Kagan hearings

Because I have absolutely nothing else do (massive tongue-in-cheek) I was reading a little about Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings. Aside from the fact that a big chunk of CNN's reporting reads like it was written by a third grader with the impartialness of the SED (East German Communist Party) was this little gem:

Legal precedents should be respected as binding, Kagan said, but she added there are circumstances in which a precedent can be overturned: If it proved unworkable over time, if the "doctrinal foundations of the precedent are eroded," or if the factual circumstances critical to the original decision should change.

How brilliant they place that particular gem of wisdom at the END of a long article, I'm usually very analytical when I read, being incredibly suspicious and reading in between the lines, ESPECIALLY when I ready something about the windbags in Washington. So...when I read that, I ask myself, what "doctrinal foundations" does she refer to? Last time I checked the SCOTUS referenced and interpreted the Constitution of the United States to make their ruling. I wasn't aware that they used anything else...Do please define "doctrine" Ms. Kagan. Secondly, either the writer's for CNN never learned how or cared to accurately quote somebody (which really wouldn't be all that surprising) or he paraphrased what Ms. Kagan was saying when he wrote the bit about "factual circumstances". I'm going to have to do some searching to find the rest of that one, because frankly that bothers me!
Click here for your own amusement

Then, there's this. Either this woman is really all over the place and giving lip service to every side in the confirmation hearings, or she really is a moderate. I'm not sure how moderate one could possibly be to be appointed by President Obama...but I digress. I shall be reading more into the confirmation hearings of Ms. Kagan, maybe I'll write about it and maybe I won't. Like a lot of people I know very little about her because she doesn't have a track record, but then again, neither did William Rhenquist. Either way, she could end up being one of the nine most powerful people on the planet. Something to think about, eh?

Another delightful headline I came across was browsing was this one "CLINTON DEFIES OBAMA" The story is actually pointless in that it's simply Billy Boy endorsing a different candidate than Obama, though an Obama endorsement hasn't held much political clout lately... The headline is so hilarious I'm not even sure I can put it into words -- do not be faint of heart I shall try! Defy??? Who is President Obama that he cannot be defied??? He was elected to represent the citizens of the United States (which like most POTUSes recently he's done a lousy job of doing, if not worse) -- he is not an elected king! If anything it is he who is most capable of defying us...