WASHINGTON — President Obama WASHINGTON — President Obama introduced Solicitor General Elena Kagan on Monday as his choice to become the nation’s 112th justice of the Supreme Court, hailing her as a “one of the nation’s foremost legal minds,” as he girded for a battle over whether it takes a judge to serve on the court.
She’s in the “in” crowd with She’s in the “in” crowd with the financial big boyz. Goldman Sachs Adviser, Summers long time friend. Oh ya, she is part of the crew.
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/13035–supreme-court-pick-kagan-qlovesq-the-federalist-society.html
During the course of her Senate confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan explicitly endorsed the Bush administration’s bogus category of ‘enemy combatant,’ whose implementation has been a war crime in its own right. Now in her current job as U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan is quarterbacking the continuation of the Bush administration’s illegal and unconstitutional positions in U.S. federal court litigation around the country, including in the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, early this month, the Obama administration lost an illegal wiretapping case. One of the lawyers in the case who won, Jon Eisenberg, said the Obama administration is as bad or worse than the Bush administration when it comes to issues like state secrets and wiretapping.
“Kagan is apparently being backed by several people who are indebted to her from her time at Harvard. [Professors Laurence] Tribe, [Charles] Ogletree and [Alan] Dershowitz all had plagiarism scandals while Kagan headed up the law school — and she in effect bailed them all out. Tribe and Ogletree were teachers/mentors to Obama and still advise him today, Tribe recently taking a job in the Department of Justice along with Kagan. She was named dean at Harvard by Larry Summers, who helped deregulate much of Wall Street in the Clinton administration and organize much of its bailout under Obama.
“Kagan has said ‘I love the Federalist Society.’ This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society. Many members of the Federalist Society say that Brown v. Board of Education [which struck down ‘separate but equal’] was decided wrongly.
Eugene
May 10, 2010 @
1:33 PM
Kagan’s well-known liberal Kagan’s well-known liberal positions were what made her openness to the conservatives and libertarians on campus possible. The previous dean, Richard Clark, was widely reputed to be (gasp!) a Republican, and had to be more careful to avoid appearing to favor conservative causes. No one could credibly label Dean Kagan a conservative, leaving her free to do the smart political thing and win friends on the center and right. Not that it’s hard to makes conservative friends in the leftist landscape of legal academia; merely restraining open hostility is all most conservative legal scholars can hope for. It was enough to inspire sustained applause when she introduced a Federalist Society function in 2005. She joked at the time, “You are not my people.” No truer words were ever spoken.
Kagan has spent her career in Kagan has spent her career in private and public practice and in academia. She has been a competent advocate for her clients in the public sector, arguing dispassionately on behalf of those clients. And has a justfied reputation as one who supports and encourages open intellectual debate. But as far as her judicial temperment is concerned, we know nothing. She should be asked and compelled to answer questions regarding her views on judicial temperment and the role of the court. Until then, unless she lies like the most recent nominees have, I have no opinion on her nomination.
Aecetia
May 10, 2010 @
3:33 PM
Apparently, she has been Apparently, she has been smart enough to not put much in writing.
UCGal
May 11, 2010 @
8:40 AM
Aecetia wrote:Apparently, she [quote=Aecetia]Apparently, she has been smart enough to not put much in writing.[/quote]
That’s actually not true. What is true is that she does not have a history of judicial opinions… because she was never a judge. She has a wide array of academic publishings, court pleadings, etc.
afx114
May 11, 2010 @
9:19 AM
The expectation that Supreme The expectation that Supreme Court Justices have judicial experience is a relatively new one. Throughout most of the SC’s history it was actually beneficial for nominees to have legislative rather than judicial experience.
briansd1
May 11, 2010 @
9:31 AM
Elena Kagan is young, and Elena Kagan is young, and she’ll likely serve 30 years on the Court.
I’m not too worried about Kagan. Justices have disappointed Republican presidents more then they surprised Democratic presidents.
Zeitgeist
May 11, 2010 @
10:51 AM
I beg to differ with you my I beg to differ with you my dear partisan, but this article illustrates the point rather well.
“Kagan has published very little: three scholarly articles, two shorter essays, two brief book reviews, and two other minor pieces. Compare this record to those of the three other law professors most commonly mentioned as potential replacements for Justice John Paul Stevens: Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan and Harold Koh, who became Yale Law’s dean in 2004, each have more than 100, and Kagan’s Harvard colleague Cass Sunstein, who also works for the Obama administration, has several hundred, including more than 20 books. All three have taken stands on numerous legal and political issues, in both the academic and the popular press. All have written extensively on how, in their view, courts should engage in legal interpretation in general and constitutional interpretation in particular.”
I have no problem with smart fat women. I actually admire and respect their intellect and professionalism.
But I wouldn’t want to be married to a smart opinionated woman who would make constant demands of me and require more responsibility on my part. That’s not what I’m looking for (don’t conservatives like to talk about freedom of choice?).
I don’t need to be with a woman who can discuss interesting subjects. That’s what the news, friends and Piggington are for.
I’d rather be with a beautiful, petite and pleasant woman who would make my life more fun.
I can compartmentalize just fine, thank you.
Aecetia
May 11, 2010 @
11:12 AM
You’re such a blind sexist. You’re such a blind sexist. You just do not get it. Did you mean to say peasant woman?
briansd1
May 11, 2010 @
12:34 PM
Aecetia wrote:You’re such a [quote=Aecetia]You’re such a blind sexist. You just do not get it.
[/quote]
Sexists believe that women are incapable. I believe that women can do everything that men can do
I believe that Elena Kagan can do the job just a well or better than a WASP man.
Ok, she’s fat. Doesn’t bother me one bit.
She’s not married. I wonder what conservatives will say about her next.
