YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo&feature=topvideos)
LenInSebastopol
06-30-2010, 04:55 PM
That senator must be a out of his mind! He set her up with that question. How dare he!
Any correct minded person could say "NO, the gov't can't tell me what to eat"......so why didn't she?
Is that a 'Freudian slip'?
BTW, what's the status of that Ag bill? The one that will have the gov't define what may be called "organic".
podfish
07-01-2010, 08:04 AM
She's got a plan to set our bedtimes too but they'll never trick her into saying that; she's saving that for Obama's second term. Lucky that clever senator's there to save us again.
someguy
07-01-2010, 08:56 AM
She's got a plan to set our bedtimes too but they'll never trick her into saying that; she's saving that for Obama's second term. Lucky that clever senator's there to save us again.
Yeah its something to joke about when shes on your side, if it was a Bush appointee you'd be up in arms. Good luck with that bias thing.
That video was a gotcha video if I ever saw one!
But it didn't really get anybody except the public that would be gullible enough to accept that video which in all actuality was cut short the complete answer that came after the video is left to question.
It seems to me that both sides right left etc. put spin on things from time to time, but it is obvious to me that the right wing more often seems to cut things short or out, and uses snippets and strategically leaves out certain things, because if they didn't leave them out. What they are trying to make them out to be would obviously show that it's not what they're trying to make (spin) them out to be.
Do either of you know what was said after the video was cut off? Honestly I don't, that would be interesting, wouldn't it!
I know what the senator was getting at; he was getting at, the recent health-care legislation, specifically the part of it that forces (requires) people to purchase private health care insurance.
It would be interesting to see if the nominee for the United States Supreme Court justice would uphold what she referred to as “sounds like a dumb law”, because there may actually be some precedent that actually exists that we laypeople are not necessarily aware of. It (the precedent) might have been prohibition. Now I'm curious, what was said after that, but the video clip was cut short specifically regarding that.
I am skeptical as to the intent of this video in the first place, mainly because it is cut short.
BTW I have stated I was against the requirement of purchasing health care insurance from a private, for-profit provider because of a lot of different reasons I won't get into here.
Also, I disagree with the characterization that if it were a Bush appointee that so many people would be up in arms about that particular manner of answering the questions in that video.
I might add that Republicans would have been more likely to praise that mannerism in answering questions because let's face it similar types of answers which were asked to Roberts were similarly “evaded”. I'm not even saying that this appointee evaded the question because the video was cut off. So how would I know, based on the video?
To make a long story short, that video is simply biased specifically because it was cut short.
It may indeed be factual that the question was evaded. But using that video to prove it the way it's cut short makes the premise for the video itself to be more of the subject of question than its content.
Do either of you know what was said after the video was cut off? Honestly I don't, that would be interesting, wouldn't it!
In short, yes I did hear over the radio what her entire answer was and she evaded the question at all costs. Sorry the video was cut short, but I can't find the full version on youtube.
podfish
07-01-2010, 11:29 AM
glad I don't have to worry about that - with any luck there won't be any Bush appointees ever again.
but you do me wrong. I like bad jokes about anyone - for example, I don't really believe Ashcroft would have clothed every statue, just 'cuz he did it once.
Yeah its something to joke about when shes on your side, if it was a Bush appointee you'd be up in arms. Good luck with that bias thing.
podfish
07-01-2010, 11:37 AM
.. oh, all right, I'm killing a bit of time here. So on a more serious note even though the topic doesn't deserve it: I'm sure this does indeed reveal that she's much more willing to allow government regulation than many would like. Big news there... The idea that this quote means she'd accept the kind of direct control of what you eat that a parent tries (and fails) to exert over a child is stupid. And I'm pretty sure everyone knows that. I do think that she finds it plausible that rules controlling the kind of foods that are sold would be enacted; maybe even that rules controlling what you're allowed to eat would be too. NOTE that she said that would be stupid!! she's only accepting that the government does indeed do similar things on occasion. By the way, if you don't think we already have exactly such laws in place, you're not paying attention. There's a huge body of laws regulating food and drugs already. So what exactly this was supposed to reveal about her I can't imagine....
someguy
07-01-2010, 12:41 PM
.. oh, all right, I'm killing a bit of time here. So on a more serious note even though the topic doesn't deserve it: I'm sure this does indeed reveal that she's much more willing to allow government regulation than many would like. Big news there... The idea that this quote means she'd accept the kind of direct control of what you eat that a parent tries (and fails) to exert over a child is stupid. And I'm pretty sure everyone knows that.
You said it. But you failed to note somehow that this video exposes her character and would be conduct as a judge. As far as I see it, she is clearly willing to uphold dictator-like laws (hence her dodging the question), which is well worth pointing out to you all in this forum.
Do we as a country want really a judge who weasels around important questions while being vetted by our elected representatives, who are supposedly speaking on our behalf? Do we really want our supreme court to have judges who would even consider the notion of a government dictating what we eat and when we eat it? In my eyes, her answer (as well as any potential supreme court justice) should have been a firm, clear, No. Any other answer is outrageous, no matter who appointed her. Don't you agree?
"Mad" Miles
07-01-2010, 01:08 PM
I just read the first three parts of Dahlia Lithwick's coverage of the Kagan hearings. (https://www.slate.com/id/2258135/entry/2258592/)On Slate.com. Plus the comments.
Other than that, and this thread, and yesterday's PD coverage, I haven't been following the hearings.
I highly recommend these articles. She relates the historical issues behind the Senate confirmation Q&A, puts the whole thing in context. The third installment directly addresses this, "Big Brother is going to force you to eat your vegetables!!!!???", tiff. It's titled "Constitutional Vegetarianism.."
A big part of why I'm recommending this coverage, aside from it making fairly complex issues accessible, is that Ms. Lithwick is funny!
Lithwick's bias is moderate liberal, what one would expect from Slate.com (their range is from moderate lib to moderate conservative).
The back and forth in the comments covers a lot of ground, is informative and raises a lot of the issues that come from across the political spectrum.