basis that it adds gender diversity to the Court?

The separation of powers is a convention we adopted from the United States of America as part of our constitutional arrangements.

Under our Federal Constitution the people of Australia are the sovereign power, it (the Constitution) sets out the legal rules and functions of the three arms of government. They are;
The Parliament (Senate and the House of Representatives). The Executive (The Prime Minister and the various Ministers and their Departments) and the Judicature.
Under our system all three arms of Government exist separately yet none may have unbridled power unto itself, this is known as the doctrine of the separation of powers.

The system works in this way. Parliament makes the law, the Executive carries it out and the Judiciary, (in this case the High Court), determines the law is legal and constitutional. The high court is charged with the responsibility of determining whether a Government is acting legally and within the constitution.

Why do you assume this appointment is a gender based one?

Why do you assume that someone with a different political leaning than yourself is less able to adhere to the principles of the Law?

Why do you assume that only Conservative judges are not influenced by their own beliefs in applying the Law?

Why do you assume that Conservatives are not pushing a particular view?

Lots of assumptions not much substance Proxy.

<<Why do you assume this appointment is a gender based one?>>
Obama's short list:
White females -
Diane Pamela Wood
Elena Kagan
Janet Napolitano
Jennifer Granholm
Black female -
Leah Ward Sears
Hispanic males -
Carlos Moreno
Ruben Castillo
White males -
Merrick B. Garland
Sidney Thomas (moved onto list when Sotomayor [Hispanic female] appointed to Supreme Court)

It is perfectly clear from the above that Obama's list is based on gender and race-based affirmative action and not solely on merit.

<<Why do you assume that someone with a different political leaning than yourself is less able to adhere to the principles of the Law?>>
I never said that.

<<Why do you assume that only Conservative judges are not influenced by their own beliefs in applying the Law?>>
I never said that.

<<Why do you assume that Conservatives are not pushing a particular view?>>
I never said that.

When Obama's last appointee is on the record as stating that the Court is where policy is made, it seems reasonable to call her a judicial activist.

When Obama's latest nominee is on the record as saying that her judicial hero is a Aharon Bharak, who is widely considered to be at the forefront of judicial activism, it seems reasonable to call her a judicial activist.

Are you suggesting that the fact that they are both left-wingers and judicial activists is more than a coincidence?

Dear Proxy,

A few corrections:

You stated in your opening post:

"Kagan's only qualification appears to be
that she is a radical who went to Harvard
with Obama?"

Really?

Elena Kagan actually went to Princeton.
However she was DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL!
You may not realize it - but that's no
small feat! Harvard Law School is the
leading Institution in the field of Law
in the country, if not the world. For a
person to achieve the position of Dean
of that law school means that their knowledge,
and credentials are impeccable.

She's also currently the Solicitor General of
the United States. Now to fill that position she
had to answer a 51 page questionnaire from the
Senate Judiciary Committee, a process she will
have to go through again if she is confirmed
as the next Supreme Court Justice. The nominating
process for the Supreme Court is intense. The
nominee is placed uder a microscope and thoroughly
scrutinized.

You also claim that Kagan will enforce her own
views on government. Really? That's not even
possible - she'll only be one of a panel of
nine.

Also, not many experts in the field will agree with you.

Christopher Larimer, a political science professor
at the University of Northern Iowa who has studied
closely the effect of gender on decision making in
groups says:

"Greater gender diversity in any group will likely
result in decisions that are MORE democratic...

Women encourage more co-operation in groups and strive
to find resolutions that make everyone happy. Women
tend to take all members' opinions into consideration
in order to seek a universal consensus while men
tend to foster competition and focus on the majority
vote."

And finally, as President Obama said:

"I have selected a nominee who I believe embodies...
excellence, independence, integrity, and passion
for the law, and who can ultimately provide the
same kind of leadership on the court."

I think your fears are well and truly unfounded.

Obama's actions clearly demonstrate why we don't need a bill of wrongs. Could you imagine the judges running this country having that much power. No doubt the engineers would love to have political appointees like Christine Nixon as a judge. What more needs to be said.

Proxy
Did you hold equal concerns when the Supreme Court was heavily biased toward white males.

I really don't see why you have a problem with these appointments.