[quote=Aecetia]
Did you mean to say peasant woman?[/quote]
A peasant woman would be roughed up from the hard work on the farm under the sun. Not my type.
briansd1 wrote:Zeitgeist [quote=briansd1][quote=Zeitgeist]
And Brian, I thought you loathed fat women or is it just fat Republican women. Fat Libs are just fine.
I have no problem with smart fat women. I actually admire and respect their intellect and professionalism.
But I wouldn’t want to be married to a smart opinionated woman who would make constant demands of me and require more responsibility on my part. That’s not what I’m looking for (don’t conservatives like to talk about freedom of choice?).
I don’t need to be with a woman who can discuss interesting subjects. That’s what the news, friends and Piggington are for.
I’d rather be with a beautiful, petite and pleasant woman who would make my life more fun.
I can compartmentalize just fine, thank you.[/quote]
Yeah, Brian would never be able to live with a woman that could out debate him…but then the bar is pretty low. You may have to start doing your trolling out in Santucky there Brian.
Aecetia
May 11, 2010 @
1:56 PM
Ouch! Ouch!
briansd1
May 11, 2010 @
2:09 PM
meadandale wrote:Yeah, Brian [quote=meadandale]Yeah, Brian would never be able to live with a woman that could out debate him…but then the bar is pretty low. You may have to start doing your trolling out in Santucky there Brian.[/quote]
briansd1 wrote:meadandale [quote=briansd1][quote=meadandale]Yeah, Brian would never be able to live with a woman that could out debate him…but then the bar is pretty low. You may have to start doing your trolling out in Santucky there Brian.[/quote]
Why does it matter what her politics are? You already explained that you don’t care what she thinks or what she has to say (and prefer that she do very little of either). Your only criteria are that she be ‘petite’, pretty and ‘pleasant’. Some cute, dumb redneck should fit the bill perfectly.
briansd1
May 11, 2010 @
3:07 PM
meadandale wrote:
Why does it [quote=meadandale]
Why does it matter what her politics are? You already explained that you don’t care what she thinks or what she has to say (and prefer that she do very little of either). Your only criteria are that she be ‘petite’, pretty and ‘pleasant’. Some cute, dumb redneck should fit the bill perfectly.[/quote]
No politics does not matter.
But in-your-face politics does. I don’t want her dad to be some Tea Party redneck that I have to deal with. You know with the rednecks… it takes a village with them. Once you hook up with one, you need to feed the whole tribe. I don’t want to deal with the unemployed brother or the crazy mother.
But anyway, I’m glad you agree that Santucky is the place to find dumb people and Republican voters. 😉
afx114
May 11, 2010 @
4:00 PM
Santucky? I’ve always called Santucky? I’ve always called it Klantee.
UCGal
May 11, 2010 @
4:25 PM
Here’s a link to some of Here’s a link to some of Kagan’s writings and views
The Clinton library has said it will release her memos, from when she served in the Clinton Whitehouse, in a few weeks. (Similar to the Reagan library taking a few weeks to release Roberts writings after he was nominated.)
If that’s not enough – the Senate Judiciary committee has put many of her writings in one place. This is a year out of date because it was compiled when she was up for solicitor general.
How do you determine if How do you determine if someone is a real liberal? Is that like Pinocchio? It is difficult to tell the real from the faux for most of us (when describing liberals).
briansd1
May 12, 2010 @
8:01 AM
Aecetia wrote:How do you [quote=Aecetia]How do you determine if someone is a real liberal? Is that like Pinocchio? It is difficult to tell the real from the faux for most of us (when describing liberals).[/quote]
What’s a real conservative?
One that upholds states rights only when convenient?
One that would overturn laws on “judicial activism”, or one that would uphold laws passed by Congress?
Aecetia
May 12, 2010 @
9:05 AM
Answer the question about Answer the question about what a real liberal is. We all know your twisted logic on conservatives and women in general.
Zeitgeist
May 12, 2010 @
9:39 AM
Why should a SCOTUS be more Why should a SCOTUS be more qualified than the current POTUS. He had no experience. Why should she have any? She is another of his Libs in sheeps clothing job placements. She is almost as unqualified as Napolitano. …… where do they all come from? They all sort of look alike, too.
Vice President Biden calls Kagan “open minded” and defends her actions and lack of experience. Now that is an oxymoron: an open-minded liberal. A lack of experience is no qualification. Biden says judicial experience is not important for a Supreme Court Justice. There you go again Joe. Kagan’s beliefs are so far to the extreme left of establishment liberals on the Supreme Court that they could not support her “open minded” activism. The Supreme Court Justices have already weighed in on Kagan by rejecting her activism, indicating that something must be truly wrong with this nominee.
Kagan was ultimately unsuccessful in her liberal quest to boot servicemen and women who are America’s best and brightest heroes, not threats, off of Harvard’s campus. The Supreme Court (including all the liberal justices) did not buy her argument and voted against her liberal activism 9-0. Not even one liberal Justice agreed with her anti-constitutional argument.
Every Supreme Court Justice is selected for one reason: to uphold the constitution. Clearly, Elena Kagan has other agendas.
briansd1
May 12, 2010 @
11:27 AM
Zeitgeist wrote: She is [quote=Zeitgeist] She is almost as unqualified as Napolitano. …… where do they all come from?
[/quote]
Napolitano came from Arizona where they passed that new immigration law conservatives love so much.
[quote=Zeitgeist]
Kagan was ultimately unsuccessful in her liberal quest to boot servicemen and women who are America’s best and brightest heroes, not threats, off of Harvard’s campus.
[/quote]
Get your facts straight, Zeit.
Kagan did not boot out any servicemen or veteran students out of Harvard.
Consistent with the position of the Association of American Law Schools, Kagan restricted the military’s recruitment at Harvard Law after the Appeals Court struck down the Salomon Amendment.
