Kagan Supreme Court Nomination Thread

JHer tenure at Harvard--hiring practices, side gigs, scholarship, and so forth--points to her being a textbook case of a post-Reagan/DLC Democratic supporter, i.e. someone who would have been considered a mainstream Republican circa 1979.

This is just the latest in a long line of "fuck you"s that this administration is dealing to the base. The message written on the middle finger of this one: "If you can read this, you're going to the grave without ever seeing a Supreme Court justice placed on the court that is to the left of a mainstream Pre-Reagan Republican."

I'm reading Lessig's case for Kagan as a justice right now and it's making me actively angry.There's a reason Stevens and Breyer almost never seriously try to engage Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas on controversial issues directly involving conservative interests: they know these people are impervious to reason. You don't get ranked among the top 10 conservative SCOTUS justices in US history by being the kind of jurist who keeps an open mind.

Also, I love the fact that he has to stress idea that he's not talking about triangulation half a dozen times in the first half of the article. "I know it reads like I'm defending Clintonian capitulation to the Reaganesque framing of issues ... but I'm not. Honest."

Another thing is that her surname sounds like a Scythian warlord.

I have deep concerns

1) I hate to be blunt, but she looks very unhealthy. I don't extend "fat acceptance" to supreme court nominees when it means they would die more quickly than they would otherwise. If I were he, I'd make sure that she plans to get fit before giving her the nod

2) From what I'm reading, she is not really a liberal. Who on earth is he trying to please with these nominees?

Why, it's almost as though the Obama who campaigned as a bipartisan centrist is a bipartisan centrist. What a shock.

But haven't you seen her SHE'S FAT

Guys, the Supreme Court is not a political body. These people get lifetime tenures, they need to be a little bit conservative. This is part of those checks and balances you all learned about in grade school.

Like it or not, having centrists on the bench pays off for this country in the long run.

I'm for her. Strongly. I hope those &^%^&%^ in Congress don't filibuster her, but they most likely will.

I don't know about "centrist" per se, but apolitical certainly. Which is what is so expressly foul about Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia -- they're far right idealogues. No way ANYONE rules as they did on Bush v. Gore and Citizens United without having a major partisan agenda.

ok, "apolitical" is more apt. And I agree. But the tit-for-tat, "we need a true progressive on the bench" mentality is counter productive and would ultimately undermine our judiciary's role in federal governance.

I get that, and while I personally would love to have an unapologetic progressive on the bench I get Obama's point and your point. It certainly makes sense. But that won't stop the next George W. Bush from appointing another Roberts. Thus you move the "middle" to the right. Again.

Say what you will about Scalia...and we all have...but, there's no denying that he's brilliant, and quite possibly the most intelligent of the currently serving justices. That being said, he does tend to betray his idealistic leanings with logical gaps in his opinions from time to time.

I'm not a fan, but I do give him props for being the single dissenter in the animal cruelty case. I still don't understand how showing animal torture on video can be considered speech. It's vile.

I can't believe people are really trying to say that her weight is a problem, WTF?

As for electing somebody to the left of Noam Chomsky, why? And screw "the base", Obama didn't get elected by only votes from the "base" in the first place.

That was Alito... Scalia is the crazy one. Smart, certainly, but crazy.

No way she gets filibustered. She'll pass, with between 59-65 votes. The votes against her will talk about her lack of judicial experience. Some of those will be honest, and plenty will be using that as an excuse to vote against her for partisan reasons. I'm willing to bet the major issue for her (beyond experience) is her support for not allowing military organizations to recruit at Harvard when she was running things. That is common among elite law schools (to protest DADT) for the past 15 years or so, but believe you me, she'll hear about it.

You know who loves Scalia? Ginsburg. They're totally pals. And I'd agree he is probably the smartest person on the bench (which is saying a lot...it is a smart group).

In that case, Scalia can go *&^% off with his pal, Cheney. Alito, on the other hand, gets props as described above.

