Charles.  I know you responded to what I wrote here because I read your name after my post.  My question is: Why did you do respond to what I wrote?  I thought the matter was closed!  I addressed each point you made, step by step.  I offered historical evidence pertaining to how your take on citizens’ relation to its government is inaccurate.  I gave cogent reasons why your assumption and opinion on this matter simply was not correct.  hehheeheheh ok?  It’s like…geez!  The only reason I can think of as why you would waste your time writing counterarguments to what I said is because it offends you when you are proven wrong!  I know I am correct and you are not.  Obviously, you were unable to accept this; otherwise you would have kept quiet and admitted to yourself that you have been mistaken.

My condolences!  By the way, I did not read what you wrote in response to my well laid out and sufficiently addressed comments about what you wrote.  Besides, you will never convince me of something that is not true!  Evidently, unlike yourself Charles, I use empirical evidence and reason to formally lay out my positions in a cogent manner!  In contrast, you choose to believe that what is ideal rather than what is real.  You wrote a whole bunch of BS and I addressed each falsehood - my action obviously upset you! 

This matter should have been dropped.  Next time, try admitting it to yourself whenever you are truly proven wrong!  After all, admitting you are wrong is a fundamental requirement for learning.

To what_is_this: You are of course right about all of that. I was talking about the ideal, the founding principles by which our democracy is supposed to work. You are talking about the actualities of the vast failure of democracy we are in the midst of at this time. And we the people seem to be helpless. But either we continue to struggle to create more democratic democracy or we just give up and let ourselves be ruled like the citizens of any other corrupt, tyrannical state. I think we must continue to struggle, to implement the principle that we the people are, in fact, sovreign.

Greg Greenwald is one of the best new voices in the media imo.

Hand picked from the crop, Wall St and CEO’s have just
re-newed their get out of jail free cards.

“In the U.S. (a democracy) the people are sovreign and our president & Congress are elected by us and accountable to us.”

The USA is not a democracy, not in the traditional sense anyway.  Certainly, the President and members of Congress are not accountable to us.  Rather, they are accountable both to those who are worth more than 1 million dollars and multi-billion dollar corporations.  Not to those who make say less than 100,000 dollars annually.

“The President doesn’t do anything at all “alone,” he does it by the power vested in him by the people, and he is answerable to us for his actions & choices. Congress too.”

Well, Obama did choose Ms. Kagan as the nominee - without “We the People” having any say in that.  In fact, I do not recall ever seeing any nominees for Supreme Court Justices on ballots.  I agree with you that Congress makes the official call on who is put on the Supreme Court, but it is not “active citizenry” that makes this call.  Likewise, it is not “up to us” to impeach a President for choosing and acting against “We the People.”  Only Congress does that - at their discretion.  One example of empirical evidence is all of the so-called demands for George W. Bush to be impeached when he was President, as the majority of people obviously wanted that to happen.  Did it?

“The Senate has to confirm Supreme Court nominees, and if we are a truly engaged, active citizenry we can and should compel Congress to vote against or for that person.”

It is futile for active citizenry to compel members of Congress to do anything!  After all, it is always at the Congressman’s discretion to vote for or against the will of the majority of constituents he represents on any given issue.

“Members of Congress represents us and their votes are supposed to reflect the will of their constituents.”

Since when has this happened?  This opinion does not correspond to reality one bit.

“It’s those sorts of things that really, really matter and we the people have a right to know a Supreme Court’s nominees ideas about so we can advise our elected representatives in Congress whether they are to vote for or against the nominee’s confirmation.”

While I agree that due process does matter and should be upheld (of course, the citizens of the USA do not have EQUAL and ABSOLUTE due process - but that is another topic altogether); what good will it do to advise our elected representatives?  Again, it is at Congress’s discretion to vote for or against a Supreme Court nominee, regardless of input by the constituents.

In the U.S. (a democracy) the people are sovreign and our president & Congress are elected by us and accountable to us. The President doesn’t do anything at all “alone,” he does it by the power vested in him by the people, and he is answerable to us for his actions & choices. Congress too. The Senate has to confirm Supreme Court nominees, and if we are a truly engaged, active citizenry we can and should compel Congress to vote against or for that person. Members of Congress represents us and their votes are supposed to reflect the will of their constituents.

And, the question about Kagan isn’t “political affiliation” but judicial philosophy - interpretation of the Constitution. For example: is the Constitution to be interpreted as allowing the President powers of indefinite detention without charge of people he thinks are guilty of terrorist activity? or does the Constitution guarantee due process (a trial, evidence, lawyers, etc.) and a formal finding of “guilty” before a person can be incarcerated? It’s those sorts of things that really, really matter and we the people have a right to know a Supreme Court’s nominees ideas about so we can advise our elected representatives in Congress whether they are to vote for or against the nominee’s confirmation.

I disagree with Mr. Greenwald on the idea that Supreme Court nominees must have a political stance.  I thought Supreme Court nominees are supposed to be neutral and non-partisan. 

Originally, they were for the most part until George W. Bush and the Republican-dominated Congress allowed for two people to be on the Supreme Court - Mr. Roberts (I believe he pronouned President Obama’s name wrong at his inauguration on purpose), and Mr. Alito. Obviously, both of these individuals are political ideologues - and not in a good way.  I agree that this was a mistake to appoint these two people.  Again though, the idea that Supreme Court nominees must have a history or a “paper trail” of political affiliation is a relatively new litmus test.  In fact, it is preferable for Supreme Court nominees to have both a history of neutrality in the most pressing issues of the day and to be non-partisan and apolitical.

I was just curious.  Why is there a debate about a new Supreme Court Justice anyway?  It is the President ALONE who chooses a person and then the Congress decides if the person is worthy of being on the Supreme Court.  The citizenry, such as both Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Raskin, have ZERO influence or say on who becomes a Supreme Court Justice.  So why waste time debating about Ms. Kagan’s credentials or lack thereof?