It wasn’t Kagan’s lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought by an association of law schools and, as dean of Harvard Law, Kagan supported the lawsuit.
[quote=Zeitgeist]
The Supreme Court (including all the liberal justices) did not buy her argument and voted against her liberal activism 9-0. Not even one liberal Justice agreed with her anti-constitutional argument.
[/quote]
The Department of Defense appealed the District Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the law, and Kagan allowed the military recruiters back.
*
Please be accurate when making claims.
afx114
May 12, 2010 @
12:08 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:Biden says [quote=Zeitgeist]Biden says judicial experience is not important for a Supreme Court Justice.[/quote]
He’s right:
John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, Harlan Fiske Stone, Robert Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, Joseph Story and Roger Taney.
This roster of Supreme Court justices — rated by legal experts and historians as among the greatest or most influential jurists in the court’s history — had one thing in common with Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan: None had ever served as a judge prior to becoming a justice on the nation’s highest court.
Every member of the current court served as a federal appeals court judge immediately prior to being appointed to the high court. And Americans have gotten used to thinking this is normal or even mandatory. It isn’t. Forty of the 111 men and women to serve on the high court since 1789 had no judicial experience. In fact, it isn’t even required that a justice possess a law degree.
Aecetia wrote:Answer the [quote=Aecetia]Answer the question about what a real liberal is. We all know your twisted logic on conservatives and women in general.[/quote]
I like these definitions from Encarta:
Liberal:
progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
Conservative:
reluctant to accept change: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change
danielwis
May 12, 2010 @
3:21 PM
Aecetia wrote:How do you [quote=Aecetia]How do you determine if someone is a real liberal? Is that like Pinocchio? It is difficult to tell the real from the faux for most of us (when describing liberals).[/quote]
Its like porn. You know it when you see it, LOL.
briansd1
May 12, 2010 @
4:39 PM
danielwis wrote:Aecetia [quote=danielwis][quote=Aecetia]How do you determine if someone is a real liberal? Is that like Pinocchio? It is difficult to tell the real from the faux for most of us (when describing liberals).[/quote]
Its like porn. You know it when you see it, LOL.[/quote]
haha that’s a good one, daniel.
Like porn and freedom… liberalism, after you see it, you can’t do without. 😉
Shadowfax
May 13, 2010 @
12:41 AM
Appropos of the Supreme Court Appropos of the Supreme Court discussion:
[I can’t define what is pornography.] “But I know it when I see it.” popular paraphrase of Potter Stewart, opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
briansd1
May 13, 2010 @
9:47 AM
Shadowfax wrote:Appropos of [quote=Shadowfax]Appropos of the Supreme Court discussion:
[I can’t define what is pornography.] “But I know it when I see it.” popular paraphrase of Potter Stewart, opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)[/quote]
That case was about the showing of a French film that the State of Ohio deemed obscene.
That is so quaint considering today’s standards. I remember when Madonna was considered risqué.
That’s what I mean about conservatives. They just want to hold us back in time.
Oh, and Fox TV? That’s soft porn all around. Not exactly Little House on the Prairie.
Aecetia
May 13, 2010 @
11:46 AM
Obama’s Harriet Miers-like Obama’s Harriet Miers-like pick-
“Everyone involved in pundit-ificating–and those living inside the beltway–is in a frenzy over Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. The hard Left doesn’t like her, squishy Repubs shrug their shoulders while everyone else, when asked, simply shouted, “HEY! How about working up the same sweat and tears over the fact that I’m unemployed and the mortgage is due next week!” Quotes from around the web on Obama’s stealth nominee answer to Harriet Miers.” http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010/05/elena-kagan-the-latest-on-what-is-being-unearthed/
briansd1
May 13, 2010 @
1:04 PM
Aecetia, big difference Aecetia, big difference between the two.
Harriet Miers was a surprise pick. Bush just wanted to pick his friend.
Elena Kagan’s name was floated in trial balloons for a long time. And of course, Elena Kagan will be confirmed. Few will remember Harriet Miers 5 years from now.
afx114
May 13, 2010 @
1:45 PM
When do you guys think we’ll When do you guys think we’ll see Obama’s bike wreck and Obama’s pretzel choke?
Allan from Fallbrook
May 13, 2010 @
3:33 PM
briansd1 wrote:danielwis [quote=briansd1][quote=danielwis][quote=Aecetia]How do you determine if someone is a real liberal? Is that like Pinocchio? It is difficult to tell the real from the faux for most of us (when describing liberals).[/quote]
Its like porn. You know it when you see it, LOL.[/quote]
haha that’s a good one, daniel.
Like porn and freedom… liberalism, after you see it, you can’t do without. ;)[/quote]
Brian: No, the actual joke is that you (and danielwen and IForget) consider yourselves liberals. You’re not. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a liberal and in the truest, most meaningful sense of the word.
You and the rest of your cohort are Leftists. Huge difference and mainly illustrated through your use of cheap rhetoric and polemic, as well as your narrow minded conformity to a tired post-structuralist philosophy defined by its inherent intolerance of other viewpoints and its ham-handed attempts to define/control the culture through tools like Political Correctness, moral equivalence and gender/ethnic politics.
The term “liberal” is one of the most beautiful in the English language and is characterized by honest and objective critical thinking, empiricism and a respect/tolerance for the viewpoints of others, especially those of differing “race, color and creed”.
Do yourself a favor and read some of Moynihan’s writings and then juxtapose those with the words of Hillary Clinton or Teddy Kennedy. Pay particular attention to Moynihan’s race neutrality and then compare that with the “victim/oppressor” memes and tropes so favored by the Left/Old Left/New Left.
Don’t lay claim to being either a liberal or a Progressive. By your own admission, you lack the moral fiber (“I’m morally flexible”, remember?), the open-mindedness and the courage.
briansd1
May 13, 2010 @
9:25 PM
Allan, you criticism is well Allan, you criticism is well taken.
