The Case Against Elena Kagan by Glenn Greenwald

[Better Believe It]

The Case Against Elena Kagan
by Glenn Greenwald
April 13, 2010

It is far from clear who Obama will chose to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, but Elena Kagan, his current Solicitor General and former Dean of Harvard Law School, is on every list of the most likely replacements. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog has declared her "the prohibitive front-runner" and predicts: "On October 4, 2010, Elena Kagan Will Ask Her First Question As A Supreme Court Justice." The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin made the same prediction.

The prospect that Stevens will be replaced by Elena Kagan has led to the growing perception that Barack Obama will actually take a Supreme Court dominated by Justices Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (Bush 41), Roberts (Bush 43), Alito (Bush 43) and Kennedy (Reagan) and move it further to the Right. Joe Lieberman went on Fox News this weekend to celebrate the prospect that "President Obama may nominate someone in fact who makes the Court slightly less liberal," while The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus predicted: "The court that convenes on the first Monday in October is apt to be more conservative than the one we have now." Last Friday, I made the same argument: that replacing Stevens with Kagan risks moving the Court to the Right, perhaps substantially to the Right (by "the Right," I mean: closer to the Bush/Cheney vision of Government and the Thomas/Scalia approach to executive power and law).

prospect is even possible. Democrats around the country worked extremely hard to elect a Democratic President, a huge majority in the House, and 59 Democratic Senators -- only to watch as the Supreme Court is moved further the Right? Even for those who struggle to find good reasons to vote for Democrats, the prospect of a better Supreme Court remains a significant motive (the day after Obama's election, I wrote that everyone who believed in the Constitution and basic civil liberties should be happy at the result due to the numerous Supreme Court appointments Obama would likely make, even if for no other reason).

There will, of course, be some Democrats who will be convinced that any nominee Obama chooses is the right one by virtue of being Obama's choice. But for those who want to make an informed, rational judgment, it's worthwhile to know her record. I've tried here to subject that record to as comprehensive and objective an assessment as possible. And now is the time to do this, because if Kagan is nominated, it's virtually certain that she will be confirmed. There will be more than enough Republicans joining with the vast majority of Democrats to confirm her; no proposal ever loses in Washington for being insufficiently progressive (when is the last time such a thing happened?). If a Kagan nomination is to be stopped, it can only happen before her nomination is announced by Obama, not after.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/13-0

[WeDidIt]

1. If Glenn Greenwald is opposed to her, then she's fine in my book.

Lord High Douchenozzle Greenwald spouts his shit and some take it as gospel.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. hey, he writes for a living. He does it rather well

the fact that you disagree with several of his topics or positions is fine. But do not discount the hard work involved in producing stuff on deadline, all the time. Yes, he has some flaws, some mistakes, but over all, he's been right on target more often than Greenspan was on the economy.

[flyarm]

5. LETS SEE, how many writers have we all had as allies,against bush lies now some of you don't like

anymore???..the truthtellers during the bush years..that is how most of us here at DU saw these writers..as truthtellers..Glen is one of them, who had a very large voice for most of us here at Du for years.....One of the very writers that i have the utmost respect for ..because he is a truthteller..

I think those of you, that hate truth, should have a list of who you do approve of..so those of us who have posted here a very long time, know who is on your shit list per day..how about that????????


Helen Thomas..nope, those of you who hate truth being known have thrown her under the bus..

I got my nuts cut off this week for posting a Interview on MSNBC's web site that they (MSNBC) had as their #1 source for their own interview..yes MSNBC had it as their #1 source for their own interview Newsbusters
So MSNBC ..is now under the bus..

on any given day..Krugman gets thrown under the bus or pulled out for a short reprieve.

Firedoglake..now they are the enemy ..under the bus for them..they are now on the DU "fuck you list" it seems..

Huffington post..big cheereleader for Obama..now under the bus..or did you pull it out now??????

Kos..huge Obama supporter ..thrown under the bus ..when Markos did not support HCR..but he got pulled out when he relented...and ass sucked to the current piece of dog doo..

Matt Taibbi..nope he had his nuts cut off and thrown under the bus at DU..

anyone want to add to the list?????

hey why don't you tell us who you approve of with a daily list so we can keep up with who you hate and want to cut their balls off for telling the goddamned truth..ok..it would make is so much easier for the rest of us DU'ers if you could tell us who of the "truth tellers" we have used as sources for years and years are now on your unpapproved list...

wow up is down and down is up now at DU..this place is getting rather pathetic!

Now Greenwald..and sometimes Swanson..

come on clear it all up for us for once and for all will ya??????????



so is LATIMES under the bus too???????

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/11/nation/na-solicitor-general11

as i remember it ..it was many of us here at DU who were directly opposed to this during the Bush years..are we now supposed to change our view according to you????????


Solicitor general nominee says 'enemy combatants' can be held without trial
Elena Kagan tells a senator that she agrees with Atty. Gen. Holder that the U.S. is at war and therefore may hold suspected terrorists indefinitely.

February 11, 2009|David G. Savage

WASHINGTON — Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama's choice to represent his administration before the Supreme Court, told a key Republican senator Tuesday that she believed the government could hold suspected terrorists without trial as war prisoners.

She echoed comments by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. during his confirmation hearing last month. Both agreed that the United States was at war with Al Qaeda and suggested the law of war allows the government to capture and hold alleged terrorists without charges.



If confirmed as U.S. solicitor general, Kagan, 48, will defend the administration's legal policy in the courts.


