Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Questions for Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry,

 

The nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens comes as no surprise.  She was the leading candidate for weeks and in remarks announcing the nomination, President Obama said Kagan is “an acclaimed legal scholar with a rich understanding of constitutional law.”  

 

That’s fine.  But the fact remains we don’t really know much about the judicial philosophy or judicial temperament of Elena Kagan.  If confirmed, she would become the first Supreme Court justice in nearly 40 years with no previous judicial experience.

 

There are those already proclaiming that such a lack of judicial experience makes it easier for the Senate to confirm her – there’s not much in the way of a paper trail – especially when it comes to the hot-button church/state issues that we debate here.

I do not hold her lack of judicial experience against her.  But there are important questions that must be answered: What does she really believe?  What is her judicial philosophy?  Will she abide by the Constitution, or will she take an activist view?

 

With the Senate’s constitutional role of providing ‘advice and consent’ regarding nominees, I believe it’s imperative that the Senate Judiciary Committee provide full and thorough hearings and ask the tough questions about how Kagan views the role of judges, the Constitution, and the rule of law. 

 

While no nominee should express legal opinions concerning specific issues, the American people deserve to know whether this nominee – who could serve for many decades – embraces the philosophy of judicial activism.

 

Barry, that’s what the Senate confirmation hearings should be about – let’s see what she says.

 

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.  

 

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(73)
post a comment
Gwyddion9

posted May 10, 2010 at 3:26 pm


Wow, the central idea of this article is simply that the Judge isn’t Christian or of their particular flavor. This is the main reason I object to the concept of religion in Government or on the Supreme Court.
Articles like this simply reinforce the ‘idea’ of one Christian sects superiority over others or all religions. That’s wrong AND dangerous.
People complain of religiously controlled governments by Islam yet in the same breath would gladly do it here. Why…Because ‘their’ religion is the best and the ‘only’ truth (in their minds). Hypocrites!
This is why the RR and conservative Christians should be watched carefully. They, imo, are the most Un-American as it can get. The constitution means little to them if all they’re worried about is which religion has dominance in the Supreme Court.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 10, 2010 at 3:42 pm


Libs fear that Kagan is a move to the Right, just as we predicted that Obammy would not pick somebody as Lib as Stevens, nor more Lib than Stevens. Obammy does not wanna big fight, but will put up with a litlfe fight.
If she, in fact, is a move to the Right, we’re better off than with Stevens, and that is a victory for Conservatives in an election year poised most powerfully in favor of Conservatives.



report abuse
 

Finalword

posted May 10, 2010 at 4:01 pm


How shallow. Jay, don’t you think that a person with the qualifications to be the Solicitor General of the United States and the head of the Harvard Law School can satisfactorily answer questions about the “role of judges, the Constitution, and the rule of law?” What do you think that she might say on those topics that would disqualify her? “Judicial activism?” Do you mean the conservative judicial activism practiced by Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts? I hope not. Stop pretending you have anything more to offer than your right-wing politics. Ask her if she would bring disgrace to the Court by sitting at the State of the Union address and shaking her head and mouthing “that’s not true” to the president’s face, as Alito did. What are these questions that you think should be asked? I read your article and can’t find any.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted May 10, 2010 at 4:33 pm


The idea that any Republicans would have supported ANY nominee put forward by Obama is silly. Jesus Christ himself would have been opposed by this bunch of nay-sayers. So, the only logical step from here is to ignore the minority party and let the nominee deal with the Democrats in the Senate. They may not be universally supportive of her, but they will give her at least a fair hearing.
And when the GOP raises the spectre of a filibuster, I sincerely hope the Democrats dig out all of that wonderful footage from a few years ago about the GOP threatening to use the “nuclear option” to break filibusters of judicial nominees.
Let the GOP filibuster, and let the nukes loose.



report abuse
 

malthus

posted May 10, 2010 at 5:48 pm


No, the problem with Kagan is not her inexperience as a judge, her non-christianism or her lesbianism. Her problem, which she will share with all but Breyer, is that she has NO CLUE about math, science or economics.
Thus, an appropriate question to qualify her for serving on SCOTUS would be something as simple as:
If a hen-and-a-half lays an egg-and-a-half in a day-and-a-half, how many eggs do three hens lay in three days?
This is a qualifier that would keep most men and almost all women off the SCOTUS bench.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 10, 2010 at 7:00 pm


1.5 hen
1.5 egg
1.5 day
How many eggs do three hens lay in three days?
3
cc



report abuse
 

malthus

posted May 10, 2010 at 8:50 pm


See, that’s a wrong answer.
In the case of a woman who has two kids, one of whom is a boy, what are the chances that both are boys?
Only Breyer, who did distinguish himself in math and science in high school, would get it right, I imagine.
Why am I ruled by ignoramuses? OK, let them decide about snail darters, but, Darwin forbid that they would get any cases involving risk or probability or regression to the mean or even what the hell “mean” means!