But I still call myself a liberal.
Times have changed, the political environment changed and the world is globalized. A liberal of previous is not the same as a liberal of today.
It’s not pragmatic to be a purist. You have to compromise to achieve greater goals; otherwise you end up with nothing.
Your don’t want to feed packaged and canned junk to your family. So you make an effort to cook. Ideally you want to be a purist and do everything with care and from scratch using only the freshest ingredients. But you don’t have enough time; so you have to “cheat” and use some frozen items or pre-prepared sauces.
But still, while you compromise, you select the best food for your family.
We don’t live in the times of our grand-parents anymore. We have to do what best fits our time and circumstances.
Zeitgeist
May 13, 2010 @
9:38 PM
delete delete
Allan from Fallbrook
May 13, 2010 @
9:41 PM
briansd1 wrote:
We don’t live [quote=briansd1]
We don’t live in the times of our grand-parents anymore. We have to do what best fits our time and circumstances.[/quote]
“If a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sorry, Brian, but no cigar. “Morally flexible” doesn’t get it, nor does the “art of the compromise”. We’re not talking politics anymore; we’re talking about morals, ethics and principles.
As a kid, my dad used to talk about the Cowboy Code (“Ride hard, shoot straight, and tell the truth”) and I thought he was a blithering idiot. Who believes that shit? Now I realize, as simplistic as that sounds, its a pretty good code to live by and one I’ve taught my son. My dad fought in WWII and Korea and had zero illusions about his fellow man. But he believed in a sense of honor and doing the right thing.
We’re seeing a generation of political, religious and business leaders that think that hiding behind their attorneys, or false promises, or excuses, somehow alleviates their guilt and accountability. Is that what you meant by compromise? Do you add that ingredient to your organic cooked carrots?
Stand for something, or fall for everything.
Aecetia
May 13, 2010 @
9:55 PM
“What a piece of work is a “What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.”
Hamlet
Allan from Fallbrook
May 13, 2010 @
9:59 PM
“The less secure a man is, “The less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice.”
Clint Eastwood
Aecetia
May 13, 2010 @
10:12 PM
“It is silly to call fat “It is silly to call fat people “gravitationally challenged” – a self-righteous fetishism of language which is no more than a symptom of political frustration.”
~Terry Eagleton
larrylujack
May 17, 2010 @
8:03 PM
UCGal wrote:Aecetia [quote=UCGal][quote=Aecetia]Apparently, she has been smart enough to not put much in writing.[/quote]
That’s actually not true. What is true is that she does not have a history of judicial opinions… because she was never a judge. She has a wide array of academic publishings, court pleadings, etc.[/quote]
really? I can name them all on the fingers of one hand, even the one I lost a pinkie on, please enlighten us with said ” wide array of academic publishings, court pleadings, etc.” None of them address any issues of controversy, Kagan plays nice to move up the beltway food chain obviously. Greg Craig, this weeks shill for the white house, all over again on This week with no specifics. Craig even had to resort to saying that Kagan had to “teach classes,” as if that is enough to get nominated to SCOTUS. If Obama was a liberal, which he is most certainly not, he would have chose Diane Wood with far greater judicial and real world experience not to mention intellect and ability to persuade conservative judges with her point of view than Beltway Kagan would ever hope to have. Kagan is just more of Obama, corporate neo-liberalism, devoid of principles, go with the flow careerism that infests DC and which hopefully along with Obama’s re-election, will die soon.
and
poorgradstudent
May 14, 2010 @
8:46 PM
I can only assume it’s the I can only assume it’s the far liberals on this board saying “no” and the conservatives saying “yes”. Because if I was a conservative, I’d be excited about Kagan. With a 59 seat majority in the Senate Obama could nominate Lefty McSocialist and get him confirmed (although the Dems might pay for it in November). Obama nominated a relative moderate, the Left’s answer to John Roberts, a sort of un-activist left-winger. She’s certainly left of center, but if you’re right of center you need to realize it could have been a LOT worse for you. Kagan is closer to the middle than Sotomayor, and probably more moderate than the man she’s replacing on the court.
briansd1
May 17, 2010 @
5:49 PM
poorgradstudent, I agree that poorgradstudent, I agree that Elena Kagan is really the best they can hope for from Barack Obama.
As Lindsey Graham said, and I paraphrase, a liberal president is entitled to nominate liberal judges. If you want conservatives judges, vote for a conservative president.
Given that Kagan isn’t an outspoken liberal, conservatives should be very excited.
briansd1
May 17, 2010 @
5:58 PM
John Roberts sided with the John Roberts sided with the majority on this most recent case:
The Supreme Court for the first time on Monday put a strict constitutional limit on prison terms, ruling it is cruel and unusual punishment to send a young criminal to prison for life with no chance for parole for a crime that does not involve murder.
Anthony Kennedy also felt that international human rights standards should be taken into consideration in America.
Conservatives in Congress have sharply criticized Kennedy for citing international legal norms. They said the interpretation of the Constitution should be unaffected by foreign views.
Undaunted, Kennedy said again on Monday that the “judgment of the world’s nations” deserved to be considered when U.S. judges decided what was cruel and unusual punishment. These international norms are not “binding or controlling,” he said, but they can “provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.”
May 10, 2010 @ 1:11 PM
WASHINGTON — President Obama
WASHINGTON — President Obama introduced Solicitor General Elena Kagan on Monday as his choice to become the nation’s 112th justice of the Supreme Court, hailing her as a “one of the nation’s foremost legal minds,” as he girded for a battle over whether it takes a judge to serve on the court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/us/politics/11court.html?hp
May 10, 2010 @ 1:27 PM
She’s in the “in” crowd with
She’s in the “in” crowd with the financial big boyz. Goldman Sachs Adviser, Summers long time friend. Oh ya, she is part of the crew.