During the Bush administration, the solicitor general argued for the White House's war-on-terrorism policies, including the president's decision to imprison foreign fighters and alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Last year, the Supreme Court dealt the Bush administration a setback when it ruled that these alleged "enemy combatants" had a right to be heard by a judge and to plead for their freedom. But the high court left unanswered the question of whether accused terrorists and others with suspected ties to Al Qaeda could be held for years without trial.

That issue is now before the Obama administration. The new president has announced that the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay will be closed, and he has created a task force of lawyers and military officers to decide how to handle current and future detainees. The group will be led by Holder and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

[dionysus]

14. you have a castration fetish. did it ever occur to you that people can disagree with some

insignificant blogger without, you know, hating them?

[Better Believe It]

7. Is Greenwald way too liberal and not conservative enough in your opinion?

[WeDidIt]

9. Greenwald is batshit crazy in my opinion.

[Better Believe It]

22. What a strong and powerful response to the article! Are you skipping school today without a note

from your parents?

[KittyWampus]

15. Greenwald is a writer who tailors things to his audience.

[Dinger]

2. K & R (nt)

[yellowwood]

3. Kristol Likes her

Kristol likes Elena Kagan. That's enough for me to say she should not be the nominee.
http://patrickhenrypress.info/node/181481

[msongs]

6. when bush did it it was bad, yet when obama does it is good. go figure nt

[flyarm]

8. A Concurrence In The Case Against Elena Kagan

do read this ..it is worth your time! Realize what is going on here!

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/04/18/a-concurrence-in-the-case-against-elena-kagan/

A Concurrence In The Case Against Elena Kagan

By: bmaz Sunday April 18, 2010 8:22 pm


Last week Glenn Greenwald penned a solid case delineating why current Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who is at the top of the purported Obama “short list”, would make a poor nominee to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Despite the hard truth in Greenwald’s facts and arguments, he has been blistered by both the Obama Administration and their apologists and fanboys. The Administration has, as reported by Sam Stein, even enlisted a hit team of loyalist flaks and supporters to discredit Greenwald and his article.

The reason the White House finds itself in the position of fighting off its own base in the first place is because Greenwald is dead on the money with his analysis, criticism and conclusion that Kagan is a poor nominee; and especially considering it is Stevens’ critical seat she would be filling. Glenn’s facts and argument speak for themselves, but there is an additional area neither he, nor anyone else, has substantively touched on which militates against Kagan. Elena Kagan is so terminally inexperienced with the American court system as to be unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

I appeared in three different courthouses last Friday. Which is two more than Elena Kagan has appeared in as either an attorney or judge during her entire legal career. Her first appearance in the Supreme Court as Solicitor General, little more than six months ago, was the first time she had substantively appeared in any court. Ever. You can still count her total number of live court experiences (all appellate arguments) on one hand. The complete absence of experience and seasoning showed in several key areas in Kagan’s uneven oral argument presentations, and the claim Kagan is some kind of wonderful talent who could bring diverse Supreme Court justices together exposed as unsupported fawning fantasy.

The American trial court system is literally the backbone of our rule of law; they are where the public substantively interacts with the law and their law is meted out, as well as being where the foundation and record for appellate cases and controversies are made and perfected. How is it appropriate to be considering a woman for a position that will impact evidentiary, procedural and substantive trial processes – for every trial court in the country; federal, state and local – when she has never been in one? There are forty Justices in the long and glorious history of the Supreme Court who had no prior judicial experience; there are none I am aware of who had the nearly complete absence of any practical legal court experience as an attorney, much less as a judge, such as is the case with Elena Kagan, prior to ascending to the highest court in the land.



weare being bamboozled ..again!

[cali]

10. he did this with Sotomayor too.

[Better Believe It]

11. What is your opinion of Elena Kagan as a potential nominee?

That's what the article is all about.

I'm listening.

[cali]

12. it's mixied

she's not my first choice.

[Luminous Animal]

16. No he did not. He praised Obama for picking her and

he defended her against baseless lies propagated by other pundits.

Salon won't open for me but here is the result of "Greenwald Sotomayor"

http://www.google.com/search?q=greenwald+sotomayor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

"Obama's choice of Sotomayor deserves praise - Glenn Greenwald ...
May 26, 2009 ... Though there is much to learn about her, Sonia Sotomayor is an excellent pick for Obama."

"Jeffrey Rosen, TNR and the anonymous smears against Sonia ...
May 5, 2009 ... Jeffrey Rosen, TNR and the anonymous smears against Sonia Sotomayor. By Glenn Greenwald."

[Better Believe It]

23. Why did you write that when the evidence is he supported Sotomayor?

[Luminous Animal]

26. You will never get an answer to that.

An honest response would mean abandoning catapulting the propaganda.

[dionysus]

13. you better believe that if you and greenwald are against it, i'm for it. thanks

for making me clarify my position!

[Luminous Animal]

17. So you must have been against Sotomayor then.

Because Greenwald praised Obama for picking her.

[dionysus]

18. touche, but i was somewhat joking. i consider glen to be out there.

[aikoaiko]

19. Elena Kagan would not move the court furthert to the right as Greenwald fear mongers.

[Better Believe It]

24. And you believe that because .............................?

[Luminous Animal]

20. It seems that DU supporters of Kagan can't actually find the words to defend her...

record but instead, employ weasel words against Greenwald.

[Luminous Animal]

21. Kick

[Jefferson23]

25. K&R