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 10, 2010 at 11:23 pm


Malthus,
I think there is only a 25% chance that the two boys will lay 6 eggs over 3 days. Of course, that will all change once you factor in real human gender weighting worldwide, something over 50% for boys and under 50% for girls. Probably should add in some hermaphrodites in there as well.
Then there is the fact that if the hens are in a hen house managed by Tyson, one of the hens is likely to die.
Man, you must be as old as I am if you remember snail darters.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 6:11 am


Boris, why do you always let other people tell you what to think?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 9:04 am


hlvanburen says:
The idea that any Republicans would have supported ANY nominee put forward by Obama is silly.
Mr. Incredible asks:
How do you know?
hlvanburen says:
Jesus Christ himself would have been opposed by this bunch of nay-sayers.
Mr. Incredible asks:
How do you know?
hlvanburen says:
So, the only logical step from here is to ignore the minority party…
Mr. Incredible says:
November is coming. You won’t be ignoring us long.
hlvanburen says:
… and let the nominee deal with the Democrats in the Senate.
Mr. Incredible says:
The nominee will have-ta deal with the Republicans, too.
hlvanburen says:
They may not be universally supportive of her, but they will give her at least a fair hearing.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“They will be easy on her.”

hlvanburen says:
And when the GOP raises the spectre of a filibuster, I sincerely hope the Democrats dig out all of that wonderful footage from a few years ago about the GOP threatening to use the “nuclear option” to break filibusters of judicial nominees.
Mr. Incredible says:
And the Republicans can pull out all the footage and quotes of Democrats when they stopped Bush appointees.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 9:35 am


Gwyddion9 says:
… I object to the concept of religion in Government or on the Supreme Court.
Mr. Incredible asks:
You object to whose concept “religion”?
Gwyddion9 says:
Articles like this simply reinforce the ‘idea’ of one Christian sects superiority over others or all religions.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which Christian “sect”?
Gwyddion9 says:
That’s wrong AND dangerous.
Mr. Incredible says:
Depends on who has God’s Truth.
Gwyddion9 says:
People complain of religiously controlled governments by Islam yet in the same breath would gladly do it here.
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re in no position to judge cuz you don’t know the difference.
Gwyddion9 says:
Because ‘their’ religion is the best…
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s notta matter of “best.”
Gwyddion9 says:
… and the ‘only’ truth…
Mr. Incredible says:
Jesus says that He is the ONLY Way to the Father. You callin’ Him “liar”?
Gwyddion9 says:
… (in their minds).
Mr. Incredible says:
In the mind of God, through Christ.
Gwyddion9 says:
Hypocrites!
Mr. Incredible says:
Explain how we are the “hypocrites.”
Gwyddion9 says:
This is why the RR and conservative Christians should be watched carefully.
Mr. Incredible asks:
And you haven’t been doing so up to now???
Gwyddion9 says:
They, imo, are the most Un-American as it can get.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“If they don’t agree with us, they are un-American!”

Gwyddion9 says:
The constitution means little to them if all they’re worried about is which religion has dominance in the Supreme Court.
Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t want what you call “religion” in government, either. Jesus was also against “religion.” We are against what He is against.
We want what God wants, people in government who are Godly. You can’t stop us from working toward that end; and, don’t forget, November is just around the corner.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 10:27 am


malthus says:
In the case of a woman who has two kids, one of whom is a boy, what are the chances that both are boys?
Mr. Incredible says:
There is no chance in the n0rmal world…except to say that the girl may, suddenly, at some point, as a result of f!lthy circumstances, travel to the b!zarro world and voluntary take on m@nly m@nnerisms, over-act the chosen part, and, further, be drawn into and choose the hom0sexual, @lternative-lifestyle orientation option. So, in some p3rverted way, one might be able to stretch Morality beyond recognition and say that there are two “boys.”