I always hear this, but why do people say this?

To quote the salty old Supreme Court Justice from the West Wing, "I waited for a democrat. Instead I got you."

The Court shouldn't be measured and balanced in terms of slavish devotion to one ideology or another. Conservative or Liberal (however you'd define those terms) shouldn't be the primary operating principle when it comes to the examination of the law. I'd prefer a court made up of rational people who can reason and think for themselves.

No one's going to confuse John Marshall Harlan as a great suffragist in terms of today's thinking but his dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, and it's rational examination of the issue at hand, is more of what the Court needs.

The reason she won't be filibustered--probably won't be, you never know with these people--is that she's a huge whore for executive power. That's what pisses me off the most about this. Not only can you apply the majority of the case against Harriet Miers to her due to her lack of record, but the record she does have is completely open to every criticism Senator Obama through at douchenozzle Justice Roberts.

She literally helped craft the "unitary executive" power grabs that eventually gave us the George W. Bush years AND spoke highly favorably of the Bush administration's power grabs during her confirmation as Solicitor General. These are the reasons Republicans like her.

This nomination basically betrays most things Obama has ever stood for when it comes to these kinds of appointments.

Harriet Miers and the first female dean of HLS. NEARLY INDISTINGUISHABLE.

In terms of number of times in their careers that they've issued any opinion whatsoever about the main legal issues of the day in public, yes.

So she has a better resume? HOOZAH!

Yeah, outside of a broad body of scholarship influential enough to not only make her a professor of law at multiple prestigious law schools, but as previously mentioned, A DEAN AT HLS. You don't know what you're talking about. Also, you may want to start looking at the relationship between the Solicitor General's office and the Supreme Court.

At least the Republicans had the balls to be highly critical of Bush for putting up a nominee with absolutely no recorded legal opinion whatsoever when they were still worshiping Bush as God Incarnate. Most Democrats, however, are lining up to support this because it's Obama's decision, not because they have good reasons to like Kagan.

I'd like to live in a world where these words of LBJ's are true: "The Democratic Party is, on its worst day, better than the Republican Party on its best day.

It's the person who represents the interest of the United States at the Supreme Court. It doesn't really affect anything I've written about her.

Also, she is a blank slate on most questions. That's the entire reason she's the nominee. If you can show me where she's offered her opinion on reproductive rights, the right to privacy, the role of the executive, her understanding of how to interpret the Constitution, or any other issue you might want to know a person's opinion about in advance of making her a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, please let me know.

She's published extensively on the role of the executive. So, you're wrong. Also, she's published multiple times of freedom of speech.

Some selected article titles that I found in less that three minutes:
Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine

Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V.

CONFERENCE REMARK: Harvard Law School Lambda Second Annual
Gay and Lesbian Legal Advocacy Conference "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"* (transcription of comments)

DEVELOPMENTS IN FREE SPEECH DOCTRINE: CHARTING THE NEXUS BETWEEN SPEECH AND RELIGION, ABORTION, AND EQUALITY: ARTICLE: When A Speech Code Is A Speech Code: The Stanford Policy and the Theory of Incidental Restraints

Also, she's pretty damn tight with Cass Sunstein and Lawrence Lessig, both of whom are good company to keep.

It's weird to see the right accuse Obama of being left of Stalin, see the left poo-poo such nonsense, then see the left perturbed by the fact that he's not.

No, what pisses us off is that we told the public that this was going to be a repudiation of the last eight years in 2008. From a legal perspective, from Miranda to the War on Terror, to Executive power, it's GWB's third term. That should make you angry.

hahahaha Bush's 3rd term. Man, Cuchu ..., what the hell is wrong with you today?

This is a profoundly silly stance to take and you should feel silly for taking it.

Yeah, they have taken Bush's take on the unitary executive, Bush's take states secrets, Bush's take on Miranda, and completely backed off of challenging Bush's approach to detainee rights and retained most of his methods for prosecuting the "War on Terror." You're right, I'm way, way off.

