Trusting Obama on Kagan is NOT the same as unquestioningly trusting him on everything.

[BzaDem]

There is a lot of information out there on Obama's views on the Constitution. He has spoken out about them at length at times (to the point where Sotomayor had to publicly repudiate Obama's own philosophy on "empathy" to get confirmed). He has spoken out about them in the past, prior to his running for president. He was a law professor for many years, and there is a wealth of information out there about how he taught classes on Constitutional law.

In short, based upon all the information out there, Obama is one of the most knowledgable presidents ever about these issues, and certainly the most progressive relating to judicial issues in decades.

Using Obama's approval as evidence to support Kagan in this nomination is well founded, and NOT remotely equivalent to being a sychopantic supporter who trusts everything Obama does without question.

You can argue that even Obama might not know Kagan's true views due to a somewhat light (though certainly present) paper trail, or that all Supreme Court nominees should have a wealth of published statements on their views in various forms. But anyone who claims that a Kagan supporter just unquestioningly trusts the president on every issue is wrong and should not be taken seriously.

[FarLeftFist]

1. I'm sure she did just fine at the sitdown, I trust Obama on that.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Morbius]

3. Hey, learn the drill, please.

Any support of President Obama is spineless sycophancy.

And any criticism of President Obama is closet "freeperism".

Quaint notions like offering one's honest opinion and defending the same are just asking for attack in 21st century America.

[tkmorris]

4. "and certainly the most progressive relating to judicial issues in decades"

Your whole argument hinges on the above statement being true, and I am not convinced that it is. I am also not convinced that it is not true; I simply do not know. Given his impressive qualifications when it comes to Constitutional Law, he certainly knows what questions to ask of a nominee, and presumably could easily find a candidate that suits him. I don't know if the candidate that suits him is the candidate that suits me.

[BzaDem]

5. What president had more progressive views of Constitutional law?

Certainly not Carter or Clinton. You could argue that Lyndon Johnson's appointment of Thurgood Marshall showed that Johnson was more progressive, though I think there is much doubt over whether that particular appointment evidenced a deep progressive philosophy of the Constitution like Obama has.

In any event, whether you include Johnson or not, I believe my statement still stands. We currently have the most constitutional-progressive President in at least 40 years.

[Art_from_Ark]

9. Johnson was far more progressive than Obama

Speaking as someone who remembers the Johnson administration. If it weren't for Vietnam, Johnson would have been one of the all-time greats.

[gleaner]

10. I said it before and I'll say it again ...

If Obama is so progressive and so trustworthy why did he and his administration obtain a supreme court decision legalizing torture as a tool of interrogation, give his administration the ability to name someone an "unlawful detainee," American or otherwise so that their right to Habeas Corpus could be suspended, they could be held without charges or legal counsel, and individuals could be legally subjected to rendition if the White House says the word?

That is not constitutional, and since he does have the constitutional knowledge and background you write of in you post it makes him less than truthful, less than trustworthy and certainly not "progressive." As I understand the word "progressive" when applied to a member of the Democratic party. it means one who respects human rights, wants the constitution to be the law of the land and who does not support torture or other means of unusual punishment, especially for people not even convicted of a crime. It is pure George Bush.

So you trust him without evidence if you want to. I can't. I need proof. He has lied and changed positions too often for me to believe anything he says without it. OP is right about Johnson too. He was a much more dynamic president and even if much of what he did was wrong, he stood up and took the heat for it. Even on Viet Nam, he did most of his warmongering out in the open, allowed the press to report on it and answered his critics instead of dropping drones as secretly as he could on civilians as Obama is doing in Pakistan. I believe a drone killed six more Pakistanis today did it not? If I am wrong, please correct me.

Kagan is his Harriet Mier. Slight experience and no public profile to speak of. We need liberal judges not cyphers.

[AllentownJake]

6. Trusting any President

Is pretty much silly.

I've pretty much given up on the notion the government ever works in my interest.

[Electric Monk]

7. Bill Hicks... Smoky back room... view of the Grassy Knoll from another angle...

something like that.

[Scuba]

8. "...from an angle you've never seen before."

Scary, huh?

[ipaint]

11. Trust a politician, any politician, no thanks.

Obama is no different.

Are people naive or just plain stupid?

[VMI Dem]

12. Why does he believe civil rights for gays is a states rights issue?

Seems he needs to study a bit more.

[mmonk]

13. I make my opinions based on what I can glean from facts.

That is why I oppose Kagan. I would oppose Kagan under any Democratic presidency nomination based what I can see about her, plain and simple.