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 11, 2010 at 10:56 am


Wow Mr. I,
That was sad. However, I forgive you, you know not what you do.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted May 11, 2010 at 11:29 am


hlvanburen says:
The idea that any Republicans would have supported ANY nominee put forward by Obama is silly.
Mr. Incredible asks:
How do you know?
I’m glad you asked, Mr. Incredible. I know it because the Republicans have stated as much.
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/top-strategist-advises-gop-to-prolong-scotus-fight-to-block-obama-agenda.php
“In an April 22 conference call with RNC members, which was recorded and passed my way by a source, activist Curt Levey, director of the conservative Committee for Justice, offered Republican operatives candid strategic advice, pressing them to put up a fight against even the most moderate of judges, and providing a glimpse of the GOP’s playbook for obstructing Obama nominees.
The crux of the GOP’s strategy is to use Obama’s nominee to wedge vulnerable Democratic senators away from the party, and drag the confirmation fight out until the August congressional recess, to eat up precious time Democrats need to round out their agenda.
“[I]t wouldn’t take much GOP resistance to push a final vote into early August,” Levey advised. “And, look, the closer we could get it to the election, frankly, the better. It would be great if we could push it past the August recess because that forces the red and purple state Democrats to have to go home and face their constituents.”
hlvanburen says:
Jesus Christ himself would have been opposed by this bunch of nay-sayers.
Mr. Incredible asks:
How do you know?
“Levey acknowledged that a filibuster likely won’t last–that Obama’s nominee, now known to be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, will almost certainly be confirmed. But he hammered home the point to Republicans that there’s value in mischaracterizing any nominee, and dragging the fight out as long as possible, whether or not Obama’s choice is particularly liberal.”
hlvanburen says:
And when the GOP raises the spectre of a filibuster, I sincerely hope the Democrats dig out all of that wonderful footage from a few years ago about the GOP threatening to use the “nuclear option” to break filibusters of judicial nominees.
Mr. Incredible says:
And the Republicans can pull out all the footage and quotes of Democrats when they stopped Bush appointees.
Yeah, but then the Democrats can trot out some of the polling material that the GOP used to whine about Bush nominees being blocked. Such as this poll:
http://www.ayresmchenry.com/docs/JudicialQuests.pdf
“If a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is well qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.” 81% approve
Right now the GOP should be lining up to kiss the feet of John McCain and his gang that stood up to those wanting to exercise the nuclear option back then.
I can hardly wait to see Senator McConnell’s ears get pinned back on the floor of the Senate when this quote is rolled out against him:
“Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct.’ […] Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history. Regretfully, that did not happen.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted May 11, 2010 at 11:31 am


hlvanburen says:
So, the only logical step from here is to ignore the minority party…
Mr. Incredible says:
November is coming. You won’t be ignoring us long.
No, I strongly suspect that the GOP will end up controlling at least one house of Congress, perhaps both. Such is the nature of the electorate. So soon they forget what happened the last time the GOP was in control of the government.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 11:39 am


hlvanburen says:
So, the only logical step from here is to ignore the minority party…
Mr. Incredible says:
November is coming. You won’t be ignoring us long.
hlvanburen says:
No, I strongly suspect that the GOP will end up controlling at least one house of Congress, perhaps both. Such is the nature of the electorate.
Mr. Incredible says:
The electorate has learned from the mistake of November, ’08.correction is on its way later this year, and further correction in November, ’12.
hlvanburen says:
So soon they forget what happened the last time the GOP was in control of the government.
Mr. Incredible says:
That was then. This is now.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 11:42 am


Rich says:
… I forgive you…
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t need the forgiveness of scoffers. I have forgiveness of God, through Christ.
Rich says:
… you know not what you do.
Mr. Incredible says:
That, of course, is according to the world’s standards. The Lord is my Shepherd. The world isn’t.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 11:53 am


hlvanburen says:
The idea that any Republicans would have supported ANY nominee put forward by Obama is silly.
Mr. Incredible asks:
How do you know?
hlvanburen says:
The crux of the GOP’s strategy is to use Obama’s nominee to wedge vulnerable Democratic senators away from the party, and drag the confirmation fight out until the August congressional recess, to eat up precious time Democrats need to round out their agenda.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, the Democrats have the majority in both houses. They can stop it at any time.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 11:54 am


hlvanburen says:
Jesus Christ himself would have been opposed by this bunch of nay-sayers.
Mr. Incredible asks:
How do you know?
hlvanburen says:

“Levey acknowledged that a filibuster likely won’t last–that Obama’s nominee, now known to be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, will almost certainly be confirmed. But he hammered home the point to Republicans that there’s value in mischaracterizing any nominee, and dragging the fight out as long as possible, whether or not Obama’s choice is particularly liberal.”

