Elena Kagan Emerging As Supreme Court Front-Runner

[caseymoz]

Source: Huffington Post

Elena Kagan, President Obama's solicitor general, is rapidly emerging as a frontrunner to replace retiring Chief Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. Kagan is widely praised as an accomplished and intelligent attorney, but is far more conservative than Stevens and could shift the political dynamic of the high court.

Conservatives are responding favorably to the potential of a Justice Elena Kagan while liberals worry that, by choosing her, the administration would miss the opportunity to elevate a genuine progressive.

John Manning, a conservative professor at Harvard Law School, where Kagan served as dean, told HuffPost that he would firmly support a Kagan nomination. Professor Charles Fried, a Reagan administration solicitor general, also said that he'd support a Kagan pick.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/elena-kagan-emerging-as-s_n_532319.html

---

What is this, he's shifting the court to the right? It's time for the liberal-progressives to go into rebellion. First Obama expands executive power, tramples on constitutional rights, and: gives assassination orders for an American Citizen (why hasn't that been discussed here?) Now he's leaning toward appointing a more conservative justice to the court?

I know the article soft-pedals this by saying that John Paul Stevens didn't look all that liberal when he started out. Which means we ought to gamble with her, too. When he doesn't have to throw the dice to please Conservatives, Democrats control the Senate.

I don't know if the message here is that Obama is a centrist, I mean, we already know that by now, or whether this one is simply a middle finger to the liberal-progressives. We should be insulted either way.

[mvd]

1. Why is she thought to be so much more conservative?

The HP article didn't really explain why.

[KittyWampus]

6. Thank you for asking that question. Some will not ask but react to the article

[katandmoon]

9. I didn't have to. I already this:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/09/stevens/index.html

[KittyWampus]

11. LOL! There are almost no actual facts offered regarding Kagan. Just opinions. Thanks for proving my

point.

[katandmoon]

19. Fine -- just keep your head in the sand then.

[caseymoz]

39. First, does it give you pause that Conservatives 'adore' her?

"Kagan has been criticized by civil libertarians for her expansive stance on detainee policy."

http://washingtonindependent.com/29849/indefinite-detention-lite-et-tu-elena-kagan

"Kagan's adoration from conservatives could give her what one Supreme Court watcher described as 'the easiest and more logical path forward.'"

"'You have to admit Elena Kagan is a brilliant woman,' Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah.) said during an interview on conservative North Dakota radio last May. 'She is a brilliant lawyer. If he picks her, it is a real dilemma for people. And she will undoubtedly say that she will abide by the rule of law.'"

That from the intellectual giant who gave us the Hatch amendment. Just the say, they're talking about different things when they say "brilliant," "intelligent," or "rule of law." Her position on limitless detention says something about what she thinks of rule of law.

What I'm saying is, there is no reason Obama has to make a "stealth nomination" like Bush did with Roberts, or the other Bush tried with Thomas. That is to say, nominating somebody who has little profile and whose opinions are little known, and who the other side happens to like. There's no way Republicans can stop the nomination. If lack of a profile is the only thing she has going for her, other than massive praise for conservatives, what it means is, Obama is right-centrist and the left is getting screwed, and can expect to continue being screwed by him.

A Supreme Court nomination is one of the lasting legacies Obama could have. If he chooses her, it says something.

[Arkana]

59. And Stevens was nominated by Ford. Souter by HW Bush.

Let's be honest--you have no idea what kind of jurist she'll be on the federal bench.

[caseymoz]

64. Then why is Obama resorting in the "stealth" nomination.

Of course I don't know how she'll "turn out." But conservatives know something about her we do don't know yet. Otherwise, how do you explain the lack of caution, and even early enthusiasm on their part?

Ford was a "liberal" by today's standards but not by the standards of his day. The same goes for Stevens, he's a conservative-moderate, a liberal according to Limbaugh and Beck. Souter was chosen in the wake of Bork's rejection, and he was a "stealth" nomination.

My question is, why the stealth nominee? Who is being stealthed here? I think it's us this time.

[No Elephants]

84. Souter and Stevens were the exceptions, not the rule. And, probably their date of birth had a lot to

do with it. And where they were born. You cannot appoint conservatives these days with the expectation that the Court will turn them liberal, or at least, less conservative. These are very different times.

Stevens is such a loss. Not only bc he was a Republican liberal, but also because he could sometimes pull Kennedy over from the dark side and get that rare (these days) 5-4 decision on the side of the angels. I don't know that a young Democrat, conservative or not, will have the same sway with Kennedy that Stevens had. And the rest of the Rethugs are beyond hope.

[Art_from_Ark]

101. Ford wasn't exactly a raging conservative

By today's standards, he might even be liberal

[jmowreader]

105. By today's standards, NIXON would be a liberal

Let me see...

in the Senate Nixon voted in favor of civil rights for minorities and voted for disaster relief for India and Yugoslavia.

As Vice President he worked to get Eisenhower's civil rights bill through the Senate.

