Evidence mounts, Kagan would fit in nicely on the liberal left of the court

[usregimechange]

Elena Kagan, US Solicitor General
Nominated by by Barack Obama on January 5, 2009
50 Years Old
J.D. Harvard Law School
Jewish

Try finding her posing in front of a William Rehnquist portrait.

"Just four months after taking the job as dean, in October 2003, Kagan told students in a campuswide e-mail, "This action causes me deep distress. I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy." She called it "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order."

CNN: High court contender Kagan brings reputation for consensus-building (Wed May-05-10)
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8275427

"...what are the odds Kagan will be Right of center? Pretty much zero according to any reasonable application of social learning theory."

Elena Kagan, no clear liberal record but a long history of associations with Democrats and Liberals (Sat Apr-10-10)
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8123568

"...there is no reason to believe that she would take a different position than the core of the left on the Court." -Tom Goldstein

Goldstein SCOTUS candidates "arrayed left to right: Wood Kagan Garland" Obama likely to choose Kagan (Wed Apr-28-10)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8228615&mesg_id=8228615

"Outside her academics, Kagan served as editorial chairman for the ‘Prince,’ where she was responsible for the opinion content of the paper and the unsigned editorials that appeared almost daily — many of which took decidedly liberal stances on national and campus issues."

Records "shed light on Kagan’s commitment to political activism and her liberal beliefs" (Mon May-03-10)
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8264935

[NJmaverick]

1. Thank you for the FACTS!

[druidity33]

2. i've read your links...

and honestly, i don't see a lot of facts. I understand that a lot of professionals who've worked with her like her and think she will do a good job. But these are all OPINION pieces, really. Some unsigned editorials, a few papers, and one legal opinion? That's enough? What about her hiring record as Dean? What about her lack of experience in a courtroom?

I just think we should be trying for a more liberal candidate with a longer record FIRST (Koh or Wood) and then if they don't get through, move to nominate Kagan... why start with the compromise choice?

:shrug:

[usregimechange]

5. I don't see her as a compromise choice at all but your right - facts, available to us, are limited

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Hooray! She won't be "right of center"

Is that the standard now?

[HughMoran]

37. If you know her personally

Please share!

[lonestarnot]

4. Sounds good, but

I'm still scared :scared:

[usregimechange]

6. I am as well but was with Sotomayor too, that turned out just fine

[EFerrari]

53. Sotomayor had a record that we could look at.

I'm not finding much for Kagan but it's still early yet.

[FLAprogressive]

7. we're talking about the MSM's definition of "liberal" here. To them the president is a "liberal."

So she's really a centrist.

[usregimechange]

8. I think we are talking about her potential oreintation on the court, in that context she is...

very much liberal, it least judging from the available facts.

[WeDidIt]

10. But that's not good enough

The only answer is to appoint Glenn Greenwald.

:sarcasm:

[usregimechange]

12. +1

[NJmaverick]

15. NO! Greenwald supported the Citizens United ruling

our nation can't afford him on the Supreme Court!

[WeDidIt]

17. But Greenwald is the DEFINER

HE DEFINES all that is good and liberal in the world.

If he declares it good, then it is good and must be liberal.

If he declares it bad it is rightwing/DLC and must be conservative.

All hail Lord High Douchenozzle Greenwald, the Definer of all that is good and liberal.

[grantcart]

54. I am sure that Greenwald would find that highly objectional

until he saw the name.

[WeDidIt]

9. She clerked for Thurgood Marshall. n/t

[tekisui]

16. That tells me a lot.

I respect Marshall and his approach. She learned from one of the best.

[saltpoint]

19. I like that point on Kagan's resume a lot.

There is a continuity of purpose to it.

[DevonRex]

25. Best point yet. nt

[Junkdrawer]

11. Glenn Greenwald: The case against Elena Kagan

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).

Consider how amazing it is that such a 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 to 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.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Junkdrawer]

14. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8300166&mesg_id=8300166

[WeDidIt]

23. .

Lord High Douchenozzle

[tmyers09]

31. So I see you've found somebody else to smear.

It's what you and the others in message discipline live for.

[saltpoint]

18. Greenwald's rabid bias overlooks some elemental truths, including

the unpredictability of judicial temperament.