Mr. Incredible says:
You say that Jesus Christ “himself” [sic] would have been opposed by Republicans. I asked, “How do you know?” I assume that, at some time, you’ll answer the question.
hlvanburen says:
And when the GOP raises the spectre of a filibuster, I sincerely hope the Democrats dig out all of that wonderful footage from a few years ago about the GOP threatening to use the “nuclear option” to break filibusters of judicial nominees.
Mr. Incredible says:
And the Republicans can pull out all the footage and quotes of Democrats when they stopped Bush appointees.
hlvanburen says:
Yeah, but then the Democrats can trot out some of the polling material that the GOP used to whine about Bush nominees being blocked.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, said still that the Democrat strategy was correct. We can roll that out.
hlvanburen says:
I can hardly wait to see Senator McConnell’s ears get pinned back on the floor of the Senate when this quote is rolled out against him [read it above].
Mr. Incredible says:
However, Republicans are responding to the changing Democrat ways.
November is just around the corner.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted May 11, 2010 at 2:36 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
You say that Jesus Christ “himself” [sic] would have been opposed by Republicans. I asked, “How do you know?” I assume that, at some time, you’ll answer the question.
I’m sorry you have trouble with the English language. Allow me to assist.
“But he hammered home the point to Republicans that there’s value in mischaracterizing ANY NOMINEE, and dragging the fight out as long as possible, whether or not Obama’s choice is particularly liberal.”
Now, as Rush Limbaugh has reminded us many times, words mean things. Therefore, when I see that the Republicans are being advised to mischaracterize ANY NOMINEE, I have to assume that they mean ANY NOMINEE, even if that nominee were to be Jesus Christ.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
hlvanburen says:
Yeah, but then the Democrats can trot out some of the polling material that the GOP used to whine about Bush nominees being blocked.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, said still that the Democrat strategy was correct. We can roll that out.
Again, I believe you have trouble with the English language. But, OK, let’s run with your assertion that the Democrats were right to oppose the “nuclear option” and keep the filibuster as a tool. That means, therefore, that the GOP members of Congress who were wrong to try to remove the filibuster as a tool of the minority.
Thank you for that admission.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted May 11, 2010 at 2:38 pm


hlvanburen says:
So soon they forget what happened the last time the GOP was in control of the government.
Mr. Incredible says:
That was then. This is now.
Indeed, the Bible is correct. A dog shall return to his vomit.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted May 11, 2010 at 2:47 pm


hlvanburen says:
The crux of the GOP’s strategy is to use Obama’s nominee to wedge vulnerable Democratic senators away from the party, and drag the confirmation fight out until the August congressional recess, to eat up precious time Democrats need to round out their agenda.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, the Democrats have the majority in both houses. They can stop it at any time.
Ah, but they lack the “filibuster proof” 60 votes that is needed to pull this off without the “nuclear option.”
What I hope happens is that the GOP goes ahead with the filibuster of this nominee. If this nominee succeeds it will not change the balance of the court. I’d really like to see the GOP spend all of their ammo on this nominee and run with the filibuster.
But the Democrats need to hold the GOP’s feet to the fire and actually make them hold the floor during the filibuster. Just as in the old days, when those wishing to filibuster had to stand in the well and talk for days upon days, the GOP needs to be made to stand in the well and bring the entire work of the Senate to a standstill for this filibuster.
Let them go into November elections with the Senate still in session and their opponents campaigning on their obstructionist tactics.
And then, when a conservative Justice retires and Obama nominates a moderate the few remaining GOP members of the Senate can try to mount a filibuster. By then they might have enough to hold down a foursome of golf.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 11, 2010 at 9:09 pm


Re Malthus
That was the right answer.
You said three days.
In regards to 3 hens, when all the numbers of the equations are halfed, that would indicate to double the amount of eggs. So, I am right and you are wrong..
cc



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 12, 2010 at 1:32 am


Cara,
You make me laugh. Your answer is wrong but it will never register with you.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 12, 2010 at 1:36 am


Cara,
I do have to add that your certainty about being right is what makes the whole thing funny, especially on a blog where the the absolute certainty of the faithful is a constant topic.
I want to thank you for simply proving once again everything I have known about those who wander inside the fog of faith.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted May 12, 2010 at 9:35 am