When he was inaugurated president in 1969, his hand was covering Isaiah 2.4--"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks." And he said in his address, "the greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker." He also said, "In these difficult years, America has suffered from a fever of words; from inflated rhetoric that promises more than it can deliver; from angry rhetoric that fans discontents into hatreds; from bombastic rhetoric that postures instead of persuading. We cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another, until we speak quietly enough so that our words can be heard as well as our voices.”

He ended the draft and converted the military to an all-volunteer force, which is one of the reasons our military is so good: everyone asked to be there.

He instituted a wage and price freeze to help battle inflation. He then went on television and said, "Working together, we will break the back of inflation."

Nixon indexed Social Security to inflation and created Supplemental Security Income, presented a balanced budget--the next one would be presented by Bill Clinton--and was loathe to use deficit spending.

He took the United States off the gold standard.

He signed the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and established the EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Council on Environmental Quality.

He desegregated public schools. He sent men to the moon. He was pro-choice. (However, he was kinda racist on this one: he thought "interracial child" was justification for abortion. No one said Nixon was perfect.)

The healthcare plan Obama signed? It's very close to the one Nixon wanted.

This is fucking NIXON, man. You know, the worst piece of shit president America ever inflicted on America. If you were to take Nixon's liberal policies (Noam Chomsky calls Nixon the last liberal president) and present them to any teabagger, without telling them who was responsible for them, Nixon would be pronounced the worst hippie who ever lived. Remember, Nixon campaigned against hippies.

The perfect president would be a blend of Nixon, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter: Take Nixon's liberal stands and foreign policy expertise, FDR's statesmanship, TR's larger-than-life image and Carter's honesty, and it would be a thing of beauty. Unfortunately, if you said you were a Richard Nixon Democrat people would think "crook!" and not realize the heart of environmental legislation (the Clean Air Act and the water act) has Nixon's signature at the bottom.

[jberryhill]

115. So true....

And you are leaving out:

Negotiating peace talks with the North Vietnamese.

Opening diplomatic relations with China.

Beginning the Strategic Arms Limitation talks with the Soviets.

Imposing emergency wage and price controls and gasoline rationing.

The guy MUST have been a commie, I tell ya.

His personal paranoia got him in the end, but today's GOP wouldn't recognize him.

[onenote]

109. Ford led the fight to impeach William O Douglas.

Yeah. He was a real liberal.
:sarcasm:

[Romulox]

103. So...when do you expect Clarence Thomas will emerge from his chrysalis as a secret liberal?

I like how you adapted the 3D chess meme for this new circumstance! :silly:

[onenote]

110. it takes a special person to link clarence thomas and kagan.

not special in a good way, however.

[Romulox]

111. Ones a Justice of the SCOTUS. The other is a potential candidate for same. There's your link.

"it takes a special person to link clarence thomas and kagan."

A person aware of the context of the conversation, you mean? :hi:

[mvd]

18. OK, I read his argument

BUT, one hesitation is that Kagan is working for the administration and reflecting their views. Holder apparently said the same thing. Yes, it is a real argument unlike the HP article, but I won't judge yet.

[No Elephants]

55. Did you also read his qualifications and the links he gave?

Seems to me Greenwald has both the legal and Democratic credentials to make some valid assessments and has done his homework on the SCOTUS in general and Stevens in particular and also on the careers and views of Kagan and Sunstein.

Besides, what the hell is wrong with simply appointing a well-qualiied 42 year old liberal? With Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy, the last thing this court needs is a center right Justice.

Stevens said, since he's been on the SCCOTUS bench (1975) EVERY Justice appointed has been more to the right than the Justice he or she replaced. He made no exceptions for Ginsburg, Breyer or Sotomayor--and Sotomayor replaced Souter, Poppy Bush's nominee.

Stevens is now considered the most liberal Justice--and he is a Republican appointed by Ford, for pity sake.

[mvd]

61. Yes. The links pretty much say the same thing..

about her being weak on civil liberty issues. And maybe she was influenced by her position. Still, I'm all for a known liberal being nominated. We need balance there for sure. While there are no guarantees with picks, I'd still rather go with a strong liberal.

[No Elephants]

85. I agree.

[mr_liberal]

77. No, he did make an exception for Ginsburg.

He didnt for Sotomayor or any of the others. Sotomayor could be more conservative than Souter; we dont know for sure yet because she's only been a justice for a year. Her record suggests she could be though. Ginsburg is definitely a liberal though.

[No Elephants]

86. Thanks, but each of us is half right. He said "Except MAYBE Ginsburg." I would make an exception

for her, though. But the point remains. The Court very much needs a liberal for balance. And Justice Ginsburg, whether one excepts her or not, bless that dear woman, is quite frail.

[mr_liberal]

87. If thats exactly what he said then he meant it

as maybe she's the only one, not that maybe she's more liberal than who she replaced. Because we know for a fact that she is since she succeeded moderate conservative Byron White.

