It's Kagan. How do you feel about this pick?

[WilliamPitt]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/its-kagan----obama-makes-supreme-court-selection.php?ref=fpa

[mmonk]

1. Not good.

I prefer a more independent judiciary from the executive branch and would always side on separation of powers and the rule of law for the executive branch. Not as bad as a Roberts or an Alito but still not where I think justices should be in temperment.

[WilliamPitt]

3. You think she's in Obama's pocket?

I'm just dialing in to this situation. Where does that impression come from?

[mmonk]

8. Not Obama but executive power.

There is this from Glenn Greenwald:



Still, the questions she was addressing were the crux of the debate back then over the proper limits of executive authority, and the view she advocated was clearly one that advocated far more executive power than had been previously accepted. Kagan's 2001 law review article is what led to this from The Boston Globe when Kagan was nominated for Solicitor General:


"She is certainly a fan of presidential power," said William F. West, a professor who specializes in federal administration at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M.


Similarly -- and very revealingly -- even the moderate Neal Katyal, now Kagan's Deputy, emphatically criticized Kagan's theories in that law review article as executive overreach and even linked them to the Bush/Cheney executive power seizures. Katyal wrote in a June, 2006 article in The Yale Law Journal


Such claims of executive power are not limited to the current administration, nor are they limited to politicians. Take, for example, Dean Elena Kagan's rich celebration of presidential administration. Kagan, herself a former political appointee, lauded the President's ability to trump bureaucracy. Anticipating the claims of the current administration, Kagan argued that the President's ability to overrule bureaucrats

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



After what we have been through, I see no reason to continue to tempt fate.

[AtomicKitten]

19. Did you see Professor Lessig on Rachel tonight?

He respectfully (he is a self-admitted big fan of Greenwald's) let the air out of Greenwald's case against Kagan.

It's worth a listen.

[HughMoran]

20. He was convincing

He claimed to be a Greenwald reader who had used Glenn's words in lectures, but he emphatically disagreed with Greenwald on this topic.

[AtomicKitten]

31. I thought he was convincing as well.

He disagreed respectfully, Greenwald's response was snippy.

[Major Hogwash]

33. Clinton appointed Kagan to be a judge in July 2000, but Hatch wouldn't even give her a hearing

It's payback time!

[AtomicKitten]

36. I dare the GOP to warn against activist judges during her confirmation process.

After the 5:4 wingnutty decision to allow corporations unlimited spending in elections, Kagan should laugh in their faces.

[HughMoran]

21. Greenwald again?

Her fellow professor let the air out of Greenwald's claims - you might want to consider alternative perspectives - like one from a 20 year friend versus Glenn.

[QC]

24. Greenwald personally hammered the nails into the hands and feet of Our Lord. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

2. At a time when we desperately need to move back from the far right to the center....

we inch further to the right. (Replacing the court's most liberal voice with a Rorschach left-of-center candidate is inching to the right.)

It's the main theme of the Obama presidency.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Disappointed but not surprised. eom

[supernova]

5. Disappointing that she's not more liberal.

And that she's never been a judge (but that is secondary)

The only hope we have is if she experiences the phenomenon of centrist/liberal judges moving farther left over time.

[Major Hogwash]

34. She's super freaking smart though.

And will work on getting more decisions by forming a census with Kennedy and the other 3 liberals on close call cases.

Now as it is, it would be 5-4 on the Court for any choice that Obama would make.
5 conservatives, and 4 liberals.
Kagan is moderate, as is Kennedy.
She may even be able to get Souter to agree with her more than disagree.

Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will always side with Roberts.
So wooing Kennedy to compromise on the hardline issues is what we have to hope for.

[Inuca]

6. Interesting analysis on DKos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/10/865113/-Why-Kagan-Makes-Sense:Citizens-United

[HughMoran]

22. Very

I agree on the 'reactionary' claim - a little perspective is in order here...