“If a hen-and-a-half lays an egg-and-a-half in a day-and-a-half, how many eggs do three hens lay in three days?”
6



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 12, 2010 at 3:42 pm


Rich the whole thing is not funny anymore, that is the point..
I see that people have fallen to war in this country for defending our country and the people in it. I do not take all things lightly. The people who have fallen to war are what give us our freedom in this country. The people who are at war right now, are still the people who give us our freedom in this country and around the world…
Purple hearts for them all, for all of them have chosen to defend our freedom.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 12, 2010 at 3:44 pm


gives
I try and give to this country by way of blogs. If they are worthless to you and everything is a joke, well then don’t even bother writing back.
cc



report abuse
 

malthus

posted May 12, 2010 at 6:41 pm


So well put, Rich.
But I will remember your bon mot as:
“Those who wander within the fog of faith.”
Thanks.



report abuse
 

malthus

posted May 12, 2010 at 6:43 pm


hlvanburen is right about the eggs. Maybe he/she should be a candidate for SCOTUS?
But what about that woman who has two kids, one of whom is a boy?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 12, 2010 at 6:59 pm


Re: Malthus and Rich
Yes, it is getting a bit foggy in minds of unbelievers who wish to discredit everything in the bible so they feel a bit better about themselves going about their day sinning away with no consequences….
So, I will try a bit more of the light, that way I will not be stuck in the eternal grievousness of anything and everything….
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 12, 2010 at 7:01 pm


Parts of England are foggy. I wonder if they have it a bit more right in regards to the Church over there….
A bit of Earl Grey tea and let’s call it a day shall we…
cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 12, 2010 at 7:32 pm


malthus: “hlvanburen is right about the eggs. Maybe he/she should be a candidate for SCOTUS?
But what about that woman who has two kids, one of whom is a boy?”
I got, mathmatically, to six eggs; but I couldn’t be certain, because if you added a chicken and half and kept the laying pattern, technically, you might have four eggs and four half eggs. From what I’ve read, hlvanburen could replace any of several Justices tomorrow and I’d be a happier camper.
Are the kids twins (not identical obviously)? Does that affect the genetic probability? Otherwise the second born would have essentially the same probability of being M or F as the first (call it 50-50, even if it’s statistically heavier to females?). I’m old, gimme a break.
Is Earl Grey similar to Foggy Foggy Dew?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 12, 2010 at 8:03 pm


I figured the odds of both being boys was 25%. I gotta say I didn’t bother with real world birth percentages or the hermaphrodite thing. Please note college statistics was about a million years ago:
There are only four possible sequences –
Boy followed by boy
Boy followed by girl
Girl followed by boy
Girl followed by girl
Of the four scenarios, only 1 of the 4 yields two boys and happens only 25% of the time.
In the real world, I think there are slightly more boys born than girls, nature being sexist and all that. I saw something that said the ratio was 105 to 107 boys to every 100 girls. I couldn’t tell you if that was true or not. I suppose my wife and I could have tried to verify that by having 207 children and then counting up the results. There may be some issues with the practicality of finding a woman that interested in statistics. Perhaps, I should have had 207 wives, each one delivering one child. Or, as Malthus would have us calculate, 103.5 wives each delivering 2 children or 414 wives each delivering half of a child.



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 12, 2010 at 8:26 pm


I was tempted by the grid you present Rich, but there are only three outcomes in this case since we’re given one boy (girl followed by girl is impossible).



report abuse
 

RIch

posted May 12, 2010 at 9:17 pm


HG,
I see what you mean but I thinking that it doesn’t matter. In order to to get to the point where there are two kids, one still had to face all the possible outcomes. I think it is more like two consecutive coin tosses. Even if I get two heads in a row, the odds were still always 25%.
However, I like your take on the problem. If we can eliminate the girl followed by girl scenario, that leaves us at only 1 out of 3.
Bottom line, I sure don’t know. I seem to recall really liking statistics back in college, multiple regression and all that. For the life of me, I am now having a hard time wondering why I did.



report abuse
 

malthus

posted May 13, 2010 at 8:22 am


Yes, 1 of 3, Bayes Theorem problem.
Assuming the ratio of boy births to girl births is 51:49, what will the American population profile tend to if every woman is forced to stop breeding once she has a boy?
There will be family profiles of G, GG, GGG, …, B, GB, GGB, ….