[No Elephants]

89. That is exactly what Stevens, J., said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html

And we don't know for a fact that White was "moderate conservative." We know for a fact--or at least could find out if we were up for all that work--how White votedd on every single case in which he participated, but we won't know why he voted as he did in every case. Or how he voted in elections. Or what his thoughts were as he voted on cases and candidates. "Moderate conservative" is merely a label someone put on all that, a label you've chosen to accept as gospel. However, how we label people/actions usually reflects our own points of view. For instance, many here and many Republicans label Obama "liberal," even "hard left. Others, me included, label him "center right." You can rightfully say that it's a fact that he is a registered Democrat, but can't say any those three labels are "fact."

Note in the article that Justice Stevens describes himself as "pretty darned conservative." If Stevens would have labeled White a "moderate conservative" Justice at all times during White's tenure on the bench, I have no clue.

So, I leave saying what Justice Stevens "really" meant by what he actually said to Justice Stevens, or to those who are much braver than I. ;)

In any event, a fair inference, though, is that the SCOTUS as a whole has become more and more conservative with every successive appointment, so that yesteryear's conservative and/or moderate Republican Justice is today's flaming liberal Justice.

And, IMO, it therefore is past time to alter that pattern. Which was the point of Reply #55.

[paulsby]

80. in what fantasy world?

is stevens more liberal than ginsberg?

[No Elephants]

88. Irony much? Check what Reply 55 actually says before implying Justice Stevens is in a fantasy world

While neither Reply #55 nor Justice Stevens ever said, or even implied, that Stevens is more liberal than Ginsburg, most of those who cover the SCOTUS have indeed said that, with Stevens' retirement, the SCOTUS is losing its most liberal Justice {most liberal current Justice, that is).

Many of those who cover the Court are, of course, theselves lawyers and/or legal scholars. Whatever they are ro are not, they do sit through every Court session, from admissions to practice before the Court, to listening to every oral argument and every question and comment from each of the Justices. And read every opinion, in its entirety. And probably every opinion that the SCOTUS has ever issued.

No doubt your knowledge of the SCCOTUS exceeds theirs. Or, maybe they DO all do have a richer fantasy life than you do. So, I'll spot you Ginsburg--and gladly, if we're talking only about my personal opinion and not what those SCOTUS commentators have been saying about Stevens.

However, the point of this thread is not whether Ginsburg is more liberal or exactly as liberal or less liberal than Stevens. Please see Reply 86.

[defendandprotect]

29. Thanks for the info . . . Isn't there another Al Franken around anywhere?

We could use someone on the court with a sense of humor!!

Which often shows more common sense and human spirit and which would be quite

welcome vs the embarrassingly vulgar and vicious aspirations of those on the SC right!



A LIBERAL PLEASE -- A FLAMING, RADICAL LIBERAL --

[caseymoz]

37. delete

[caseymoz]

41. It's exactly what worries me, though.

The fact that she doesn't have a clear enough profile to expound on. It isn't time for Obama to be running through a stealth nominee like this. That is someone without a clear record. Only conservatives, who one would presume, have met her, like her.

So, this is one that conservatives will pass, moderates won't have a problem with, because there's nothing clearly controversial about her, but it's liberals who have something to worry about this time.

[Massacure]

49. ABC World News did an article on the Supreme Court yesterday.

They said Merrick Garland would be the safest choice because he is a moderate and Diane Wood would be the most liberal.

They mentioned Kagan is a person who is liberal on issues such as gay rights and abortion, but conservative in that she is unlikely to restrict the President's war time powers. I don't see Kagan voting to do something like overturn Roe v. Wade but she might be bad news for cases involving the Guantanamo Bay detainees.

They also made a point in saying it would be likely that Stevens would survive a nomination today with the current polarized political climate and a 24/7 news cycle.

[No Elephants]

51. Roe v. Wade was not a very broad case.

Later cases were more expansive. Reproductive has been, and is being, undercut left and right without overturning Roe v. Wade. Even the health of the mother is no longer a shield for woman and doctors.

As you suggest, there are lots of issues besides the wedge issues for which we need a liberal. Economic issues, ccorporate issues, unitary Executive (which you mentioned), campaign finance reform, health care reform cases (which will start reaching the Court--I mean specifics, not the Constitutional challenges to the entire Act), etc. etc. ad infinitum.

[babylonsister]

2. This seems kind of funny to me; until Obama opens his mouth,

it's all speculation. And afaik, he's not talking yet.

[FSogol]

3. I call BS. The MSM is promoting Kagan. She won't be the one picked. n/t

[No Elephants]

60. The media nailed it on Sotomayor.

Not saying Kagan will be the nominee. Just sayin'.

Most of the time, those named by the media are names floated by the WH.

[sabrina 1]

4. Well, Conservatives are happy

with the possibility that she will be chosen. We'll see what happens, but if it turns out to be true, then I see no further reason to believe that this president represents in any way, the people who elected him.

[DebbieCDC]

5. I stopped believing that months ago

[Iowa]

25. Same here.

[katandmoon]

7. If Obama nominates her that certainly will relieve me of any further reason to vote for him again

I was already on the fence about it. That would push me over the edge.