[DefenseLawyer]

7. I expected nothing else.

One more pro-authority, pro-corporate member of the Harvard Club. It's a shame that the left has no voice whatsoever in this country.

[Bitwit1234]

9. Well someone said she is for repealing

Don't ask don't tell. So maybe she'll vote to get that done. And they are pushing the idea that she is a "progressive". How true is that.

[KharmaTrain]

10. A Perfect Diversion

I may be wrong on this and so be it, but the corporate media, especially the "Politico" was off on the last pick and wouldn't surprise me if the Administration used Mikey Allen (who Cheney loved to use to plant his astroturf) to draw attention away from someone else.

If it is Kagan, I will reserve opinion until I hear her in the conformation and get a measure of the person through how she handles this process.

[Pab Sungenis]

11. Sick to my stomach.

Only with Obama could we have a Democratic President moving the Supreme Court to the right. First Sotomayor, Now Kagan.

We have to hope that Ginsburg and Breyer hold out longer than Scalia and Thomas, or we're going to lose it all with the next pick.

[Oregone]

12. Deleted message

[HughMoran]

23. Having fun yet?

:D

[Oregone]

27. Almost always

[rucky]

13. She'll be fine.

Everybody here was bagging on Sotomayor, too.

[TomCADem]

14. She's an excellent pick.

Brilliant legal mind. Long history as a Democrat under two Democratic presidents. Young. She will be an excellent Supreme Court justice.

[JI7]

15. undecided, interested in seeing the hearings, and hope they start soon

more so than Sotomayor. where Sotomayor's hearings were more about how different sides will come across rather than specific issues.

i think with Kagan people on both sides will be interested in what she has to say about her position on issues.

[bigwillq]

16. I think she will be ok.

We shall see. Too early to tell at this point. The court will likely stay 5-4 on most issues anyway.

[Forkboy]

17. Like I feel with 80% of all things Obama.

Could be worse, could be better.

[backscatter712]

18. She'll be fine.

She's not going to be the apocalyptic/end of the world justice that the hard left makes her out to be.

She's also insanely smart, open to reason, and moderately progressive, even if she isn't as far left as we would like.

[HughMoran]

25. I can virtually guarantee you that people will look back and wonder

...how they missed her extremely liberal background. She'll be as liberal as them come.

[lonestarnot]

38. And how are you backing your guarantee? I for one do not believe you.

[WillyT]

26. Need To Read More...

Will get back to you.

;)

[TexasObserver]

28. I think the president could have picked much better.

[MadBadger]

29. Wonder how long this will last.

[Truth2Tell]

30. kick

:P

[IndianaGreen]

32. tsk, tsk, tsk

:+

[mod mom]

35. TERRIBLE! Read Hissyspit's thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8308581

[lonestarnot]

37. Well ok then there's that.

[Major Hogwash]

39. Hissyspit's thread is based on a bs article. In case you didn't know this . . . .

President Clinton appointed Kagan to be a judge on the DC Circuit Federal Appeals Court.
Senator Orrin Hatch would not give her a hearing.
That was in July of 2000.

John Roberts was appointed to the DC Circuit Court, and later elevated to the Supreme Court.
As was Scalia.
And Thomas.
And Ginsburg.

The reason Hatch would not give her a hearing to be on the DC Circuit Court was to prevent her from being a judge on an influential appeals court.
The DC Circuit Court is different than other Circuit Courts, as it does NOT allow any Senator to "blue slip" (read: automatically block) the nomination of that person to be a judge on that court.

Go to wikipedia.
Look up Ginsburg.
That was the same course that they wanted to put Kagan on, put her on the DC Circuit Court, and then elevate her to the Supreme Court.
But, Hatch would not let Clinton do that because he hated Clinton.

Sometimes, you guys don't like the history of the Democratic party, but you can't re-write history.
After the Republicans tried to remove Clinton from office by impeaching him, they blocked everything he did that could have been beneficial to this country.
Clinton lost that battle to get Kagan on that court.

Obama will not lose this battle to get her on the Supreme Court!