Kagan in Context: Shafting Progressive Values

[defendandprotect]

If President Obama has his way, Elena Kagan will replace John Paul Stevens -- and the Supreme Court will move rightward. The nomination is very disturbing, especially because it's part of a pattern.

The White House is in the grip of conventional centrist wisdom. Grim results stretch from Afghanistan to the Gulf of Mexico to communities across the USA.

"It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills," President Obama said in support of offshore oil drilling, less than three weeks before the April 20 blowout in the Gulf. "They are technologically very advanced."

On numerous policy fronts, such conformity to a centrist baseline has smothered hopes for moving this country in a progressive direction. Now, the president has taken a step that jeopardizes civil liberties and other basic constitutional principles.

"During the course of her Senate confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan explicitly endorsed the Bush administration's bogus category of 'enemy combatant,' whose implementation has been a war crime in its own right," University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle noted last month. "Now, in her current job as U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan is quarterbacking the continuation of the Bush administration's illegal and unconstitutional positions in U.S. federal court litigation around the country, including in the U.S. Supreme Court."

Boyle added: "Kagan has said 'I love the Federalist Society.' This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society."

The departing Justice Stevens was a defender of civil liberties. Unless the Senate refuses to approve Kagan for the Supreme Court, the nation's top court is very likely to become more hostile to civil liberties and less inclined to put limits on presidential power.

Here is yet another clear indication that progressives must mobilize to challenge the White House on matters of principle. Otherwise, history will judge us harshly -- and it should.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/kagan-in-context-shafting_b_569659.html



Wow -- not lookin' good . . . !!

[NJmaverick]

1. Since when was strongly standing up for gay rights, not a progressive value?

:shrug:

Guess it must be her strong Pro Choice stance that has people confused

[defendandprotect]

4. Well, she did --- and then when it was going to cost Harvard $$, then she didn't .. .

See the Amy Goodman/DemocracyNow! video --

[NJmaverick]

7. Yet I am pretty sure she wasn't Queen of Harvard so she didn't have the authority to give up the

school's money. Still I think you are not being very intellectually honest if you are trying to take away her accomplishment in the area of gay rights.

[defendandprotect]

11. Are you talking about her being Dean at Harvard/stopping cooperation with recruiters ...???

OK . . . go to the Amy Goodman interview with Greenwald and Ramkin -- think that's his

name where they discuss this --

AFTER the SC made their decision that the law was Constitutional, Kagan -- who was DEAN

AT HARVARD -- reversed her decision. It would have cost Harvard a couple of hundred

million dollars.

So while I wholly agree that she is for lesbian and gay rights, when it comes to sacrificing

anything for it, she seems to walk away???

Let's be sure we're talking about the same thing -- OK?

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/10/progressives_divided_over_obamas_nomination_of

That discussion begins near very end of video --

then Lena clip cause they lose connection . . . but continues on

[NJmaverick]

13. The problem is you are blaming her for something she had no control over

[defendandprotect]

17. You're saying it was just a pragmatic decision . . . why lose money and sleep over it? Okay ...

[NJmaverick]

28. No that's your spin, the fact is should stood up for gay rights

she HAD TO give up her position when it was going to cost her employer hundreds of millions of dollars. While the school may give her some leeway they don't give Deans that sort of leeway.

[defendandprotect]

41. OK . . . so you're saying when it comes to $$, the Dean doesn't count . . . Okay . . .

I see that Summers recommended her for Dean --

Not too happy with that connection, nor Goldman Sachs --

Why not Elizabeth Holtzman -- no questions there!!

[Toasterlad]

32. Since When Do You Give a Shit About Gay Rights?

I thought you were only for what Obama was for?

[NJmaverick]

38. Your statements are contradictory and illogical

[Toasterlad]

39. Oh, I See You're Still Trying To Pretend Obama Gives a Shit About Gay Equality.

[defendandprotect]

42. Yep . . . that's been a really sad affair . . . just saw some comments by Barney Frank...

on that I have to go back to read!!

Sad -- 20 years of DADT -- and no where near overturning the BS of the ...

what is it? "Domestic Marriage Act"??

[NJmaverick]

43. Guess you two skipped the article where Sec Gates said he is planning to end DADT

then why go with the facts

[defendandprotect]

49. No . . never saw it -- evidently Barney Franks may have been making

positive comments -- ??

I went back to Yahoo but didn't see it . . .

I'll continue to check --

If you had that link why didn't you post the article?

Something's going on here at DU with articles not being posted, for one problem...

The Brown article and Kagan info is very late here today --

and why no positing on the Gates story???



PS: Meanwhile, here's all I can find re latest on Gates/DADT ... that's from 5/7/10 --

and if this is what you're talking about -- yep, I saw it!! Not impressed.

Gates clarifies goal of 'don't ask' review team
The Pentagon's review of its "don't ask, don't tell" policy will determine how -- not whether -- the military can best prepare for a possible repeal of the ban on openly gay soldiers, Defense Secretary Robert Gates clarified in a letter written Thursday.

The message came in response to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who asked Gates to clarify the intent of the Pentagon study after the secretary asked lawmakers once again last week not to repeal the gay ban until the Pentagon review is completed.

Gates's request infuriated gay rights groups eager to see a repeal included in this year's Defense Authorization bill. Levin supports that strategy and advocates are working to secure 15 "yes" votes for the repeal ahead of a vote on the authorization bill later this month.