Hispanic and African Americans make up a significant portion of the American population yet there is not the same level of representation in the judiciary.

As Foxy has demonstrated the qualifications and merit of this latest appointment speak for themselves.

A bit of history of the make up of the judiciary over the last 30 or so years:

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/18562

I think once again many are 20 years behind here. That post should read Will judicial Tyranny ultimately fall to Democracy ?

The whole discussion if based on a moot point.

There is no legitimate democracy in any human society on planet Earth.

All we have is a system where you can choose 2 out of around 2 MILLION candidates...where both represent the values of the current society.
There can be no significant difference to the social and daily lives of citizen-slaves living in society regardless of who wins any election.

For more information, visit My website at www.Truthmedia.8k.com and scroll down and find the "Democracy" essay.

<<For a person to achieve the position of Dean
of that law school means that their knowledge,
and credentials are impeccable.>>
No, it means that Kagan likely got there through affirmative action,
just like she’s being appointed to the Supreme Court through affirmative action.
The trouble is that affirmative action is rife like a cancer through the entire system.
The result is that it is no longer possible to say that any female or ethnic person got to where they did on the basis of merit.
It is absurd to say that a person’s filling a role points to her merit when selection criteria other than merit were employed to put her in that role.
Of course, progressives have difficulty understanding this concept.
Recalling Judy Jackson, former Attorney General of Tasmania: “The next Supreme Court justice will be a woman AND her selection will be based on merit”.

<<Greater gender diversity in any group will likely
result in decisions that are MORE democratic>>
The job of the Supreme Court is not to democratically interpret the laws.
The fact that decisions are resolved along democratic lines is incidental.
The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret and apply the law.
Furthermore, why is it always OK to say that women are better than men at this and that and the other, when it is NEVER okay to say that men are better than women at anything.

<< Women encourage more co-operation in groups and strive
to find resolutions that make everyone happy. >>
Refer above. The job of the Supreme Court is to make everyone happy??
It is an impossibility to make everyone happy when resolving a court case.
One side wins and the other side loses.
What on earth are you talking about?

<< men tend to…focus on the majority vote." >>
Which is…duhhhh…democracy.

<< And finally, as President Obama said:
"I have selected a nominee who”>> exactly mirrors my radical beliefs and will be there to help implement my version of radical change for the next forty years.

Dear Proxy,

Kindly re-read my post.
You seem to have a problem
in grasping even the barest simple
concepts. I won't explain again
the jist of what Prof. Christopher
Larimer was saying.


As I've stated to you in the past...
Any criticism born of ignorance, mistrust, or
hatred is not only ineffectual and a complete waste of
time, it's harmful. You're not likely to be in a
position to have something worth saying unless you've
spent years immersing yourself in gaining knowledge,
experience, and understanding, and only then if your
agenda isn't hostile. Do you know anything about the
institutions of learning in the US?
Do you anything about
their Senate Judiciary Committee or the nomination
process for the Supreme Court? Do you know what it
takes to become Dean of the Harvard Law School?
Do you know what it takes to become Solicitor General
of the United States? Do you know when you bring in
a person from an underrepresented social group that
they will bring in a different perspective. Did you know
thst women are more adept to make decisions that reflect
group preferences, rather than individual preferences?
Yet you still insist that women will enforce their own
views on Government? Where on earth do you get your
inside knowledge from

What exactly is it that makes people get so sucked into believing that academic achievement makes an individual competent ? The whole god damned world has been run by academics for the past 40 years & look at the state it's in ?
Why are people so dead against voting for capable leaders, after all they always complain that our leaders don't perform. Forget Party loyalty. It means nothing these days. As Julie Bishop so rightly pointed out on TV last night, it doesn't matter who leads the ALP. It is the ALP that is the problem not Kevin Rudd. Julia Gillard is the exception. She is an academic with an academic problem. The inability to differentiate between theory & practice. In theory Democracy is great. In practice it doesn't work.

Foxy,

<<Do you know anything about the
institutions of learning in the US?”>>
Apart from the fact that they are overwhelmingly left-leaning, quota-driven and that affirmative action is one of the major keys to advancement?”

<<Do you anything about
their Senate Judiciary Committee or the nomination
process for the Supreme Court?>>
Apart from the fact that the President gets to nominate who he thinks will best reflect his own political agenda?

