Kagan insists she didn't block military at Harvard
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 2 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 3 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
32 Comments
Login to comment
0
SezWho2
And Jeff joins the throng of people who confuse their interpretation of events with the events themselves.
0
adaydream
Sessions is another Republican who rewrites history. < :-)
0
skipthesong
ok ok, this lady is against don't ask don't tell, and that's ok with me, but being down with tolerance to Shariah law? Nah, she's lost.
0
SezWho2
Again, Kagan's supposed tolerance for Sharia law seems to be an interpretation by Sessions.
Session's attempt to argue a double standard is tortured in the extreme. Yes, some Muslims take use Sharia law to persecute homosexuals. Presumably, Harvard's Center for Islamic Studies would include study of Sharia law under which homosexuals are subject to death. Presumably, also, Harvard's history department does not neglect the study of other cultures similar punishment for the same.
By contrast, the military has a policy that openly discriminates against all homosexuals. It is not the case that some branches of the service take the policy literally while others do not. Even if it were, I'm relatively certain that Kagan would not forbid the study of such a policy.
0
genji17
Yay another way out there liberal...wont be the same once I return home.
0
skipthesong
By contrast, the military has a policy that openly discriminates against all homosexuals." Clinton, a guy worked for came up with DADT...... The military doesn't make policies amano. And again, I don't know who this sessions dude is on about, but you are the one twisting things. but, prior to this session with sessions, we got this http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/17/kagan-and-shariah/print/
I deal with almost everything else, but I can not deal with a SC Judge with a good view on Shariah. BTW, if u haven't heard, we already recently have courts taking it into consideration with cases, including domestic violence.
Again, she's got a problem with DADT, yet she waves support for Saudi Arabia...
She's gonna be approved, has there every been a candidate that wasn't? So allow me to rant for a bit, I just came from there. Its a mess.
0
MistWizard
Attempt to argue a double-standard, tortured in the extreme. Thank you for that one SezWho2, we see conservative types doing that a lot actually.
What Skip does not seem to get is that when she was working at Harvard she was a Dean there, working in the interests of Harvard, and not anyone else. She employed Harvard policy and did so within the law, which is precisely what was expected of her.
Skip, who to take donations from is a totally separate matter, and not one a Dean has much say in. If the U.S. government or military was donating, DADT would not have been a part of the decision to accept or not. She would have been just as silent. On the other hand, if an extremist Muslim group were looking to set up a job fair booth to hire groundskeepers and secretaries at Shariah Ranch, I have no doubt she would have turned it down.
You and yours draw some VERY meandering lines in order to artificially create your little hypocrisies. Face it, you just find it unpatriotic to refuse the U.S. military anything it wants and will twist anything into a pretzel to try and get such a witch to burn.
0
skipthesong
Face it, you just find it unpatriotic to refuse the U.S. military " Re-read my post that started the thread.
If anything is hypocritical is showing support or tolerance for such a method of enforcement and yet be against DADT, either you or she needs to re-read into said law. You also need read up on certain courts in places within the US that take it into consideration. And least you forget, who came up DADT and who did she once work for and at what time.....
Since she ain't got nothing for experience, how we throw my sister up there? She's graduated from law school... at least my sister is against DADT AND Against Shariah, as all normal people should be .
0
Taka313
I wish the republicans would hurry up with their little temper tantrum and let the woman be appointed. This is all simple theatrics on their part.
Taka
0
MistWizard
Skip, no answers in your first post and none in your editorial either. You have done nothing to prove that she is for Shariah or DADT.
And frankly DADT has good points and bad points. There is no perfect solution until Americans ditch their homophobia. But as it is, her job was to enforce Harvard policy as Dean and she did that, cleverly and well. Harvard's policy, see? Not hers. Sure, she may have been more aware of the problem (and there was one) than a conservative, but awareness of problem and taking care of it ably and legal is not something I hold against people. I always thought we should reward such people, not have a temper tantrum over them, as Taka puts it.
But hey, if you can show something that shows she supports Shariah, have at it. Up to now you have done nothing but bluster.
0
skipthesong
miswiz: Kagan banned the military and welcomed Islamic studies to promote Shariah Law at Harvard and Harvard received millions of dollars and she personally officiated in 2003 over the establishment of an Islamic Finance Project at the law school to promote Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF)...enlisting its services of some of the nation's most promising law students...SCF has its roots in...The Muslim Brotherhood...whose stated general strategic goal in North America is...a grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within...."
0
skipthesong
and that's not the point I'm making. Why is she open to Shariah and do what she did but boycot the military in a supportive manner?
0
yabits
False, and several Harvard Law School military alumni who knew Kagan personally have risen to her defense:
http://www.hlrecord.org/2.4463/hls-veterans-defend-kagan-from-anti-military-charges-1.577294
I believe that American productivity would skyrocket if all the time and energy used to combat against Republican lies could be delployed elsewhere. Why can't the G.O.P. simply resolve to tell the truth?
0
genji17
Shariah in google pulls up great things, like a 13 year old rape victim stoned to death for adultery. Really happy to have a supporter like that go to our supreme court!! Cant want to see what kind of interpreations of our laws she brings!...
0
MistWizard
Uhmmm...Skip, is English your first language? I am thinking no, because promoting the study of Shariah Law and promoting Shariah Law itself are two ENTIRELY different things. Or provide a link proving she promoted...uhm...Shariah Law itself. Crikey.