Quoting from his February testimony before Levin's committee, Gates said, "The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change but how we ... best prepare for it." The team -- led by Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Army Gen. Carter Ham -- is "developing a plan to implement such a repeal in the most informed and effective manner possible," Gates said.

Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen voiced their personal opposition to the gay ban during a February Senate hearing.


--- ??? Another study is just more delay --

and obama evidently asked USHR NOT to vote on DADT --

Doesn't look like anything Barney Frank would be enthused about!

[Kitsune]

45. Standing up for it by denying that marriage equality is a constitutional right?

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/05/supreme-irony-kagan-nomination-ends-gay.html

Because it sure looks like that's what she does here.

[defendandprotect]

50. Wow . . that would be a shame . . .

guess I have to take the right wing view on rw appointees . . .

and hope she was lying to Congress????

[MadBadger]

2. I dont understand where Sonia Sotomayor fits into this "pattern"

[WeDidIt]

3. Always the same liberaller than thou assholes always writing the same tired bullshit

and always turning out to be dead wrong.

[defendandprotect]

6. Let's first hear what everyone has to say -- positive and negative . . .

our concern should be with getting the most liberal/progressive Judge we can get on

the court!

[NJmaverick]

8. It's not only about the Justice's values it's also about their ability to win the other

justices to their way of thinking.

[defendandprotect]

19. Well, Scalia has been the bully of the Court . . . so I think we need a good liberal bully . . .

you think she can be very persuasive?

[NJmaverick]

34. she has a history of being very persuasive and building coalitions

[defendandprotect]

40. Was just reading that in another article ....

Gorelick says she was "abrasive" . . . didn't sit well with some --

Not that I'm sure I like Gorelick!?

[WeDidIt]

9. I've noticed all you have posted

is the negative.

Not. One. Single. Positive. Article.

Even though many have been posted by others.

[defendandprotect]

21. You must have missed this one . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8306487

I'm posting them as I find them . . .

How about you?

What positive things about Kagan are you posting? That she's suspected of being gay?

[SidDithers]

20. +1...nt

Sid

[Taverner]

5. Yawn - this shit came out on Sotomayor when she was up for consideration

Kagan's good in my book

[WeDidIt]

10. I've noticed the playbook and talking points are identical

It's like they aren't even trying.

[Taverner]

30. Exactly

Its always: Yeah, she's a progressive Democrat, supports GLBT rights, etc...BUT SHE'S NOT AS LIBERAL AS "-----------"

[defendandprotect]

22. Did we have this much disappointment with Sotomayer from the left? Don't recall --

[NJmaverick]

35. There were some really nasty shots from "liberal" professor Turley

[Taverner]

51. People were angry, but yes, she's one of us

This is the "I'm taking my toys and going home" crowd, after all.

[TexasObserver]

12. The president seems intent on proving he's not that good at picking people.

His appointments have been almost consistently disappointing. We have to accept he's just not very good at evaluating talent and picking it.

I have given up the hope he might transform the federal judiciary by making appointments who could be relied upon to protect Democratic ideals. He seems content to be a caretaker president, instead of a champion, like FDR or LBJ.

[MadBadger]

14. Again, where does Sonia Sotomayor fit into that pattern?

[NJmaverick]

15. The alternative is that you are a poor evaluator of talent

which seems more likely

[TexasObserver]

24. That would be likely if we were talking about your opinion.

On the contrary, I'm informed.

[NJmaverick]

26. As am I, so what's your point?

[TexasObserver]

31. My point is you're not informed.

Your belief that you are is not the test of your level of knowledge.

[NJmaverick]

33. and you just proved my point about being a poor evaluator of people

That would be game, set and match

[TexasObserver]

37. No, but your posts do prove mine.

[habitual]

46. not by any stretch of the imagination.... if this is the kind of logic you

use, then i hope you reconsider telling others that their posts are illogical....

he just proved your point huh? hahahahaha

[tranche]

16. FDR and LBJ are dead.

I'm so tired of listening to people remembering fondly a country that never existed.

[TexasObserver]

23. Your sensitivity to others having a different opinion is your problem.

If you can't accept it, use your ignore feature. By using the feature the site provides, you can eliminate posts such as mine, which trouble you by speaking truthfully about the history of Democratic presidents who were champions.

[Better Believe It]

18. I believe President Obama is picking people who share his political views and values.

They just aren't as liberal and progressive as millions hoped.

[NJmaverick]

29. "millions"? more like hundreds

[MadHound]

25. Yep, sadly the Court continues to move to the right,

Under a Democrat at that. But what else can you expect from the two party/same corporate master system of government.

One can only hope that she turns out to be a stealth liberal, but somehow I doubt that. Kiss our civil rights goodbye, say hello to our new corporate overlords.

And Diane Wood would have been a much stronger, truly progressive, liberal choice. But I guess that Obama simply doesn't do liberal.

[dgibby]

47. It was all over when SCOTUS gave the country

to the Corporate "persons".

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

36. "Unless the Senate refuses to approve Kagan for the Supreme Court

the nation's top court is very likely to become more hostile to civil liberties and less inclined to put limits on presidential power."

Utter hogwash.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

52. The latest exaggeration and extrapolation.

I knew I could count on DU to be full of threads bashing Obama's choice, no matter who it was.