<<Do you know what it
takes to become Dean of the Harvard Law School?>>
Apart from being the beneficiary of quota systems and affirmative action?

<<Do you know what it takes to become Solicitor General
of the United States?>>
Apart from the fact that the President gets to nominate who he thinks will best reflect his own political agenda?

<<Do you know when you bring in
a person from an underrepresented social group that
they will bring in a different perspective.>>
“Diverse” perspectives.
Where is the merit in this?
Are you seriously suggesting that the Supreme Court should be a microcosm of American society along gender, ethnic and (presumably) sexual orientation lines?
The only thing that should matter is the candidate’s proven ability to interpret and uphold the law.

<< Did you know
thst women are more adept to make decisions that reflect
group preferences, rather than individual preferences?>>
What do group preferences have to do with it?
Cannot an individual be right in their interpretation of the law and a group be wrong?
Do you advocate subverting the constitution to better reflect the preferences of “underrepresented” groups?

<<Yet you still insist that women will enforce their own
views on Government?>>
Not women. Judicial activists, male or female.

Dear Proxy,

You don't become Dean of the Harvard Law
School or Solicitor General of the US,
or A Supreme Court Justice,
through "affirmative action."
You achieve those positions through merit.

You can go on believing whatever you want.
It won't change the facts. Elena Kagan's
achievements are her own, and as the US
President stated, she embodies - excellence,
independence, integrity, and a passion for
the law, which she will bring with her to
the Supreme Court.

Foxy,
<<You don't become ... A Supreme Court Justice,
through "affirmative action."
You achieve those positions through merit.>>
Are you trying to tell me, that of all the people Obama could have picked, on merit, it just happens that 6/9 were women for his first appointment and 5/9 were women for this appointment?
Of the non-females shortlisted, 2/3 and 2/4 were Hispanic.
How can it be that all these women and Hispanics just happened to be the most meritorious in a sea of white male candidates?
Elena Kagan said in 2007:
"“Richard Posner is the most important legal thinker of our time, and for generations to come legal scholars will dissect and analyze, will praise and criticize, his distinctive legal vision...Rifle through the pages of whatever casebook you have at hand (nearly any subject, common law or statutory, will do) and you will find a grossly disproportionate number of Posner opinions. Perhaps consciously, perhaps not, Judge Posner writes for the casebooks: for two and a half decades, he has produced simply remarkable teaching materials. Love them, hate them, agree or disagree with them, Judge Posner’s opinions make people think -about what the law is doing, about what the law should be doing, about why it all matters. Law professors – actually, anyone who cares about our legal system – should esteem these opinions for this quality.”"
http://biggovernment.com/jwales/2010/05/12/judge-richard-posner-vs-academic-elena-kagan/
Yet he failed to make the list!
But wait. He's a conservative white male.
Forget delusions of merit.
Think correct politics, correct gender and or ethnicity.
Doesn't the cognitive dissonance get you down sometimes?
Or are you genuinely unable to cognise?

Dear Proxy,

Take a look at yourself for once
starting with your opening post on
this thread.
"Kagan whose ONLY qualification appears to
be that she is a radical who went to Harvard
with Obama...:

"little experience..."

You suggest that her achievements were as a
result of "affirmative action..." and so on.

Well, let's have a look at the facts:

Elena Kagan attended:
1) Princeton.
2) Oxford.
3) Harvard Law School.
4) Completed Federal and Supreme Court clerkships.
5) Was Professor at the University of Chicago
Law School.
6) Associate White House Cousel.
7) Policy Adviser under President Clinton.
8) Professor of Harvard Law School.
9) Dean of Harvard Law School.
10) Solicitor General of the United States.
11) Grew up with a strong knowledge and love of the law.
Her father was a famous lawyer.
12) She received Princeton's Daniel M. Sachs Class of
1960 Graduating Scholarship - one of the highest awards
conferred by the University which enabled her to study at
Worcester College and Oxford University. She earned a
Master's of Philosophy from Oxford. She received a
Juris Doctor, magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.
13) She was Supervisory Editor of the "Harvard Law Review,"
and was described as "Kagan stood out from the start as one
with a formidable mind." The Princeton Faculty said Kagan
was "one of the foremost legal minds in the country."