Really? Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally?

Hahahahah @ "but he'll piss off the base."

That's the whole fucking thing about the base. You think--in this political climate especially--they're going anywhere?

It begins.

Yes, the Constitution was so perfect and untouchable that it was only amended twenty-seven times. How dare anyone say the Founding Fathers didn't get it right the first time!

I can't be the only one who thought of Clash of the Titans and that quote (you know the one) when they read this comment.

Of course, of course. I mean, I'd expect nothing less from such staunch defenders of all that is right and good in this nation.

The only 'research' these republicans do is in the field of adhesion studies as pertains to projectile fecal material.

I sincerely hope Steele goes home and privately weeps in shame at what he's done today.

I love that absolutely nothing being cited in that quote box is even remotely wrong or bad, but it's being talked about as if it is.

Yeah, remember when one of the greatest strengths of the Constitution was that it was a living document?

Perhaps he's suffering from Stockholm syndrome?

No shit. Things like this are a constant source of frustration for me as an American. I guess there's morons everywhere though. It's just... there's a particular and cunning form of twat here that has the ability to unnerve me to no end.

While we're being all strict interpretation about the Constitution, how do these morons equate that with the fact that women couldn't vote until the 19th Amendment?

She has ties to a NEGRO, Prankster!!!! She thinks the Constitution is DEFECTIVE!!!!. Don't you understand, that makes her L*I*B*E*R*A*L!

1) President's don't give up rights accrued by previous administrations barring massive scandal. There wasn't a single legitimate presidential nominee who would have handed over presidential overreach. It's up to the SCOTUS and the Congress to check that. Yes, it sucks, but it's reality.

2) All of these assumed overreaches hinge on the War on Terror, which is unfortunately a real thing. It's more like a Perpetual State of Heightened Paranoia (the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, or so Malcom McDowell claims in Wing Commander IV). The baseline there is real. Assholes keep trying to blow up SUVs and underwear and planes. It's not politically feasible to back down on any of these issues. Obama is more pragmatic than anything. This has been known to those paying attention for a while. I can definitely understand not liking it, and wishing for something a bit more idealistic, but idealism has been on the severe retreat since the towers came down and Iraq descended into a bloodbath.

So . . . War is Peace?

All I can say to that dispiriting spectre is that yes, America has been here before. We can be counted on to do eventually do the right thing, after exhausting all other options. I'll take the Obama Administration's competence and thoughtful approach to these intensely delicate issues over the Cowboy Bring Em On approach any day. It's not ideal, but it's the world we live in. I hate to sound so apologist, but that's the unfortunate side-effect of grappling with the realist perspective. I don't think it was realistic to invade Iraq and expect democracy to spring forth, and I'm not naive enough to think the Bush administration honestly thought the same thing. It was a strategic decision. I think it was a really bad strategic decision, because there were other, less bad options in dealing with Saddam. I don't know what sort of less bad options we have, at this point, in AfPak.

Also: Stevens isn't gone yet, and so I would contend the assertion that there is any other smarter, more thoughtful Justice currently serving on the bench. The only litmus test I would place on the Kagan nomination is: can she effectively build coalitions and legally, forcefully argue against the conservative tilt in the court. I would love a centrist court, really, but that's what we have with incompetents like Thomas, ideologues like Scalia (yes, I know he has beautifully thought out his defense of originalist interpretation - that doesn't make it any less full of shit), and legal radicals like Roberts (who sees rights without responsibilities for corporate bodies and argues that no distinction can be made in speech, which is just fucking mindblowing in it's two-faced hucksterism).

Er, just in case anyone is dumb enough to take the above seriously, it's not meant seriously.

When did Obama become a ultra Left Progressive? I missed his "Cross of Gold" Speech. All the speeches I did catch showed him to be a Center Left kinda guy.