Liberal activists intensify attacks on Kagan as court pick nears

[IndianaGreen]

Like Bush and Cheney, Kagan believes in a unitary Presidency, the Constitution be damned! That makes Kagan an ideological clone of Scalia, and a threat to us all!

Liberal activists intensify attacks on Kagan as court pick nears

By Jon Ward - The Daily Caller | Published: 05/07/10 at 5:59 PM | Updated: 05/07/10 at 8:49 PM

Liberal legal scholars and experts stepped up their attacks Friday on Elena Kagan as a potential Supreme Court nominee, hoping to dissuade President Obama from selecting her in the last few days before an expected announcement early next week.

A group of four law professors Friday morning published a piece at Salon.com criticizing Kagan, Obama’s solicitor general, for hiring too few women and minorities when she was dean of Harvard law school.

Liberal attorney and blogger Glenn Greenwald — who has taken Kagan to task for her views on executive power and been the chief organizing force behind criticism of Kagan — promoted the column on his Twitter account and kept up a drumbeat against Kagan.

Greenwald told The Daily Caller by e-mail that he would remain opposed to Kagan if she is announced Monday as the nominee, but he thinks his best chance to derail her is prior to the announcement.

“I’ve devoted everything I can to making the case against Kagan before Obama chooses, precisely because I know that once he makes his selection, the overwhelming majority of progressives and Democrats will cheer for her even if they have no idea what she thinks or believes,” Greenwald said.

“Unless Kagan provides a clear statement of her views about the Constitution and judicial approach during the confirmation hearing — something that is unlikely in the extreme — I’ll vehemently oppose her nomination until the last vote is cast,” he said. “But the same won’t be true of most Democrats and progressives, for whom Obama’s choice will be a good one solely by virtue of the fact that it’s Obama’s choice.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/07/liberal-activists-intensify-attacks-on-kagan-as-court-pick-nears/#ixzz0nIxHHsqG

[Demeter]

1. I Swear Obama Floats These Balloons To See Which Way the Left Blows

and then decides to go with the most objectionable.

[salguine]

6. Whenever I say stuff like that, my posts get deleted.

[roguevalley]

7. he wanted a consensus maker. i would think he's bipartisan

attempts to do things with the dipshits would tell him we need a fire breather/leftie, not another dipshit who will turn us back to 1100. but then, he still thinks he can coax republican votes. can't tell him a damned thing and we all will pay for it.

[skepticscott]

2. Greenwald may have good reasons for opposing Kagan

based on her past history, but he shows uncharacteristic naivete when he hints that Kagan might be able to defuse his opposition if she "provides a clear statement of her views about the Constitution and judicial approach during the confirmation hearing". Even if she did present views that he found favorable, so what? Greenwald has watched enough SC nomination hearings to know that when people are sitting in the chair, they just make shit up and tell the Senate what they want and need to hear (after weeks of appropriate coaching and preparation for exactly that), knowing that if they're confirmed they don't have to adhere to any of it.

[NJmaverick]

3. Glen Greenwald is full of shit, and his arrogance beyond reason

:puke:

[merkins]

5. What a nuanced argument 'maverick'

Kagan is a f'ng terrible choice. She isn’t moderate. She's a big supporter of the Imperial Presidency and the expansive powers that Bush and Cheney seized. True progressives ought to be outraged at the idea of swapping a superb judge like Stevens for a second-rate accomplishment-less coward like Kagan.

[ooglymoogly]

4. If Kagan were to be confirmed, the court will once again make

a giant leap toward the right and would be a dictators wet dream.

During her hearings to be confirmed as Solicitor General, the NY Times paraphrases Kagan as saying "that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law -- indefinite detention without a trial -- even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone." This view of vast executive power has caused some commentators to fear that she would reverse the delicate majority in favor of protecting civil liberties on the Supreme Court were she to replace Stevens.

We are on the precipice of another dark age and this is a giant leap off that backward facing cliff.