[KittyWampus]

12. Because you read a vacuous piece with nearly no actual facts from Greenwald?

The opinion piece you linked to above has next to no actual facts about Kagan. Just opinions and reactions.

Interesting, you don't need to see actual facts when considering your support of a Democratic candidate.

[katandmoon]

20. There are plenty of facts in that article.

[caseymoz]

40. Well, why don't you present the 'actual facts.'

I believe Greenwald did not like the position she took on detainee policy, and it is worrisome. Read my post #39 above: what reason can this president possibly have if he's nominating someone who doesn't have a liberal record, and who is "adored" by conservatives who talked to her?

I don't see any reason he would do it unless the left is being played this time.

[MineralMan]

15. Yes, yes...you keep saying stuff like that.

We already know that you won't vote for Obama again. It's getting really, really boring.

[katandmoon]

21. I'm flattered you keep track of my posts. I don't have a clue who you are.

[MineralMan]

26. Don't be flattered. I don't. I have seen your posts, though.

As for your not having a clue who I am, that's not surprising. There are many threads on DU and nobody can read them all.

[ShortnFiery]

113. It's going to get awful lonely at the top with the other corporate right-wing democrats.

Good luck in canvassing and phone banking? I used to do those things each and every election run up. That's right, the vast majority of the passionate "worker bees" for the democratic party are OFF OF THE TEAM.

Good luck in getting the intellectual ruling millionaire elite democrats rounded up to do any damn thing as selfless as volunteering some of their precious time?

[JTFrog]

102. .

[rox63]

8. When Kagan was mentioned as a candidate for the last opening

Weren't conservatives howling that she was too liberal?

[sabrina 1]

16. 31 Republicans voted against her when she was nominated

for Solicitor General, airc. But they will vote against anyone a Democrat nominates if she is supportive of even a few issues that they are against. The only difference now between both parties seems to be the kind of 'liberal' Lieberman is eg. He is for women's rights eg, but his war-mongering and disdain for the Constitution are now well known.

At this point, how someone would rule on isssues such as Habeas Corpus, indefinite detention without charges or trial (and I have read that she is for the president having the right to do that) is far more important to me because if someone ignores civil rights on such a large scale, I don't really trust their judgement on issue involving the rights of others.

[caseymoz]

42. They may have.

But Orrin Hatch certainly didn't. They don't seem to be doing it now.

[BunkerHill24]

10. Frankly, I would rather wait and see before I make judgment on it

However, I will say that this nomination might as well be one of the most important judicial nomination in this 21st century.

[karynnj]

13. Given that this is the decision of one man - how can there be a front runner?

The only one who knows is Obama.

[harkadog]

23. Every White House floats potential nominees in the media.

To see the reaction. So yes this may be a front runner and there are many people besides Obama who would know.

[No Elephants]

52. I guess the front runner would be the one Obama seems to be leaning toward.

I imagine they will float a few names and assess reactions.

[onehandle]

14. I called it. --->

Assuming that this article isn't a bunch of crap:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4337521&mesg_id=4337533

[sabrina 1]

17. How about the novel idea of Obama fighting for once.

Bush was able to manage to get his nominees, such as Roberts and Alito confirmed. Why is it that with the majority and the WH, Democrats can't seem to manage the same thing? A President DOES have power, despite the constant claims that this one has to avoid doing anything that Republicans might not agree with.

A fighter gets what he wants when he has as much power as the POTUS and his party holds a majority. People are getting really sick of these excuses.

[onehandle]

22. I didn't say I liked the idea.

But Obama will want this settled and settled quickly.

The GOP would LOVE to see an open SCOTUS seat on election day. They would be able to get five to ten percent more conservatives to the polls.

[aquart]

27. Which is why the GOP will block ANY candidate.

So sucking up to them still has zero value.

[sabrina 1]

32. I understand that.

They are going to obstruct anyone he nominates, no matter who it is, no matter how conservative, if his nominee has even one issue s/he supports that they can use, like abortion rights, or gay rights eg, they will use it to rally support for their obstruction. So, when you realize that, you don't try to please them, you do what the people who elected you will be pleased with. Otherwise you end up making everyone angry, as happened with the HIR Bill.

[salguine]

24. Why is it so much easier to believe that Obama and the Democrats are just staggeringly impotent than

to just accept that they were never on your side in the first place?

[KoKo]

33. Yep....what you say is worth some further thought.....n/t

[Lorien]

94. Bingo

They are fighting-for the same fatcats that the GOP fights for. They just need to make it *look* like they have no power and are being steamrolled into passing conservative policies and electing conservative officials while still claiming to fight for the little guy. It's easier to believe the myth of powerlessness because it's hard to admit that we no longer have much representation, even within our own party!

[defendandprotect]

31. Agree -- and the excuses are coming early and fast . . .. can't be done!

Nonsense -- Overwhelming majority of the public came out to vote for Obama and

CHANGE .... more of the same rw BS is not what anyone wants ---

We need the equivalent of Alito and Roberts -- and that very, very far to the right --

and we need that on the left.