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/13035–supreme-court-pick-kagan-qlovesq-the-federalist-society.html
During the course of her Senate confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan explicitly endorsed the Bush administration’s bogus category of ‘enemy combatant,’ whose implementation has been a war crime in its own right. Now in her current job as U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan is quarterbacking the continuation of the Bush administration’s illegal and unconstitutional positions in U.S. federal court litigation around the country, including in the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, early this month, the Obama administration lost an illegal wiretapping case. One of the lawyers in the case who won, Jon Eisenberg, said the Obama administration is as bad or worse than the Bush administration when it comes to issues like state secrets and wiretapping.
“Kagan is apparently being backed by several people who are indebted to her from her time at Harvard. [Professors Laurence] Tribe, [Charles] Ogletree and [Alan] Dershowitz all had plagiarism scandals while Kagan headed up the law school — and she in effect bailed them all out. Tribe and Ogletree were teachers/mentors to Obama and still advise him today, Tribe recently taking a job in the Department of Justice along with Kagan. She was named dean at Harvard by Larry Summers, who helped deregulate much of Wall Street in the Clinton administration and organize much of its bailout under Obama.
“Kagan has said ‘I love the Federalist Society.’ This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society. Many members of the Federalist Society say that Brown v. Board of Education [which struck down ‘separate but equal’] was decided wrongly.
May 10, 2010 @ 1:33 PM
Kagan’s well-known liberal
Kagan’s well-known liberal positions were what made her openness to the conservatives and libertarians on campus possible. The previous dean, Richard Clark, was widely reputed to be (gasp!) a Republican, and had to be more careful to avoid appearing to favor conservative causes. No one could credibly label Dean Kagan a conservative, leaving her free to do the smart political thing and win friends on the center and right. Not that it’s hard to makes conservative friends in the leftist landscape of legal academia; merely restraining open hostility is all most conservative legal scholars can hope for. It was enough to inspire sustained applause when she introduced a Federalist Society function in 2005. She joked at the time, “You are not my people.” No truer words were ever spoken.
http://judicialnetwork.com/news/kagan-federalist-society-you-are-not-my-people
May 10, 2010 @ 3:24 PM
Kagan has spent her career in
Kagan has spent her career in private and public practice and in academia. She has been a competent advocate for her clients in the public sector, arguing dispassionately on behalf of those clients. And has a justfied reputation as one who supports and encourages open intellectual debate. But as far as her judicial temperment is concerned, we know nothing. She should be asked and compelled to answer questions regarding her views on judicial temperment and the role of the court. Until then, unless she lies like the most recent nominees have, I have no opinion on her nomination.
May 10, 2010 @ 3:33 PM
Apparently, she has been
Apparently, she has been smart enough to not put much in writing.
May 11, 2010 @ 8:40 AM
Aecetia wrote:Apparently, she
[quote=Aecetia]Apparently, she has been smart enough to not put much in writing.[/quote]
That’s actually not true. What is true is that she does not have a history of judicial opinions… because she was never a judge. She has a wide array of academic publishings, court pleadings, etc.
May 11, 2010 @ 9:19 AM
The expectation that Supreme
The expectation that Supreme Court Justices have judicial experience is a relatively new one. Throughout most of the SC’s history it was actually beneficial for nominees to have legislative rather than judicial experience.
May 11, 2010 @ 9:31 AM
Elena Kagan is young, and
Elena Kagan is young, and she’ll likely serve 30 years on the Court.
I’m not too worried about Kagan. Justices have disappointed Republican presidents more then they surprised Democratic presidents.
May 11, 2010 @ 10:51 AM
I beg to differ with you my
I beg to differ with you my dear partisan, but this article illustrates the point rather well.
“Kagan has published very little: three scholarly articles, two shorter essays, two brief book reviews, and two other minor pieces. Compare this record to those of the three other law professors most commonly mentioned as potential replacements for Justice John Paul Stevens: Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan and Harold Koh, who became Yale Law’s dean in 2004, each have more than 100, and Kagan’s Harvard colleague Cass Sunstein, who also works for the Obama administration, has several hundred, including more than 20 books. All three have taken stands on numerous legal and political issues, in both the academic and the popular press. All have written extensively on how, in their view, courts should engage in legal interpretation in general and constitutional interpretation in particular.”
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/blank-slate
And Brian, I thought you loathed fat women or is it just fat Republican women. Fat Libs are just fine.
http://www.bfdblog.com/2010/05/10/of-course-we-have-to-call-elena-kagan-fat/
She is a blank slate for a reason, just like Obama was, so the stupid sheep do not know what they are really getting. What a bunch of blatherers.
May 11, 2010 @ 10:59 AM
Zeit,
That fat link was
Zeit,
That fat link was harsh. Matthew Broderick? Where’s the civility?
May 11, 2010 @ 11:07 AM
Zeitgeist wrote:
And Brian, I
[quote=Zeitgeist]
And Brian, I thought you loathed fat women or is it just fat Republican women. Fat Libs are just fine.
http://www.bfdblog.com/2010/05/10/of-course-we-have-to-call-elena-kagan-fat/
[/quote]
I have no problem with smart fat women. I actually admire and respect their intellect and professionalism.
But I wouldn’t want to be married to a smart opinionated woman who would make constant demands of me and require more responsibility on my part. That’s not what I’m looking for (don’t conservatives like to talk about freedom of choice?).
I don’t need to be with a woman who can discuss interesting subjects. That’s what the news, friends and Piggington are for.
I’d rather be with a beautiful, petite and pleasant woman who would make my life more fun.
I can compartmentalize just fine, thank you.
May 11, 2010 @ 11:12 AM
You’re such a blind sexist.
