I think the pro and anti Kagan DU factions have overstated their cases

[usregimechange]

Of the past few weeks we have been forming factions on the Kagan nomination. I have both expressed concern and presented the case for her. I think both factions have overstated their case. Lets slow down and gather more information.

Reasons to be concerned:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4374699&mesg_id=4375206

Reasons to support her:
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8300335&mesg_id=8300335

[kestrel91316]

1. I support her because I trust Obama's judgment. He knows her well.

[Toasterlad]

12. That's Exactly Why I Don't Support Her.

Anyone Obama nominates is going to be a corporate whore like he is.

[MadBadger]

16. How did Sotomayor vote on Citizen's United?

[Toasterlad]

17. Fair Point.

I don't hold out hope for Kagan, though.

[kestrel91316]

24. Having been called a corporate whore myself, with no justification

other than the fevered delusions of the DUers who said it, all I can do is laugh.

[Toasterlad]

27. You Can Laugh Along With Obama...All the Way To the Bank.

[kestrel91316]

28. Perhaps when I rise above the poverty level. That's what made it so ironic.....

[Toasterlad]

29. People Who Are Poor and Still Support Corporatists Deserve To Be Laughed At.

[kestrel91316]

30. Who said I supported corporatists, lol? I hate corporations and lean

closer to true socialism every year.

I have been CALLED a corporate whore, falsely. Because I recommend a certain brand of cat food (among others) to my clients. I have also been called a lying shill by the same DUers.

[Scurrilous]

2. Gawker: Elena Kagan Is Obama's Supreme Court Nominee. Should You Like Her?

<snip>

"Uh-oh: Politics happened! President Obama has chosen Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be his nominee for the Supreme Court spot recently vacated by Justice Stevens. Now you have to have an opinion about her. We can help with that!

Argh! It is always irritating when things happen in the world, because you will go to work, or your parole hearing, or wherever, and people will ask you what you think about them. "Do you think former Dean of Harvard Law School Elena Kagan is a good choice for the Supreme Court?" your cabdriver will ask you. "What do you think of Elena Kagan's response to Lindsey Graham regarding military tribunals during her Solicitor General confirmation hearings last year?" your hooker will say.

Don't panic! We understand. You are a busy person, what with your doll collection/ManHunt account/plot to blow up Times Square. You don't have time to "formulate a reasoned opinion based on extensive reading on the subject"! That is why we are here. We have prepared an easy-to-follow guide that will help you figure out what you think of the woman who is likely to be the next Supreme Court Justice, based entirely on the identity politics we assume you follow! Simply find the description that best fits your "issue," and memorize the handy opinion we provide."

more

[KittyWampus]

11. Great post. Glad I clicked through the link!

Thanks.

[Scurrilous]

14. You're welcome.

:thumbsup:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Speaking for myself...

I have said very little about her because the predictable DU fights are of little interest to me.

But my objections to her are decisive. I would vote against her, caucus be damned.

She is hostile to my conception of the First Amendment so I could not support her.

It does not, however, follow that I think everything about her is grist for attack. I don't care about things like if she worked with Goldman-Sachs or her diversity record at Harvard... those things say nothing decisive about her constitutional philosophy and constitutional philosophy is all I care about in a Supreme Court Justice.

(Well, that and youth and health, and she seems fine on that score.)

[BootinUp]

4. Have you explained your First Amendment concern somewhere? nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. No, because there would be little point to my advocacy

Nothing said on DU would have changed her selection nor will it change her confirmation.

And my own objections to her are things that would probably make her more popular here. I am a strong civil libertarian, even in contentious issues like hate-speech and pornography. Not everyone is.

