Kagan Confirmed.Follow

I think she's going to turn out to be more conservative than expected.

It's great to see more chicks on the bench.

I think you're both right.

Probably that we'd be a lot better off politically if the Democrats would just get around to splitting into five or six parties that had cohesive ideologies rather than the current mishmash of "everyone under one umbrella".

All that I know about him was that he was one of the Senators that received a sweetheart deal in the healthcare bill to get it passed.

So, uh... yeah.

Nelson had said some time ago that he would vote for cloture but vote against her nomination.

Maybe. Or maybe he just feels that when the president puts forth someone, they deserve a vote even if it's a vote against. I don't know enough about Nelson's past history with any Democratic filibusters to really take a guess. He could just be a political animal trying to cover his *** in a conservative state.

I'm going to say she will, based on the fact that she was appointed explicitly to do things. In particular, to make rulings on things.

Like... like court cases and stuff? Really!? :)

It's an interesting footnote I suppose, but it doesn't change the court much, if at all. Obviously, it's too early to tell in what ways she may rule slightly differently than Stevens, but on the cases most of us really care about, it's a wash.

My favorite Q&A from her hearings:

Question: "Where were you and what were you doing the day of the Christmas underwear bomber?"

Answer: "Well considering I'm Jewish, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant."

Sadly it is.
Although it's different in the USA than it is here, here parties have to cooperate so they can't ever go full out hating and cockblocking each other.
But on the other hand, when they get a chance at more power they drop their beliefs and values like they're made of red hot iron.

While the US might be overboard, and there is value in parties working together and compromising, there is value in having an opposition who's primary job is to oppose and to bring to light problems. Having all the parties just working together all the time is imo not actually very healthy. It's why we have the official opposition in Canada.

As long as it's sane, rational argument and healthy debate, then it's good. But as someone pointed out, you can't have a healthy debate when one of the parties answers questions like a paranoid schizophrenic.

Dems: "We need to have some other means of rationing healthcare besides who can pay the most for it."

Repubs: "My distinguished opponent has just said they're going to put your grandmother before a death panel to determine whether she's contributing enough to society to live."

Dems: "We should really try to lessen our dependence on oil, both domestic and foreign."

Repubs: "DRILL BABY DRILL! Drill here, drill now!"

Dems: "The national deficit's staggering numbers are largely to blame on the Bush taxcuts. We'll let them expire on the wealthiest individuals, but they will remain in effect for those making below $200,000 a year (read: 95% of the country.)

Repubs: "Taxed enough already! Taxation without representation! Stop raising my taxes!"

They only have soundbites, not rebuttals or alternative solutions.