As for her being a "radical," Elena Kagan while studying
at Princeton wrote a senior thesis studying the socialist
movement in New York City in the early 20th Century.
However she didn't defend socialism, she was interested in it.
To study something is not to endorse it.

She's had a varied and excellent legal background.
Her law experience covers a wide range from working
for Judge Abner Mikva in the US Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia to working for distinguished
Justice Thurgood Marshall of the US Supreme Court,
to private practice as an Associate at the Washington
D.C. law firm of Williams and Connelly.

I'm sorry Proxy - but frankly you're going to have
to do better.

cont'd ...

By the way - for your information -
Elena Kagan will only be the 4TH
female Supreme Court Justice in the
United States.

Considering the vast amount of females
that graduate from Law Schools every year
and work and contribute to the profession
that's a very small amount.

No. In the United States every matter worth over $20 has an as of right entitlement to jury trial. The judges are the people, not the Capital J Judges created by the Parliaments of Australia. Watch out for the sleeping tiger.

The Constitution of Australia provides judges too, and as soon as the Christian majority and Tony Abbott wake up to the fact that S 79 Constitution has only once been judicially examined by the Supreme Court in New South Wales,and judges, not a Judge should rule, then judicial tyranny will end.

Christianity in its true form is the mother of democracy. It prohibits individual Judges, as they tried these in the Old Testament and found them wanting. The judges of the New Testament are 12 members of the community, and by s 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Holy Bible is admissible as evidence in a court to prove this.

We have tyrant Judges, in civil cases in Australia. They should be very afraid. They are aristocrats, and the French dealt with theirs in a most brutal way.

I think Judicial opinion depends on which side of politics the judge happens to come from.

If this were not so, there would be very little if not 'no' controversy over who is appointed to the body which interprets the constitution in the USA.

It seems clear that the president always chooses a person who reflects his/her social agenda.... history seems to confirm this.

LORRY

you said;

Under our Federal Constitution the people of Australia are the sovereign power.

If you only knew mate!

The biggest enemy to that sovereignty is the

Human Rights Commission of Victoria (and the Federal one)

In many recent submissions to the Attourney General, they are constantly arguing for the sovereignty of HUMAN RIGHTS LAW over our constitution/law.

Herr Szoke says this (re reverse discrimination)

*The Commission will remain accountable, fair and transparent in its dealings with the community.*

You may directly relate this to SATAN's wors to Eve "Did God say you will die if you eat that fruit? Nooooooo itwill make you WISE!

Her statement is an absolute LIE.. because I know from experience how HUMAN RIECH COMMISSARS work!

The whole *thing* is about 'getting our people into the commission' ('our' meaning her kind..and PC MC socialists)

Once you have the 'right' people there.. all you do is simply DECLINE any complaint which does not fit your political agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy#Recent_cases

Compare how the Canadian one treated the complaint of Chiv Chopra with the one against Al Hayati...

*watch..and learn* or..read it and weep.

The HR commission are hotbeds OF discrimination.. it seeps out like pus from a ripe boil...it oozes with contempt at the rest of the community.

There is NO QUESTION that the HREOC commissars are intent with flagrant disgregard for the Australian constitution and case law, to IMPOSE a foreign sovereignty onto this country in line with their Marxist PC/MC and globalist vision.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/legal/submissions/2010/20100319_senate_scrutiny.html#Heading65

* Require Parliament to scrutinise Bills introduced into the Parliament for compatibility with the rights recognised in the Charter

The Charter of Rights should require legislation (whether primary or subordinate legislation) to be compatible with the rights recognised in the Charter. HREOC supports the Attorney-General being obligated under the Charter in respect of Bills presented to the Parliament by a Minister to prepare a compatibility statement stating whether the Bill is consistent with the Charter of Rights.

IE... in plain language TURF OUT THE AUSSIE CONSTITUTION, SHRED IT.. RIP IT UP.. BURN IT and use it for toilet paper!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vheDsYQfF40

You might find some interesting relevant material in that video.
It focuses partly on Islam, but within the context of "Human Rights" commissions and objectives.

This one is also useful. I love the bit where Bob Brown defends "Muslims" who, if in Iran would hang him by the neck until dead.
It's pure political opportunism.