Even with an exhaustive investigation, a "liberal" nominee may join the conservative block on the Court, or a "conservative" nominee may become unabashedly progressive in his or her views.

No way to know. Greenwald's slobbering bias against Obama cripples his insight, IMO.

I would recommend that readers skip Greenwald and move on to any number of other political analysts.

[Luminous Animal]

21. Greenwald supported Sotomayor so, using your standard,

DUers should have rejected her.

[saltpoint]

22. I set no standards, LA. Didn't set out to.

I don't read Greenwald because his bias slobbers down his face and I don't need it.

There are many dozens of other people I'd rather read, and I set about doing so.

If you want a list of recommended titles, I'd be happy to PM you with one.

All genres.

[depakid]

34. Greenwald makes several salient points- which of course some would like to sweep under the rug

as some sort of "bias" against their hero.

And, as has been noted, he wrote several pieces in support of Justice Sotomayor.

[saltpoint]

45. But Depakid, Greenwald also uses the journalist's smorgasboard,

picking only points he wishes for his personal disregard for Kagan. Several also-salient points in favor of her appointment are passed over.

Someone as good with language as Greenwald could have generated a rounder character piece with attendant history and perspective, or Greenwald could have done this himself. His choice not to reflects his bias, which is legally his to hold but which is bias all the same.

The argument for a strong and intelligent woman for the High Court is persuasive. For many Kagan was not a first choice but that does not equal a 'bad' choice. It is likely, IMO, that she will have significant and demonstrable support across a wide spectrum, including from decidedly progressive constituencies.

In times past, all the way back to LBJ's ad Nixon's appointments, either a block of Senators or one or two in particular spearheaded opposition to a presidential SCOTUS appointment. I think of Birch Bayh during those LBJ years as an example. Bayh's opposition was persuasive owing to the potency of what he opposed in Clement Haynsworth, and later, with Carswell, opposition from "liberal" Republicans. There actually were a few in those days. That context might be created against any nominee, but it is far less likely, IMO, to occur with Elena Kagan.

- - -

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904267,00.html

- - -

[LWolf]

27. +1

[depakid]

35. "for those who want to make an informed, rational judgment, it's worthwhile to know her record."

Those who argue against that lose all credibility on any issue that remotely related to President Obama.

[Merlot]

20. I"m just glad she's not Catholic

I'm also liking that Obama wants to put 3 women on the court.

[saltpoint]

24. It's been a boys' club too long. Balance is called for and Obama appears

willing to strike one.

[Hannah Bell]

41. i don't see why proportional representation of the sexes is especially salient.

i think liz cheney is a female lawyer, too, so she'd fit the bill as well.

she's a protegee of larry summers. world bank, pollution export, clinton treasury sec: free trader & privatizer.

"Summers hailed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which lifted more than six decades of restrictions against banks offering commercial banking, insurance, and investment services (by repealing key provisions in the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act)"

so fuck her is my opinion.

[saltpoint]

42. If you want to argue that Liz Cheney meets Constitutional criteria, you'd

be right.

Speaking strictly for myself, I don't care for Liz Cheney.

And if you want to oppose Kagan's nomination, you're free to do so.

I do not oppose it. I like her and respect her chops.

We also disagree, not surprisingly, on whether more women need to serve in the judiciary. I would say more do generally and on the High Court particularly.

The case for Kagan is convincing on more than one level, Hannah Bell. You should direct your disregard for her to the White House, although it does appear they've already made their choice.

[Tx4obama]

26. I am now totally not excited this go round

I'm disappointed that today I don't feel the same excitement this time as I did (before and after) when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor. I have even lost my 'impatience' regarding to wanting know who he will nominate, at this point I just about don't care who it will be.
The only thing that could turn it around for me is if he surprises everyone and picks Harold Koh ;)

[Better Believe It]

28. So present the evidence. I'm listening.

[usregimechange]

30. See above

and I know, the record is skimpy but evidence to the contrary is even less sparse.

[Better Believe It]

48. She certainly doesn't believe in affirmative action and diversity. The evidence is in on that.

[usregimechange]

29. kick

[entanglement]

32. Still not buying it. Why not Diane Wood who is far better qualified and a genuine liberal?

[Ardent15]

33. LOL at "liberal left"

Which liberal left?

