Why should DUers back Kagan? After reading these posts, I am sad beyond belief

[Elwood P Dowd]

with this selection. Obama does nothing about the Seigelman case, keeps Laura Canary as US Attorney in Alabama, and then appoints someone who sides with the Rove/Canary/Fuller Alabama Mafia in a legal brief. Is there a logical explanation somewhere I'm missing?

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/plot-thickens-on-siegelman-prosecution.html

A bipartisan group of 91 former state attorneys general from more than 40 states have since formed an unprecedented coalition filing a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court and arguing it should hear Siegelman's case because his actions did not constitute a crime.

But Kagan, now widely reported as a leading candidate to ascend from her post as Justice Department solicitor general to become her friend Obama's nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy, urged the high court in November to deny Siegelman a hearing.

She cited technical legal arguments devised with the assistance of DOJ's trial prosecutors. Since the 2006 convictions DOJ has withstood complaints that include: political prosecution with Rove, judge-shopping, jury tampering, lying about the recusal of Alabama's top prosecutor, firing a DOJ whistleblower, and suppressing evidence that DOJ tried to blackmail its central witness.

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8304879&mesg_id=8305405

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/siegelman-judge-asked-to_b_534628.html

[saltpoint]

1. The case for an extremely intelligent woman, not to mention a

very accomplished woman, on the High Court is persuasive.

There were several names on the (evident) short list who would likely have made great Justices.

In my opinion, Kagan's was one of those.

[Elwood P Dowd]

3. I might have been born at night, but

I wasn't born last night.

[saltpoint]

8. Had you been, Elwood, I would have strongly praised your

grasp of language in so short a time.

I'll stick to my guns. The Court has been essentially a boys' club far too long. No reason in hell why intelligent and capable females should not serve on it.

[Hannah Bell]

13. why not liz cheney? or phyllis schlafly? if being female is the most important thing?

another reason identity politics = dead fucking end.

[saltpoint]

14. Gosh, Hannah. You sure do use naughty words a lot.

What would Ward and June say?

Try a big-picture landscape and see if you can find any distinctions between Phyllis Schlafly and Elena Kagan.

I bet there are some.

[Hannah Bell]

17. you're the one who likes fucking kagan because she's a woman.

so was margaret thatcher. big fucking deal.

fuckity fuck fuck fuck

[saltpoint]

19. I'm just blushing up a storm over here, Hannah.

I like Kagan for any number of reasons, not least because she is an intelligent woman.

If you have a case against women on the High Court, I suggest you post a thread saying so. We'll see how that plays out.

[Hannah Bell]

23. i have a problem with people who think sex, race or religion is the most salient

factor in choosing a nominee -- as you appear to, when you state that getting rid of the "old boys' club" is important.

it's not a bit important if you're going to put a neo-lib female larry summers protegee in.

member of the "financiers' club"

[saltpoint]

26. It's one factor and an important one.

As you know, Hannah, but choose not to mention, is that SCOTUS nominees, once confirmed, are unbeholden to any particular ideology. They may be predictable votes like Thomas or quite unpredictable like David Souter.

History has its own set of cards. You and I don't know what cards it holds.

[Hannah Bell]

30. it's not a damn bit important. it's a myth that tenure makes SC justices "unbeholden," sorry.

[saltpoint]

33. I don't think Poppy would agree with you.

And with good reason. He was mighty fumed over Souter's lunge to the left.

And to the extent that the Court is one of the three branches of civil government, yes, it is very important.

You may be underestimating the process.

[Hannah Bell]

39. lol. souter's "turn to the left" = nothing of the sort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

he's just not a complete fascist on *every* issue, like scalia.

[saltpoint]

42. If you weigh out the 5-4 votes of recent years, you'll find Souter

aligned against Scalia more often than not.

The point is clear: once nominees are confirmed, they are their own frame of reference if they so choose to be.

[Hannah Bell]

51. the facts are clear; there are no liberals on the court. there are only the fascists (scalia)

& the conservatives (souter).

kagan's nomination, however gender-proportional it is (always an important point to the clueless identity politics folks), = the addition of a neo-liberal protegee of finance capital to the collection of rightists that constitutes the current court.

neo-liberal economics = right-wing, pro-capital, anti-labor economics.

[saltpoint]

55. Whoops. Sorry, Hannah. We disagree entirely.

Your perspective is coming from such a far-Left place that almost no one can see you anymore.

Where's Hannah? Dear god, she moved so far left on the boat she plumb dropped off into the sea!