[BrklynLiberal]

36. +100

[riverdale]

107. The only thing Obama will ever fight is liberals

That's just the truth. He is who he is.

[defendandprotect]

30. The right wing certainly knows how to teach hatred and violence...

and amazing how many sop it up -- even on the left!

Great cartoon!!!

:)

[Unvanguard]

28. She's the Solicitor-General for a Democratic administration.

It's doubtful that she's actually "far more conservative than Stevens." Maybe more conservative on issues of executive authority, but it's hard to extrapolate about that from her actions in a position in the executive branch, which for obvious reasons requires those kinds of stances. There is no reason whatsoever, further, to believe that she would prove more conservative on, for instance, gay rights, reproductive rights, affirmative action, campaign finance reform, voting rights, or a whole host of other issues.

Lots of people complained about how centrist Sotomayor supposedly was too, and she has had a pretty decent first year. Obama is not going to nominate a conservative; he's probably not even going to nominate a moderate, but someone who will be pretty firmly on the Court's liberal wing. What he won't do, unfortunately but for understandable political reasons, is nominate a strong liberal whose liberalism is a matter of extensive public record, like Pamela Karlan.

[sabrina 1]

34. This court badly needs a balance to the radical Conservatives

we have had to deal with. Someone who might be Conservative on issues of executive authority is NOT what we need right now. She is supportive of gay rights. But if she is supportive of the Unitary Executive theory, then she is the wrong choice. He may as well nominate a strong Liberal since no matter who he nominates they will be opposed to anyhow.

[paulsby]

81. considering that obama has pretty much gone along with the unitary executive thang

and expansive executive power, why would he nominate a justice he knows goes against that policy?

[BrklynLiberal]

35. I am with defendandprotect...I want a FLAMING LIBERAL!!!

I want the repukes to squeal like pigs, and I want the President to fight like hell for that Liberal..and I want the Democrats to push thru the approval...let them act like repukes...just for that vote.

[Lorien]

95. +1. The future of our Nation depends on it

putting another conservative in the SCOTUS will end any possibility of restoring democracy in America. It'll be corporate rule from this point out (it may be anyway with their recent ruling on "corporate money as free speech").

[change_notfinetuning]

38. WWRN - Who Would Rahm Nominate? That's probably who you'll get. n/t

[No Elephants]

54. Who was Clinton's Chief of Staff? Pls see Reply # 53. I predict much mention of "Chicago Mafia."

[dflprincess]

43. If Obama pushes the court to the left

the Democrats will lose the last argument they have to keep us voting against our own interests. Therefore, it would behoove him to appoint someone to the left of William Douglas.

[TomCADem]

44. Didn't Bill Clinton Nominate Her As Judge Once? Too liberal?

I recall that Republicans refused to support her.

[caseymoz]

46. They seem to have changed their minds in intervening years, and . . .

. . . do you remember how badly they wanted to sink Clinton?

Yes, they want to sink Obama, too, which should give you pause when you consider that they are saying they are pleased with her now.

[No Elephants]

56. LOL. But no takers. Please see Reply ##'s 53 and 55.

And this article, including following the links. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/09/stevens

[scentopine]

45. Exactly as I predicted, centrists are only ones happy to hear this -nt

[OneBlueSky]

47. I can forgive Obama almost anything . . . but if he blows a Supreme Court nomination . . .

and we end up with a more conservative court, I'm done with him . . .

[mr_liberal]

78. Then you shodul be done with him already

Sotomayor is very likely more conservative than Souter.

We had this same debate when she was nominated, at least some of us did. I think most were blinded by the fact that shes latino and a woman. But she clearly was not very liberal. Everybody came to her defense though once the republicans started attacking over the "wise latino" remark. I geuss thats all it takes. If conservatives don't like you for whatever reason it doesn't matter where you stand on the issues, thats enough for liberals to give you their support. Pretty stupid, but thats the way it is. My guess is the same thing will happen with Kagan.

[Dogmudgeon]

48. "We should be insulted either way."

Don't worry -- no matter WHAT Obama does, you'll/we'll be insulted "either way".

Remember that old Groucho Marx quip, that he'd never belong to an organization that would have him as a member? Well, that's us.

--d!

[No Elephants]

57. I love Groucho, but I always felt the opposite on that one.

A club that isn't delighted to have me as a member is of no interest to me whatever.

For instance, if a club called me a "fucking retard" and otherwise made it clear that it did not respect me, I would have no interest in spending my time and money on its golf course.

[caseymoz]

65. You don't think we should be insulted if hes a moderate fooling us or if he's actually insulting us?

You know, that wasn't a dilemma I proposed there. There are other alternatives, like appointing a liberal. Then I won't feel insulted.

Especially after he has ordered an assassination of an American Citizen, but that's a little more than insulting. That's grounds for impeachment and criminal prosecution. Oh, I forgot, we're talking about Obama and not Bush.

Maybe you're right. Maybe I'll never be happy with him after that.