report abuse
 

marlene

posted May 13, 2010 at 12:58 pm


After a visit in Dubai during the week of National Day of Prayer–it became very apparent to me in a country that would not stand for any opposition to the rituals of the major faith of Islam–that it indeeds strengthens them as a country. We are weak and becoming weaker with all the opposition to Christianity. We are boxing ourselves in–there will come a time I am afraid that it will be deemed a hate crime to speak out against Muslims–yet Christianity will be deemed a freedom that will be lost to this nation. I do not believe Ms. Kagan can be regarded as someone that can make decisions in the light of her first amendment statements given to date. Wrong choice–no doubt President Obama is seeking only people that will fulfill his agenda–whether it is a first amendment decision or a life issue. Wake up America!!



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 13, 2010 at 1:24 pm


Marlene,
Your comment is troublesome. You state that the squelching of other religions in Dubai “strengthens them as a country”. Apparently you see forced uniformity as a good thing. l can think of nothing worse for the intellectual progress of a people than to limit the parameters of philosophical/theological inquiry. By defining the borders of inquiry you prevent something new and perhaps greatly beneficial from ever being proposed as an idea.
You state we are weak and getting weaker. You go further and relate this to opposition to Christianity. Quite frankly, I know of no suppression of Christianity, there are churches everywhere, church services fill the airwaves and bookstores are filled with Christian literature. Have the police come by your place lately, confiscated your Bible and threatened you with jail if you go to church? I thought not. This ridiculous whining about the poor Christians being persecuted is just plain stupid nonsense. You should think before you repeat such rattletrap.
You offer no particular examples of Elena Kagan violating 1st Amendment protections so it is impossible to know to what you are referring.
It sounds like you hate America and the ideals of freedom of religion that real Americans share. Since you find Dubai more admirable in its attempt to be a theocracy, please move there. You will be happier. You know what they say, “America, love it or leave it!”.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 13, 2010 at 5:57 pm


Guys, girls, let’s have the babies, shall we….
Instead of putting them in a trash can or whatever they do those little babies…Saving one life at a time….
cc
Go Lakers!!
eat you vegies…..
get some rest…..
and be nice……
Ya team….



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm


Rich: ” If we can eliminate the girl followed by girl scenario, that leaves us at only 1 out of 3.”
Malthus: “Yes, 1 of 3, Bayes Theorem problem.”
Okay, makes sense. But if the first child were male, the probability of the second child’s sex would remain approx 50-50.
I don’t really see how to set up the Bayes Law equation, and your population profile question almost made my head explode.



report abuse
 

RIch

posted May 13, 2010 at 7:33 pm


HG,
Yep, I am with you, if first baby is male, then we are down to the none too exciting 50/50 deal. However, given from what I read on this blog, all babies are being aborted anyway and none of the scenarios are likely. Perhaps it should all be re-phrased to reflect our current depraved Babylonian culture that we live in:
If you just had your second abortion and the abortionist in one of the procedures was male, what are the odds that the other abortionist was male?
That should keep everyone happy.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 13, 2010 at 8:55 pm


veggie
veggie
veggie
Who cares about the abortionist?
Do you care what he does for a living?
Try thinking how other murders are done and are a crime, while others are not?
A bit fishy of a law my dear friends…….
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 13, 2010 at 8:58 pm


Ow, sorry about only using the male gender in terms to give as the abortionist, I’m sure there are some female abortionist out there as well…..Sorry for the procedures being done, I feel the law is murder by choice and needs to be changed….
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 13, 2010 at 9:01 pm


Yes, murder my dear friends, legal if you could believe it? On innocent children for that matter?
The Premeditation Of The Killing Of The Innocent
Children…..
It is sad that our country and others, has come down to this as a voted in process, where did they ever get that idea that it should be a choice?
Sad……………………………………………………….cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 14, 2010 at 12:20 am


malthus: “Assuming the ratio of boy births to girl births is 51:49, what will the American population profile tend to if every woman is forced to stop breeding once she has a boy?”
After giving up on determining a formulaic solution, assuming average family size is > 1.01 children, I would say the population should trend female; since 49% of the children of one child families, and 100% of children in multi-children families would be female.
Rich: “That should keep everyone happy.”
Ah-hah-hah.