You’re such a blind sexist. You just do not get it. Did you mean to say peasant woman?
May 11, 2010 @ 12:34 PM
Aecetia wrote:You’re such a
[quote=Aecetia]You’re such a blind sexist. You just do not get it.
[/quote]
Sexists believe that women are incapable. I believe that women can do everything that men can do
I believe that Elena Kagan can do the job just a well or better than a WASP man.
Ok, she’s fat. Doesn’t bother me one bit.
She’s not married. I wonder what conservatives will say about her next.
[quote=Aecetia]
Did you mean to say peasant woman?[/quote]
A peasant woman would be roughed up from the hard work on the farm under the sun. Not my type.
May 11, 2010 @ 12:41 PM
Kagan
[img_assist|nid=13281|title=Kagan|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=81|height=124]
May 11, 2010 @ 1:51 PM
briansd1 wrote:Zeitgeist
[quote=briansd1][quote=Zeitgeist]
And Brian, I thought you loathed fat women or is it just fat Republican women. Fat Libs are just fine.
http://www.bfdblog.com/2010/05/10/of-course-we-have-to-call-elena-kagan-fat/
[/quote]
I have no problem with smart fat women. I actually admire and respect their intellect and professionalism.
But I wouldn’t want to be married to a smart opinionated woman who would make constant demands of me and require more responsibility on my part. That’s not what I’m looking for (don’t conservatives like to talk about freedom of choice?).
I don’t need to be with a woman who can discuss interesting subjects. That’s what the news, friends and Piggington are for.
I’d rather be with a beautiful, petite and pleasant woman who would make my life more fun.
I can compartmentalize just fine, thank you.[/quote]
Yeah, Brian would never be able to live with a woman that could out debate him…but then the bar is pretty low. You may have to start doing your trolling out in Santucky there Brian.
May 11, 2010 @ 1:56 PM
Ouch!
Ouch!
May 11, 2010 @ 2:09 PM
meadandale wrote:Yeah, Brian
[quote=meadandale]Yeah, Brian would never be able to live with a woman that could out debate him…but then the bar is pretty low. You may have to start doing your trolling out in Santucky there Brian.[/quote]
Isn’t Santucky where people vote Republican?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Santucky
May 11, 2010 @ 2:59 PM
briansd1 wrote:meadandale
[quote=briansd1][quote=meadandale]Yeah, Brian would never be able to live with a woman that could out debate him…but then the bar is pretty low. You may have to start doing your trolling out in Santucky there Brian.[/quote]
Isn’t Santucky where people vote Republican?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Santucky%5B/quote%5D
Why does it matter what her politics are? You already explained that you don’t care what she thinks or what she has to say (and prefer that she do very little of either). Your only criteria are that she be ‘petite’, pretty and ‘pleasant’. Some cute, dumb redneck should fit the bill perfectly.
May 11, 2010 @ 3:07 PM
meadandale wrote:
Why does it
[quote=meadandale]
Why does it matter what her politics are? You already explained that you don’t care what she thinks or what she has to say (and prefer that she do very little of either). Your only criteria are that she be ‘petite’, pretty and ‘pleasant’. Some cute, dumb redneck should fit the bill perfectly.[/quote]
No politics does not matter.
But in-your-face politics does. I don’t want her dad to be some Tea Party redneck that I have to deal with. You know with the rednecks… it takes a village with them. Once you hook up with one, you need to feed the whole tribe. I don’t want to deal with the unemployed brother or the crazy mother.
But anyway, I’m glad you agree that Santucky is the place to find dumb people and Republican voters. 😉
May 11, 2010 @ 4:00 PM
Santucky? I’ve always called
Santucky? I’ve always called it Klantee.
May 11, 2010 @ 4:25 PM
Here’s a link to some of
Here’s a link to some of Kagan’s writings and views
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/10/us/politics/20100505-kagan-opinions.html
Here’s a list of her law review articles.
http://www.lisnews.org/kagan_law_review_articles_and_book_reviews
And scotusblog has a post that has links and summaries to even more writings/opinions/etc.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/9750-words-on-elena-kagan/
The Clinton library has said it will release her memos, from when she served in the Clinton Whitehouse, in a few weeks. (Similar to the Reagan library taking a few weeks to release Roberts writings after he was nominated.)
If that’s not enough – the Senate Judiciary committee has put many of her writings in one place. This is a year out of date because it was compiled when she was up for solicitor general.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/111thCongressExecutiveNominations/SolicitorGeneral-ElenaKagan.cfm
May 11, 2010 @ 5:16 PM
AS long as she’s a real
AS long as she’s a real liberal, to balance out the crazy conservatives on the court, I’m perfectly happy with the pick.
May 11, 2010 @ 5:19 PM
afx114 wrote:Santucky? I’ve
[quote=afx114]Santucky? I’ve always called it Klantee.[/quote]
I just looked it up.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=klantee
May 12, 2010 @ 1:01 AM
How do you determine if
How do you determine if someone is a real liberal? Is that like Pinocchio? It is difficult to tell the real from the faux for most of us (when describing liberals).
May 12, 2010 @ 8:01 AM
Aecetia wrote:How do you
[quote=Aecetia]How do you determine if someone is a real liberal? Is that like Pinocchio? It is difficult to tell the real from the faux for most of us (when describing liberals).[/quote]
What’s a real conservative?
One that upholds states rights only when convenient?
One that would overturn laws on “judicial activism”, or one that would uphold laws passed by Congress?
May 12, 2010 @ 9:05 AM
Answer the question about
Answer the question about what a real liberal is. We all know your twisted logic on conservatives and women in general.
May 12, 2010 @ 9:39 AM
Why should a SCOTUS be more
Why should a SCOTUS be more qualified than the current POTUS. He had no experience. Why should she have any? She is another of his Libs in sheeps clothing job placements. She is almost as unqualified as Napolitano. …… where do they all come from? They all sort of look alike, too.