But no matter what others might think, these works of analysis are not at all compatible with my constitutional philosophy:

Kagan, E. Private speech, public purpose: the role of governmental motive in First Amendment doctrine. The University of Chicago Law Review v. 63 (Spring 1996) p. 413-517

Kagan, E. Regulation of hate speech and pornography after R.A.V. {R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992)}. The University of Chicago Law Review v. 60 (Summer/Fall 1993) p. 873-902

She'll be an okay Justice but is a sad replacement for Stevens, the strongest member of the court on the expressive rights I revere.

I'd vote against her. Doesn't mean she's a bad person or anything.

[HughMoran]

6. Still, this post is a lot more substantive than the one-liners you've been tossing out to date

Now that I understand your position, and it seems reasonable to me, I don't have to 'guess' as to the meaning of your snark.

I'm glad you posted this!

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. I would vote against her as well

She is not a bad person, but her views on the power of the President and issues concerning indefinite detention are very troubling and would get a no vote from me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. RAV vs. St. Paul?

You mean the one where the court decided that burning a cross on black people's lawns was protected speech?

[BootinUp]

18. I just wanted to thank you for your reply, to be honest

it will take some time for me to go through these cites and understand them but I am making some effort to do so.

[BootinUp]

20. In the second work you cite

Kagan seems to be arguing that any effort to regulate hate speech or pornography should not be based on viewpoint. I would think that is not inconsistent with a civil libertarian view. I admit I didn't read every word but thats what I got from it.

[BootinUp]

25. In the first work you cited I believe Kagan is

essentially in agreement with Stevens. That regulation of certain hate speech should be based on an injury test, not a content or viewpoint test. Again I do not see what your objection would be. Am I mis-reading it?

edit
Strike that. She is attempting to describe how to determine the governments motive. In any event, she does not appear to be taking any strong stands in it.

[notesdev]

7. In my eyes she is disqualified by two words

which are "Goldman Sachs". There is no reason to acquiesce to another Goldman crony, after all the damage those people have done and continue to do to us.

[Tx4obama]

21. Oh come on, she only made $10K from them....

Some attorneys bill big companies more than that for one month's work.
It not like she was a full-time employee, a member on the board, or that she had any power there.

[Javaman]

9. I find it interesting...

that there is a pro and con bunch, rather than what the people want.

It seems as if our opinion never really figured into this nomination.

[Toasterlad]

13. When HAS It For the Last 30 Years?

[Javaman]

15. very true.

So now the plebes will fight back and forth over a candidate that was neither our choice or our want but yet we will be told that this person represents our feelings and desires.

The media will go full bore creating controversy from whole clothe to maintain their ratings.

And because a Dem pres was the one to put her name up, the right will now, also, go full on crazy against her in an effort to show that, they the repubs, are looking out from our own best interests, when, we don't even know what our best interests are anymore.

The grand reshuffling of the message to obscure our desire for responsibility.

Who's government is this again?

I'm now on a mission to try and step out of the circular firing squad that is our supposed government/media machine and taking an iconoclasts point of view.

[iris27]

19. Some of her positions concern me, but seeing the hateful bullshit (not here) spewed

across the internet about her today makes me feel weirdly defensive of her. I guess I was a little too young to catch most of the vitriol against Reno, but my jaw is on the ground at some of misogynist shit people are saying about Kagan just because she's not conventionally attractive.

[DefenseLawyer]

22. Simple question: Were there ever pro and anti Sam Alito factions on the right?

Answer: No. Why? Because the radical right actually wants a crazy right wing court and wanted the craziest right wing nut they could find. They didn't compromise; they did what they wanted and made no attempt at "stealth".

[skepticscott]

23. Which is the main reason to criticize Barack Obama

over this choice. Why is a Democratic president afraid to nominate an unabashed liberal, and defend them vigorously, the way that GWB nominated two hard-core, unapologetic conservatives? Why is he always backing down and compromising before a fight even starts?

[DefenseLawyer]

26. Because our leaders don't share our views

that's the only rational answer.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. For one thing, this is a liberal site, but "Democrats" covers a much larger specturm

It's part of the problem we've run into since Republicans went stark raving mad.