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 14, 2010 at 3:18 am


I was getting close though, right? In Texas, the average number of children per family with children is 1.9. Ten thousand families with 1.9 children each would yield 19k children. Of the first ten thousand children (one child per family and the max number of boys allowed) 5100 would be male and 4900 female. All of the additional nine thousand children are female. 13,900 female to 5100 male, wahoo.
I know it’s inexact, can I clerk for hlvanburen?



report abuse
 

Malthus

posted May 14, 2010 at 10:08 am


HG, suppose you flip a fair coin numerous times until you get HEADS. You note the results and then have to pass the penny on to someone else to flip, who likewise has to stop at a HEADS and pass the coin on.
What will the HEADS:TAILS ration tend to?
The results will fall in the set: H, TH, TTH, TTTH, …



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted May 14, 2010 at 11:22 am


HG: “I know it’s inexact, can I clerk for hlvanburen?”
ROTFLMAO…if I ever am nominated and confirmed for a seat, you will be my first choice for a clerk position.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 14, 2010 at 4:38 pm


How sad, ration?
They care more about their graduation gowns than saving the unborn?
DISGUSTING
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 14, 2010 at 4:39 pm


POSTERITY



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 14, 2010 at 5:24 pm


I am not interested in those who think they are all that and a bag of chips, you need not apply…..cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 14, 2010 at 11:24 pm


hlvanburen: “…if I ever am nominated and confirmed for a seat, you will be my first choice for a clerk position.”
So now I’ve got that working for me. Which is good.
Malthus: “The results will fall in the set: H, TH, TTH, TTTH, …”
Like Rich, I once took a stats class (aced it too, and enjoyed it), and sold my book and forgot the t table and z table and combinations and permutations. I haven’t given up, I’m just gathering my remaining brain cells so they can attack it all at once!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 16, 2010 at 5:14 pm


The thing is if they are using money to kill children developing is the issue?
For laws in place which kill people are exactly that, laws in place to kill people.
The problem is now they are taking America’s hard working dollar to pay for it as well…It was bad enough that they made killing children a legal act, but now pay have us pay for it?
And beyond that, it is against our foundational documents of this country which would stand for equal rights of people, including our Posterity which are to be defended, not thrown in a trash can for choice purposes…..and the government legalized it to boot…fancy that, our government taking sides with other people over other people based on maturity………sounds a bit fraudulent or biased to me….
cc
It is like a genocide all over again, only this time it is our children who are being murdered, with nobody to blame except for all the law makers and everyone and anyone who acted in direct agreement with the law itself….that would be pro-choice people…For if you wish to protect those children like any other child, you would not be voting for people to be able to do so…..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 16, 2010 at 5:16 pm


p.s. If your going to go around to show up behind my back to smerk and giggle and try and get all you can our of hurting me, do me a favor and don’t show up..Make yourself useful and get yourself a life worth living to help make the world a better place…cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 16, 2010 at 5:17 pm


out
out
out
In a direction away fromt he inside.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 16, 2010 at 5:19 pm


the
the
the
Because of that.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 17, 2010 at 7:57 pm


Enough said, now we can get back to the drawing board…cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 17, 2010 at 8:04 pm


So they are taking our tax money ane doing what with it?
America is still looking for good paying jobs, which are far and few between..and we are getting tired of looking at a whole bunch of debt, laying around …..We want it to go away….So we get up everyday and give it our best shot…at whatever we can do to get organized enough and make a go of it despite the setbacks that life had to offer us, we will still get up and give it a go and give it our best shot…..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 17, 2010 at 8:10 pm


and
and
and
Together with; in addition to; as well as. Used to connect words, phrases, or clauses with the same grammatical function.
I know it is elementary, these words. I find them still interesting to look at, despite the fact that I already know what they are, besides that there might be somebody in China or something, who is just learning English for the first time, who may or may not already know these kinds of words….cc
I would figure that we would start from the beginning with the basics….Back to the basics is always good….