[Jennicut]

50. Um, has Obama said one word yet? All the speculation is from the usual talking heads.

In other words, total crap. Now Obama may go with her in the end, but where is Obama's statement regarding this? There is none.

[caseymoz]

66. No, conjecture, based on fact.

The facts being that she's the front-runner and she's conservative.

So, just see as conjecture right now, and wait till something actually happens.

[No Elephants]

53. Well, if you've loved the cases the D of J has appealed so far, you'll probably love Kagan.

"The solicitor general, who is the only federal official required by statute to be “learned in the law” and is sometimes referred to informally as “the 10th justice,” supervises appellate litigation involving the federal government and presents the government’s views to the Supreme Court." http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/k/kagan_elena/index.html


Also: "From 1995 to 1999, Kagan served as President Bill Clinton's Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan"


Another Clinton whom Larry Frickin Summers hired at Harvard. We don't know much about how she would decide a case, but, from an article she wrote, we know she likes her some Executive Powers. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/k/kagan_elena/index.html

Before this appointment and had not argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.

HOWEVER, she HAS since argued ONE case before the SCOTUS. Guess which? Citizens United v. FEC. http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/spotlight/constitutional-law/10_fec.html

Orrin Hatch had nothing but high praise for her now, even though he apparently blocked her nomination to the federal bench when Bubba nominated her.

She seems like the Democratic counterpart of Roberts--unassailable intelligence and scholastic credentials, but quite far to the right of her party. However, she was raised Jewish, so she may not have the neo theo issues Roberts has. (If Kagan is nominated and confirmed, the SCOTUS would be left with NO Protestant Justices, something a young "Democratic strategist" whose name I missed pooh poohed on MSNBC this a.m.)

P.S. "When Clinton's term ended, she and Allen Snyder were unconfirmed nominees for the D.C. circuit court.<5>"

In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated John G. Roberts to the seat to which Kagan had been nominated; Roberts was confirmed in 2003, and was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2005 upon his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States."

Thanks, Bubba, for leaving officce without having made those interim appointments.

ETA: Kagan got a STANDING ovation from--wait for it---the Federalist Society. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/09/stevens

[Arkana]

58. If he's going to choose her he needs to do it soon

before the opposition has a chance to coalesce.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Politicub]

63. When Obama takes the conservative route, it can kick GLBT folk in the gut

Let me first start with the "I support President Obama, blah blah blah," as to hopefully avoid being cast as some kind of hater. I support his positions on some things, disagree with him about many things and accept that he's going to be a centrist probably all throughout his presidential career.

But where I draw the line is when he opts to go the centrist or conservative way when it comes to social legislation -- policies that impact GLBT folk, women and minorities. He is either out of touch with his supporters who aren't numerous enough to make up the majority of the Democratic Party, or he just doesn't give a damn.

I hope this is just some trial balloon that is out there to gauge the reaction.

But if this is Obama's nominee, then it will set us back a generation or more when it comes to cases that reach the supreme court that could expand law to allow more of us to pursue happiness in the way it is most meaningful to us.

[No Elephants]

90. I read Kagan is "fiercely" pro-choice and pro-equal rights.

Some think she may be gay. However, as we know all too well, that doesn't always translate to actions with conservatives as most or all of them vote anti-GLBT, regardless of their own respective orientation. Nonetheless, if she is gay AND also unabashedly pro-equal rights, that would be truly cool.

For me, equal rights for all humans is tantamount to a litmus test. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4337691&mesg_id=4338954

And, if I were gay, that might well be my ONLY litmus test, given all the shit gays have had to deal with their entire lives--and I truly wish you and everyone else had been spared that. Once someone passed that one test, I might just exhale and relax about Kagan. So, I will not complain if anyone does that.

As it is, though, I have other problems with Kagan, even though they say she is pro-equal rights and pro-choice (which is also part of equal rights for all humans, IMO). For some examples, please see Reply#51 and please also see the article in Salon that Greenwald wrote about Kagan. I just tried to get you the link but the site is down for maintenance. However, other posts on this thread have the link or you can google salon greenwald kagan conservative.

The issues on the list are very significant, IMO. Civil rights, indefinite detention, executive powers, etc. Plus, her job includes supervising litigation by the D of J that has been the subject of many threads here, with no one, even the cheerleaders, praising the position taken by the D of J. (One of the briefs did equate homosexuality and incest, pedophilia and bestiality but most of the cases have been around FOIA, "terra": detainees, torture etc.)

And, there is the also significant (IMO) issue of ideological balance on the court. The last thing the Court needs right now is another conservative, especially one appointed by a Democratic President.

[Politicub]

96. Thank you for your thoughtful reply

I'm going to do some research and reading today to find out more.

[cstanleytech]

67. Hmmm what about Judge Ito from the Simpson trial, he seems pretty decent.

Plus he does have alot of years of experience so they cant claim he lacks it.