Vice President Biden calls Kagan “open minded” and defends her actions and lack of experience. Now that is an oxymoron: an open-minded liberal. A lack of experience is no qualification. Biden says judicial experience is not important for a Supreme Court Justice. There you go again Joe. Kagan’s beliefs are so far to the extreme left of establishment liberals on the Supreme Court that they could not support her “open minded” activism. The Supreme Court Justices have already weighed in on Kagan by rejecting her activism, indicating that something must be truly wrong with this nominee.
Kagan was ultimately unsuccessful in her liberal quest to boot servicemen and women who are America’s best and brightest heroes, not threats, off of Harvard’s campus. The Supreme Court (including all the liberal justices) did not buy her argument and voted against her liberal activism 9-0. Not even one liberal Justice agreed with her anti-constitutional argument.
Every Supreme Court Justice is selected for one reason: to uphold the constitution. Clearly, Elena Kagan has other agendas.
May 12, 2010 @ 11:27 AM
Zeitgeist wrote: She is
[quote=Zeitgeist] She is almost as unqualified as Napolitano. …… where do they all come from?
[/quote]
Napolitano came from Arizona where they passed that new immigration law conservatives love so much.
[quote=Zeitgeist]
Kagan was ultimately unsuccessful in her liberal quest to boot servicemen and women who are America’s best and brightest heroes, not threats, off of Harvard’s campus.
[/quote]
Get your facts straight, Zeit.
Kagan did not boot out any servicemen or veteran students out of Harvard.
Consistent with the position of the Association of American Law Schools, Kagan restricted the military’s recruitment at Harvard Law after the Appeals Court struck down the Salomon Amendment.
It wasn’t Kagan’s lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought by an association of law schools and, as dean of Harvard Law, Kagan supported the lawsuit.
[quote=Zeitgeist]
The Supreme Court (including all the liberal justices) did not buy her argument and voted against her liberal activism 9-0. Not even one liberal Justice agreed with her anti-constitutional argument.
[/quote]
The Department of Defense appealed the District Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the law, and Kagan allowed the military recruiters back.
*
Please be accurate when making claims.
May 12, 2010 @ 12:08 PM
Zeitgeist wrote:Biden says
[quote=Zeitgeist]Biden says judicial experience is not important for a Supreme Court Justice.[/quote]
He’s right:
via
May 12, 2010 @ 2:22 PM
Aecetia wrote:Answer the
[quote=Aecetia]Answer the question about what a real liberal is. We all know your twisted logic on conservatives and women in general.[/quote]
I like these definitions from Encarta:
Liberal:
progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
Conservative:
reluctant to accept change: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change
May 12, 2010 @ 3:21 PM
Aecetia wrote:How do you
[quote=Aecetia]How do you determine if someone is a real liberal? Is that like Pinocchio? It is difficult to tell the real from the faux for most of us (when describing liberals).[/quote]
Its like porn. You know it when you see it, LOL.
May 12, 2010 @ 4:39 PM
danielwis wrote:Aecetia
[quote=danielwis][quote=Aecetia]How do you determine if someone is a real liberal? Is that like Pinocchio? It is difficult to tell the real from the faux for most of us (when describing liberals).[/quote]
Its like porn. You know it when you see it, LOL.[/quote]
haha that’s a good one, daniel.
Like porn and freedom… liberalism, after you see it, you can’t do without. 😉
May 13, 2010 @ 12:41 AM
Appropos of the Supreme Court
Appropos of the Supreme Court discussion:
[I can’t define what is pornography.] “But I know it when I see it.” popular paraphrase of Potter Stewart, opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
May 13, 2010 @ 9:47 AM
Shadowfax wrote:Appropos of
[quote=Shadowfax]Appropos of the Supreme Court discussion:
[I can’t define what is pornography.] “But I know it when I see it.” popular paraphrase of Potter Stewart, opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)[/quote]
That case was about the showing of a French film that the State of Ohio deemed obscene.
That is so quaint considering today’s standards. I remember when Madonna was considered risqué.
That’s what I mean about conservatives. They just want to hold us back in time.
Oh, and Fox TV? That’s soft porn all around. Not exactly Little House on the Prairie.
May 13, 2010 @ 11:46 AM
Obama’s Harriet Miers-like
Obama’s Harriet Miers-like pick-
“Everyone involved in pundit-ificating–and those living inside the beltway–is in a frenzy over Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. The hard Left doesn’t like her, squishy Repubs shrug their shoulders while everyone else, when asked, simply shouted, “HEY! How about working up the same sweat and tears over the fact that I’m unemployed and the mortgage is due next week!” Quotes from around the web on Obama’s stealth nominee answer to Harriet Miers.”
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010/05/elena-kagan-the-latest-on-what-is-being-unearthed/
May 13, 2010 @ 1:04 PM
Aecetia, big difference
Aecetia, big difference between the two.
Harriet Miers was a surprise pick. Bush just wanted to pick his friend.
Elena Kagan’s name was floated in trial balloons for a long time. And of course, Elena Kagan will be confirmed. Few will remember Harriet Miers 5 years from now.
May 13, 2010 @ 1:45 PM
When do you guys think we’ll
When do you guys think we’ll see Obama’s bike wreck and Obama’s pretzel choke?
May 13, 2010 @ 3:33 PM
briansd1 wrote:danielwis
[quote=briansd1][quote=danielwis][quote=Aecetia]How do you determine if someone is a real liberal? Is that like Pinocchio? It is difficult to tell the real from the faux for most of us (when describing liberals).[/quote]
Its like porn. You know it when you see it, LOL.[/quote]
haha that’s a good one, daniel.