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 18, 2010 at 9:42 pm


To be or not to be, that is the question?
And then there was?
I still am trying to figure out what exactly is going on here about our taxes and why haven’t our legislation caught up with the fact that they are letting people kill people for whatever reason they feel like it because they are not fully developed into fully functioning children outside of the womb….?
Still am trying to rack my brain into why they would think that, that was ok? When clearly it states that we are to defend our children in our Constitution, known as Posterity?
And I wonder why a court of law would not just be mortified with this prospect?
Instead they let it continue. Who knows maybe someday they will catch up with it all and realize that they are letting people kill people through the laws which they institutionalize…cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 18, 2010 at 9:44 pm


PATHETIC…………………CC



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 20, 2010 at 11:51 pm


Then we have the people who tell the truth and get penalized for it. Like they were bad for claiming what happened to them years ago, like it was all their fault, while mindless accumulations of wicked people protect their lies with a whole bunch of half truths to act as if they were somehow more qualified for the job then the people who actually tell the truth about their lives……
Honesty is not all that it was cracked up to be….I thought people were supposed to admire you for telling the truth about your life, despite how painful the situation was…..
Then we have companies which pretend to be good when all the while they boose up the wicked generation while persecuting the Christians for doing a great job at what they do…That is the world for you, don’t care what they call the company, it could be cheese and balone…….cc
p.s. Remind me not to admire a company at face value, who knows what they hide behind close doors….and those dirty looks are about yourself and not me…..the anger you identify with is also about yourself and your issues….the mocking is also caused by your pathetic little cruel gestures which you so, like to dig in the knife about…and, no I do not admire you at all for what you do in that area……the end…….red door….!
________
I’ll be meating with God someday and hopefully I can have a good laugh about it all, and he will make me feel a bit better.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 21, 2010 at 5:20 pm


meeting
meeting
meeting
The act or process or an instance of coming together; an encounter.
Meetings are important, when things need to be handled correctly between two people. Question is, where to meet and when…?
Sometimes, people are going through things which they can not handle the present circumstances of what the other person wants out of that meeting…Sometimes it is best to wait for another time to get things handled correctly in that area…..
It might be an hour or two, maybe next week, in any event, time is of value when you need to get the job done right….use every second to the best of your ability, it is a gift….cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 21, 2010 at 5:23 pm


And most of all, learn to love people despite their faults…..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 21, 2010 at 5:24 pm


First God, and let him love you so you can love other people…..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 21, 2010 at 5:34 pm


booze
booze
booze
Hard liquor.
So it is one thing to have a drink or two, and quite anoter to make it part of your daily activities 4,5,6, what the hell, have another…
No that would not be good for everybody else and quite frankly people deserve better for themselves then a bunch of drunks going around abusing people…..I have not met a drunk who made himself productive through that activity in relationships and work productivity…Eventually something gives way, an end of a marriage, and end of a life, and end of a soul….Sad but true, for we need to love ourselves a better and learn how to treat people instead of hitting a bottle of booze……cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 21, 2010 at 5:36 pm


a
a
a
The first letter of the modern English alphabet.
—————————————————
The beginning………..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 22, 2010 at 3:43 pm


balogna
balogna
balogna
A seasoned smoked sausage make of mixed meats, such as beef, pork, and veal.
————-
You do not have to give people allot of balogna, to get to the top of your game…Honesty is key, with timing and intregrity…cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 25, 2010 at 11:35 pm


made
made
made
Past tense and past participle of make.
—————————
So if your going to lie and make something sound as if I meant something different so you have it made in the shade so to speak….
That would be manipulating people with lies….In other words don’t take words out of context to try and get some material object out of the deal…..
I said I needed a bit of time because I was going through something and needed to work on myself…I did not say that I needed weeks and weeks. I said when you go behind my back and lie and try and manipulate a situation to get something out of the deal, that is when I said stay away from me……For past best friend, you would have approached me face to face if you were really an honest person and were truely conscerned about my welfare…..For I needed a friend, not a snake who was trying to get something of what I needed to survive for me and my children. Let alone trying to pick up on my x or present relationship…So no, I do not admire you or think highly of you anymore….I never knew you and I don’t know you know….For I ever thought of you once as my friend, and you truely were, you would not be treating me or trying to get something out of the deal as you are trying now…..So that is what I meant when I said we are nothing alike……cc
So yes, character does matter. The way you treat people, will always make a difference…..good night….****



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 25, 2010 at 11:45 pm


now
now
now-
at the present time
__________
I am not 14 anymore, it does not mean that I do not love and cherish the 14 year old I once was and is now a part of me, like all of my past….You learn to love yourself despite what others have done to smash you like a bug…..cc



report abuse
 

gondola display

posted July 19, 2010 at 11:27 pm


well,that is wonderful thank you for your post,worth reading



report abuse
 

buy umbrella

posted August 11, 2010 at 9:24 pm


Good writing, and I very much agree with your thoughts and insights. Hope that more could write such a good word, I said, to continue coming to visit, thank you for sharing.i love buy umbrella very much .



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.