[Tx4obama]

68. I'm rooting for Harold Koh, but the list of choices for Obama are HUGE

and until he actually releases HIS short list or the name of his nominee - there's no reason to be getting upset over articles written by people that really don't have a clue about who Obama is going to pick ;) Koh bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Koh

The MSM Lists:

Possible Obama Nominees for Supreme Court

National Journal:

Solicitor General Elena Kagan

Seventh Circuit Appellate Judge Diane Wood

D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

State Department legal adviser Harold Koh

Stanford Professor Pamela Karlan

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick

Politico:

Wood

Kagan

Garland

Koh

OMB's Cass Sunstein

The New York Times:

Garland

Kagan

Wood

Granholm

Napolitano

Wall Street Journal:

Garland

Wood

Kagan

Granholm

Karlan

Koh

Napolitano

Patrick

Sunstein

Stanford Professor Kathleen Sullivan

Former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears

And FoxNews' Three Tier List

TIER ONE:

Diane Wood, Judge Seventh Circuit

Elena Kagan, Solicitor General

TIER TWO:

Merrick Garland, Judge DC Circuit COA

Leah Ward Sears, Former Chief Justice of Georgia Supreme Court.

Kathleen Sullivan, Professor and former dean of Stanford Law School

Cass Sunstein, Former Chicago & Harvard Law Professor, leads Obama Administration's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Pam Karlan, Stanford Law professor

Janet Napolitano, Secy DHS

Jennifer Granholm, Michigan Governor

TIER THREE:

Rosemary Barkett, Judge 11th Circuit

Fortunato Benavides, Judge 5th Circuit

Christine Arguello, U.S. District Court Judge Denver

Ruben Castillo, Judge USDC Northern District of Illinois

Karen Nelson Moore, Judge 6th Circuit

Jose Cabranes, Judge 2nd Circuit

David Tatel, Judge DC Circuit COA

Deval Patrick, Massachusetts Governor

Marsha Berzon, Judge 9th Circuit

Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General

Charles Ogletree, Law Professor Harvard Law School

Kim Wardlaw, Judge Ninth Circuit

Seth Waxman, Former Solicitor General. Lawyer at Wilmer Hale

Harold Koh, Former Dean Yale Law School--Counsel to State Dept.

Ken Salazar, Interior Secretary

OBAMA'S COURT OF APPEALS NOMINEES

Judge David Hamilton, 6th Circuit

Judge Andre Davis, 4th Circuit

Judge Gerard Lynch, 2nd Circuit

Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., 3rd Circuit

Judge Beverly B. Martin, 11th Circuit

Jane Branstetter Stranch, 6th Circuit

Judge Thomas Vanaskie, 3rd Circuit

Justice Barbara Milano Keenan, 4th Circuit

Judge Danny Chin, 2nd Circuit

Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, 1st Circuit

Judge Albert Diaz, 4th Circuit

Judge James Wynn, 4th Circuit

Goodwin Liu: 9th Circuit

Judge Robert N. Chatigny

Scott M. Matheson, Jr., 10th Circuit

[DCKit]

69. What? The WH has run out of cleaning lady nominees? It's a disaster! n/t

[bemildred]

70. This sounds like some form of horseshit. nt

[caseymoz]

71. Frankly, I think putting this news out on the weekend is a trial balloon.

The administration people are going to read reactions on places like the DU.

[bemildred]

74. I don't think you should assume this is "the Administration", there are lots of other players,

But otherwise, "trial balloon" works fine.

[Better Believe It]

72. If this happens, that will just point out once again that President Obama isn't a liberal.

[Better Believe It]

73. To avoid forcing Republicans to engage in a real filibuster he might appoint a conservative

[IndianaGreen]

76. How about appointing Randall Terry, of Operation Rescue?

I am sure Obama will get all the GOP votes that he needs!

[Better Believe It]

83. That won't work. Just a good solid conservative activist who can get 5 or 6 Republican votes ....

along with the conservative Democratic Senators. The "liberal" Democratic Senators will fold and support whoever is nominated.

That'll work.

[No Elephants]

91. LOL. Mitch McConnell, is that you? If not, how do you know what will and will not work?

The Republicans have said no to everyone and everything, regardless of facts or merit. So, unless they pick the nominee themselves, they are going to go through a drill, as they did with Sotomayor. So what?

In modern times, SCOTUS nominees are very, very rarely filibustered, no matter what. (cough Clarence Thomas cough)

Put it up for a vote and let Bunning fillibuster as long as he can stay awake, like Thurmond. So freakin's what? The world won't come to and end (though the 75 year old Bunning may).

So-called Democratic "strategists" have been tripping over themselves all over the media, to "establish" that "Obama MUST" appoint a conservative" meme all over the media. They sound just like Pat Buchanan or Mary Matlin, who want to give the impression the minority Party in the Senate and in America must be obeyed. Democratic strategists, however, should be saying that the Constitution is very clear that it is the President, not his opposition in the Senate, who chooses the nominee. It's his choice. And, for almost a century, the unwritten rule has been that Senators do no filibuster SCOTUS nominees. Blah, blah.