Like porn and freedom… liberalism, after you see it, you can’t do without. ;)[/quote]
Brian: No, the actual joke is that you (and danielwen and IForget) consider yourselves liberals. You’re not. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a liberal and in the truest, most meaningful sense of the word.
You and the rest of your cohort are Leftists. Huge difference and mainly illustrated through your use of cheap rhetoric and polemic, as well as your narrow minded conformity to a tired post-structuralist philosophy defined by its inherent intolerance of other viewpoints and its ham-handed attempts to define/control the culture through tools like Political Correctness, moral equivalence and gender/ethnic politics.
The term “liberal” is one of the most beautiful in the English language and is characterized by honest and objective critical thinking, empiricism and a respect/tolerance for the viewpoints of others, especially those of differing “race, color and creed”.
Do yourself a favor and read some of Moynihan’s writings and then juxtapose those with the words of Hillary Clinton or Teddy Kennedy. Pay particular attention to Moynihan’s race neutrality and then compare that with the “victim/oppressor” memes and tropes so favored by the Left/Old Left/New Left.
Don’t lay claim to being either a liberal or a Progressive. By your own admission, you lack the moral fiber (“I’m morally flexible”, remember?), the open-mindedness and the courage.
May 13, 2010 @ 9:25 PM
Allan, you criticism is well
Allan, you criticism is well taken.
But I still call myself a liberal.
Times have changed, the political environment changed and the world is globalized. A liberal of previous is not the same as a liberal of today.
It’s not pragmatic to be a purist. You have to compromise to achieve greater goals; otherwise you end up with nothing.
Your don’t want to feed packaged and canned junk to your family. So you make an effort to cook. Ideally you want to be a purist and do everything with care and from scratch using only the freshest ingredients. But you don’t have enough time; so you have to “cheat” and use some frozen items or pre-prepared sauces.
But still, while you compromise, you select the best food for your family.
We don’t live in the times of our grand-parents anymore. We have to do what best fits our time and circumstances.
May 13, 2010 @ 9:38 PM
delete
delete
May 13, 2010 @ 9:41 PM
briansd1 wrote:
We don’t live
[quote=briansd1]
We don’t live in the times of our grand-parents anymore. We have to do what best fits our time and circumstances.[/quote]
“If a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sorry, Brian, but no cigar. “Morally flexible” doesn’t get it, nor does the “art of the compromise”. We’re not talking politics anymore; we’re talking about morals, ethics and principles.
As a kid, my dad used to talk about the Cowboy Code (“Ride hard, shoot straight, and tell the truth”) and I thought he was a blithering idiot. Who believes that shit? Now I realize, as simplistic as that sounds, its a pretty good code to live by and one I’ve taught my son. My dad fought in WWII and Korea and had zero illusions about his fellow man. But he believed in a sense of honor and doing the right thing.
We’re seeing a generation of political, religious and business leaders that think that hiding behind their attorneys, or false promises, or excuses, somehow alleviates their guilt and accountability. Is that what you meant by compromise? Do you add that ingredient to your organic cooked carrots?
Stand for something, or fall for everything.
May 13, 2010 @ 9:55 PM
“What a piece of work is a
“What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.”
Hamlet
May 13, 2010 @ 9:59 PM
“The less secure a man is,
“The less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice.”
Clint Eastwood
May 13, 2010 @ 10:12 PM
“It is silly to call fat
“It is silly to call fat people “gravitationally challenged” – a self-righteous fetishism of language which is no more than a symptom of political frustration.”
~Terry Eagleton
May 17, 2010 @ 8:03 PM
UCGal wrote:Aecetia
[quote=UCGal][quote=Aecetia]Apparently, she has been smart enough to not put much in writing.[/quote]
That’s actually not true. What is true is that she does not have a history of judicial opinions… because she was never a judge. She has a wide array of academic publishings, court pleadings, etc.[/quote]
really? I can name them all on the fingers of one hand, even the one I lost a pinkie on, please enlighten us with said ” wide array of academic publishings, court pleadings, etc.” None of them address any issues of controversy, Kagan plays nice to move up the beltway food chain obviously. Greg Craig, this weeks shill for the white house, all over again on This week with no specifics. Craig even had to resort to saying that Kagan had to “teach classes,” as if that is enough to get nominated to SCOTUS. If Obama was a liberal, which he is most certainly not, he would have chose Diane Wood with far greater judicial and real world experience not to mention intellect and ability to persuade conservative judges with her point of view than Beltway Kagan would ever hope to have. Kagan is just more of Obama, corporate neo-liberalism, devoid of principles, go with the flow careerism that infests DC and which hopefully along with Obama’s re-election, will die soon.
and
May 14, 2010 @ 8:46 PM
I can only assume it’s the
I can only assume it’s the far liberals on this board saying “no” and the conservatives saying “yes”. Because if I was a conservative, I’d be excited about Kagan. With a 59 seat majority in the Senate Obama could nominate Lefty McSocialist and get him confirmed (although the Dems might pay for it in November). Obama nominated a relative moderate, the Left’s answer to John Roberts, a sort of un-activist left-winger. She’s certainly left of center, but if you’re right of center you need to realize it could have been a LOT worse for you. Kagan is closer to the middle than Sotomayor, and probably more moderate than the man she’s replacing on the court.
May 17, 2010 @ 5:49 PM
poorgradstudent, I agree that
poorgradstudent, I agree that Elena Kagan is really the best they can hope for from Barack Obama.
As Lindsey Graham said, and I paraphrase, a liberal president is entitled to nominate liberal judges. If you want conservatives judges, vote for a conservative president.
Given that Kagan isn’t an outspoken liberal, conservatives should be very excited.
May 17, 2010 @ 5:58 PM
John Roberts sided with the
John Roberts sided with the majority on this most recent case:
Anthony Kennedy also felt that international human rights standards should be taken into consideration in America.