[usregimechange]

40. it was meant to indicate both social libertarianism and being left on economic matters

or traditional American liberalism.

[mmonk]

49. +1

[Hekate]

36. This brings a wide smile to my face

Got my fingers crossed she has the stamina to brush off the RW BS that is coming her way. Elena Kagan is looking better all the time.

Hekate

[Oilwellian]

38. The evidence is indeed mounting, and it's not good for we the people

(1) University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos, who previously expressed shock at the paucity of Kagan's record and compared her to Harriet Miers, has a new piece in The New Republic entitled (appropriately): "Blank Slate."
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/blank-slate

(2) Digby examines what a Kagan selection would reveal about Obama, and she particularly focuses on Kagan's relationship to Goldman Sachs. That relationship is relatively minor, but it is illustrative in several ways and will certainly be used by Republicans to advance their attacks on this administration as being inextricably linked with Wall Street. The Huffington Post's Sam Stein has more on the Kagan/Goldman Sachs connection.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/clues-in-runes-kagans-affiliation-with.html

(3) Following up on the article published yesterday in Salon by four minority law professors -- which condemned Kagan's record on diversity issues as "shocking" and "indefensible for the 21st Century" -- Law Professor Darren Hutchinson of American University School of Law today writes that Kagan's record is "abysmal."
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2010/05/law-professors-attack-kagan-and-white.html

(4) This headline, from law.com, is a darkly amusing and quite revealing one to read about the Obama White House's front-runner to replace John Paul Stevens: "Supreme Court Watchers Wonder: How Conservative Is Kagan"?
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202448233938

(5) Law Professor Jonathan Adler persuasively argues why Diane Wood would be easier to confirm than Elena Kagan.
http://volokh.com/2010/05/07/closing-in-on-a-court-pick/

(6) The New York Times' Charlie Savage today explains that executive power is one key area where Obama's choice could bring about major changes to the Court, given that his selection would replace Justice Stevens, who was so stalwart about imposing limits on such power. As Savage writes, Kagan's record (to the extent such a thing even exists) "suggests she might generally be more sympathetic toward the White House than Justice Stevens."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/us/politics/08court.html?hp
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

It's interesting to see the same people tag-teaming Greenwald in several different threads. IMHO, he is a must read for a daily dose of reality. Dismiss what he and many others are saying at your peril. If indeed there's a danger Kagan could shift the court to a strong right position, we the people are fucked. Obama's choice to replace Stevens leaves a sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach. Sorry to all of the Kagan pom-pom shakers. I'm not buying this one.

[usregimechange]

39. That's pretty weak...

and so was my OP. Who is she? Lets gather more information.

[Vinca]

43. I'll reserve judgement until I know more. She's obviously very well educated,

highly intelligent and not obviously left or right. It's encouraging she was infuriated by "don't ask, don't tell."

[DefenseLawyer]

44. Why does he have to pick nominees where we even have to have these debates?

I don't seem to remember the "I wonder if Sam Alito is really a far right conservative" debates on their side. There are literally HUNDREDS of qualified people in this country who are liberal. That will tell you they are liberal. That have a long, unabashed record of liberal jurisprudence. How about one of them? No. Never. We get "well sure she voted with republicans on the court of appeals 95% of the time (Sotomayor) but trust us, she's a liberal deep down" and now "Well she gets along with everyone at Harvard and praised conservative nominees because she's friends with them and her views on executive power are decidedly neo-conservative, but trust us, she's a liberal deep down" You know that's at best wishful thinking and at worst, just bullshit.

[harun]

50. They don't have the back bone to stand up to the Corporate Media.

They are afraid they would say mean things about them if they nominated Liberals.

[MadHound]

46. Socially she might very well be considered on the left,

However I'm afraid that, given her background, on economic matters she'll be another corporatist. We'll see.

There were true liberals out there who were better qualified, I find it disappointed that Obama decided to go with an inexperienced centerist.

[jpak]

47. NNNOOOoooo....teh Bad Obama appointed a right-wing Neanderthal - "some say"

:D

[usregimechange]

51. crazy stuff

[Scurrilous]

52. K & R

:thumbsup:

[berni_mccoy]

55. K&R