But, most Democratic "strategists" these days are media whores whose careers depend upon access to prominent Democrats who give them inside info, such as who is the "frontrunner" for the SCOTUS nomination to fill Stevens's seat. So, the "strategists" pretty much must say ab0ut Kagan (and about most things) whatever said prominent Democrats want them to say, if they want to keep getting inside info they can bloviate about to the media.

If I were a prominent Democrat politician and Obama wanted to nominate Kagan, I would very much want Democratic and Republican strategists to say over and over that Obama had no choice but to nominate a conservative. Geez, liberals need at least that "sliver" of a bone from the Party before they donate, right?

Riddle me this, though: Why is conservative Kagan the Solicitor General of the center right Obama adminstration?

Solicitor General is a highly influential position that is oft nicknamed "the Tenth Justice. That wasn't because Republicans gave Obama no choice.

How very lame would Obama be, if appointing a conservative Justice were truly the very best Obama could do with an unwritten rule, a strong majority in the Senate and some sane Republicans, like Graham and Lugar? Even Republicans recognize that "elections have consequences applies to appointment of Justices more than to anything else? How lame is it to surrender to Republicans before the fight even begins?

I don't think Obama is lame though. I just think he truly wants Kagan and is using Republicans and Blue Dogs for cover, as, IMO, Democratic politicians, including Obama, so often do.

So, no, I am not buying the "no choice" riff. Of course, you certainly can, if you wish. But it's not some kind of unshakeable factual certainty, like the sky is blue. In reality, the certainty is: The great odds are that nomination of a SCOTUS Justice probably would not be fillibustered and, if it were, so what? IF it even came to a fight it would be more than worth it. And, then, we, too, could ignore the unwritten rule and filibuster Republican nominees in the future. Fair trade off, I'd say.

[IndianaGreen]

75. Another brilliant 13-dimensional chess move by Obama

and one that you will be expected to fully support by the thought police.

[paulsby]

79. she gets a thumbs up from me

from what i've read, she seems smart, capable, all that good stuff

[madchick44]

82. I think it is time for a progressive Asian American on SCOTUS

We need a lot more diverse scholarly thinking.

[No Elephants]

92. It's past time for another liberal. I don't think

the SCOTUS is the place for identity politics, though (if anywhere is). It's nine people. It can never have a representative from every group in America, no matter what. And they are nine very, very important people, so intelligence should come first and judicial temperament second.

Third, though, IMO, should be ideology. It's critical, IMO, that the Court not steer the nation too far left or too far right; and you can't vote out or fire a Justice. Moreover, the Court has been going further and further right since at least 1975, with some very young, very far righties recently ensconced.

So, with a totally blind eye to race, ethnicity, religion, etc., I'd nominate someone very smart, very young, and with unquestionably liberal tendencies. I'm not sure if I know anyone off the top of my head who fits that description. ;)

[Tx4obama]

98. I'm rooting for Harold Koh. n/t

[-..__...]

93. She has my support...

During her Solicitor General nomination proceedings, Ms. Kagan provided answers to Senator Chuck Grassley regarding her view of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008):

"The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Court granted this right the same status as other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as those protected in the First Amendment . . . . I understand the Solicitor General’s obligations to include deep respect for Supreme Court precedents like Heller and for the principle of stare decisis generally. There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."<13>

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Elena_Kagan#Second_Amendment

[No Elephants]

97. Sounds a lot like Roberts when asked about Roe v. Wade during his confirmation hearings.

I'm not saying Kagan will pull a Roberts. Just sayin'.

I doubt kagan is as sleazy as Roberts, though.

[DCBob]

99. Obama is still determined to be the transformational President this country desperately needs now.

I think his fav book remains "Team of Rivals".

[Hawkowl]

100. He looks like a continuity president

He is about as transformational as my big toe. He has continued almost all of W's major policies, including telling progressives to STFU. He comes across as weak when confronted by the rethuglicans and is on the verge of being viewed as a back-stabber by progressives.

[spotbird]

104. What about educational diversity?

It seems that to get a plumb position in this administration one has to be from Harvard or Goldman, better if both.

[dipsydoodle]

106. Wasn't he in

A Streetcar Named Desire ? :shrug:

[phusion]

108. gives assassination orders for an American Citizen (why hasn't that been discussed here?)

Maybe this is indicative of your little footnote here, but WTF are you talking about?

[ShortnFiery]

112. Considering this Administration's short but IMO, mostly right-leaning track record ...

none of us on the left side of the political spectrum can say that we're surprised.

The only upshot is that, more than any other time in my political life, I can NOT relate nor ever again, vote for another corporate right-wing democrat.

No amount of intimidation or cajoling is going to tear at my conscious.

Liberals have been figuratively KICKED IN THE TEETH one too many times.

President Obama is, undoubtedly "a new democrat" = blue dog/DLC/right-wing/conservative/corporate.

There's little to nothing "progressive" about any decisions and/or legislation initiated by this Executive Branch.

And that's a tragedy. We could have done so much good for "The Average American" worker instead of the bloated ghouls on Wall Street and within the MIC. TRAGIC. :(

[bullwinkle428]

114. Hurray for centrism!!