0
skipthesong
miswiz: Look, I found info. I don't know to flip through web pages on this at the moment. I just got it. I put a link, you'll say its right wing, yet I can't find left wing links showing anything in the negative on her. So we are stuck. And back to my point, to bar the military, even slightly, for a policy created by the gov, not the military, yet at the same doing anything in a supportive light of Sharia to me is hypocritical. Why couldn't she refuse said study?
What is crikey?
0
MistWizard
Study of a thing is not support. You are so down on Sharia, why can't people study it? Surely they will only become as down on it as you once they study it? Or are they just supposed to take your word for it?
It does not matter who made the policy. The military operates under a discriminatory policy and would have discriminated against Harvard students. She did not allow that. It does not matter if Allah, Santa Claus, or Fred Flinstone made the policy. It only matters that the military was following a policy that discriminates against gays and that goes against Harvard policy. The study of said policy is not discrimination itself, and you must be off your meds to claim it is.
I really don't give a crap if your links are right or left. But if you have so little faith in the sources of your info, or they make you the target of such embarrassment, why are you trusting them?
0
PeaceWarrior
The truth? You can't handle the truth. *sorry, I had to post it, couldn't stop my fingers in time. End of pathetic joke.
0
skipthesong
I think you Shariah criers really should stop trying to tactically label people" Yo, you been labeling peeps here since you first shown up. Besides your girl saying that "people should be allowed to label themselves"
As for being a Shariah cry baby, look, I'm not with it. Why should I be? I don't think there are too many things wrong with our laws IF THEY ARE ENFORCED PROPERLY Or would you prefer to silence my opinion?
And you keep twisting my topic, mamalon? You still ain't proved nothing about her NOT being a hypocrite. If she's sooooo against DADT then why the hell sell out to build a Shariah study? Why are you down with it? Shariah is the epitome conservatism man and it discriminates against gays in a whole lot worse manner than DADT ever did. She like circle trying to fit in a square.
As for my sources, look, you want me to put up my sister's web page? She's way to the left, except for hailing a few you guys hail as heros. If she ain't feeling good about her, you should take a step back.
0
TheQuestion
The Good.
The Bad
“I’ve been a Democrat all my life. I’ve worked for two Democratic presidents, and that’s what my political views are,” she told Graham.
The Ugly. I really do hate partisanship.
0
Molenir
You really don't know how they're working the Sharia law into Western Society do you. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying something as foolish as this. Sharia is in Europe, including in England. The way they work it in, is by getting those familiar with the law to study it, to reference it, to be aware of it, thats the foothold. From there, they convince others, that its not so bad, its only for the Muslims anyway, so we should just go along with it.
0
yabits
The above statement is so ignorant as to be embarrassing.
What non-Muslim Englishman is subject to Sharia law? Answer: Not a single person. Not no way; not no how.
A very, VERY close parallel to how Sharia law works in Europe is something that conservatives in America just love to death: contracts which force the use of private arbitration, which in effect, deny the plaintiffs the right to seek remedy via the standard court system. Any Muslim looking for a legal precedent to settle disputes with others of his religion will find no better support for his position than this system of private arbitration.
Harvard and other universities are very wise to allow for the study of Sharia so that they will be better able to deal with cases that fall out of the inevitable establishment of private arbitration entities that Muslims will build, if they have not already.
0
MistWizard
Oh dear! Do educate us. How many stoned to death legally so far? How many legal amputations?
It really takes a conservative to have a panic attack about simple knowledge.
Moderator: Readers, this concludes the discussion on sharia.
0
MistWizard
I cannot prove she is not a hypocrite, and your even pretending I could just goes to show, again, how poor your logic skills are. I proved your grounds for claiming hypocrisy were ridiculous, and that is quite enough.
As for your sister, its not about WHO she supports, its WHY or WHY NOT. You conservatives so often seem to get stuck on the people you have labeled maliciously and forget that you actually had no reason why except that they either were not your party or you saw a shadow (study of Shariah, military not meshing with Harvard rules).
0
MistWizard
Are you sure you know what the word means? A person cannot avoid having political leanings. They can however avoid partisanship. It sounds like she is, will, and has been.
0
sfjp330
yabits at 07:01 PM JST - 30th June your response from "Kagan banned the military" False, and several Harvard Law School military alumni who knew Kagan personally have risen to her defense:
Although Kagan did not ban military recruiters, she created inadequate access to recruiting services for students interested in joining the military. In spring of 2005, the HLSVA conceded that the e-mail address “falls short” of duplicating the services of OCS, suggesting that Kagan’s restrictions complicated military recruitment for interested students.
0
goodDonkey
yabits at 05:51 AM JST - 1st July
"You really don't know how they're working the Sharia law into Western Society do you. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying something as foolish as this. Sharia is in Europe, including in England."
No doubt about that! Pitiful and Pathetic.
0
yabits
Anyone who is smart enough to get into Harvard is smart enough to know how to find a military recruiter on campus.
0
Molenir
I agree actually. Both these comments are Pitiful and Pathetic. Truly sad how ignorant and blind so many people on the left are. In embracing tolerance for every viewpoint and lifestyle they consider "underpriviledged" they are undercutting their own freedoms, and the constitution they so often give lip service to. Well, as long as it agrees with their philosophy that is.
0
yabits
I've never seen it so well put: Conservatives believe in preserving freedom through intolerance of others.
Back to top