Hannah. Cool down just a brief moment and try to remember that the real world is right out the window. You and I can both see it. It is not a Leftist's landscape. It never has been in the United States, except in a few brief careers and only then for a very brief interlude.

You may wish that landscape to be present but it is not now and it never has been.

You get no points by playing the desperate Leftist. No one cares about that sort of shrieking. The administration of influence and power in U.S. History has never come from the Left. It is not coming from the Left now either. Look at the opposition to Kagan. It's either the far Left or the Far right. The action is in the center. The squawkers are on the poles.

[Hannah Bell]

60. I don't need to "cool down," as I'm neither hot nor angry, though you apparently try

to suggest that anyone you argue with is angry, therefore easily dismissed.

"The administration of influence and power in U.S. History has never come from the Left."

Depends on what you mean by "influence," "power," & "left". I suggest you're mistaken. But i'm not interesting in debating all of us history with you. whether your contention is true or false, Kagan is the pick OF FINANCE CAPITAL.

[saltpoint]

62. I'll stand by the point. If you can name a Leftist president, I'll apologize.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[William Z. Foster]

94. that is not the issue

Of course there has never been a left wing president. How could there be? The left represents the powerless in their battle against the powerful, and to get into power requires working with, cooperating with, catering to the powerful. Obviously.

But that doesn't mean anything, since "selecting" a hero with the "right ideology" is not how politics works.

Left wing ideas get a hearing in government as a function of pressure from organized Labor and other left wing groups. Yet you ridicule and dismiss any speaking about that as "far left" and "shrieking" - the insults and smears directed at Hannah go on and on.

You say we should bring no such pressure - you have nothing but contempt and ridicule for critics. Had people taken your advice in the past, that would have meant no Emancipation, no Women's Suffrage, no trust-busting and anti-monopoly legislation, no New Deal, and no Civil Rights legislation.

[saltpoint]

98. Whoops -- I said nothing of the sort about pressuring the Party or

other entities -- corporations especially -- and said nothing about quieting dissent.

But there is a dismissive quality to the original objection to Kagan. I spoke in defense of her qualifications and I will reassert that it is an important plus to have more women in judicial roles.

I have contempt and ridicule for idiotic critics, yes. Not thoughtful ones, not sleeves-rolled-up ones, not at all. My family is long-ago rooted to LaFollette progressive politics. We maintain those connections today. The "Left"'s case against Kagan is a doomed commitment. She's very likely to be confirmed. She will be in fact more intelligent than the Republican Senators questioning her in the confirmation hearings.

You wanted someone else instead? So did I. Suck it up. That's how the game is played. It doesn't conform to my wishes and expectations and it doesn't conform to yours either. If it's too disappointing both of us can join a Buddhist monastery in Asia and just chill out for the rest of our days on earth.

If we stay here, though, we accept the landscape as presented. We don't have to endorse all of it but we should appreciate the parts of it that genuinely beckon us toward our citizenship in our country. Elena Kagan is smart, and tough, and wiley, and IMO likely to break that 5-4 block, or in any case, as qualified as someone could be given the recalcitrance of Scalia and Thomas and Roberts.

You would have to admit that your response to my speaking up for Kagan was dismissive.

[William Z. Foster]

132. dissent

Many here, I notice, will say they support dissent and would never suppress it, and then start complaining about the "type" of dissent - dissent with "a dismissive quality" in your case.

"This I do not get at all - The 'Left's' case against Kagan is a doomed commitment. She's very likely to be confirmed."

What does the likelihood of "winning" have to do with dissent? So we should only criticize when we are on the "winning" team? I cannot imagine a more powerful call for suppressing dissent than that.

And why would you put quotation marks around the word Left?

Why would you call critics "idiotic" and tell them to "suck it up?"

Here is how "the game is played" - we speak out, and more people learn what is going on, think things through more, and we have planted the seeds for social change. That is the only way the game is played.

My response to what you said may have been dismissive. You are claiming that I was therefore dismissive of Kagan, and then go on to say that "dismissive" is the type of dissent that you don't like.

You have your own personal feelings mixed up with the issues in this situation, and so are assuming that others do as well. You are speaking to people here as though they were grade school children who didn't get their ice cream cone. Yet you complain about others being dismissive? A lot of projection going on, methinks.

[lillypaddle]

122. Perfectly said.

[Greyhound]

125. Every step forward taken by this nation, including its very formation, came from "the left".

Your point is invalid.

[saltpoint]

149. I agree with you, which is why I vote the way I do for some decades, Greyhound.

But every meaningful reform that still needs to be implemented is NOT implemented because the Left is not a dominant and influential movement in U.S. history.

You and I cannot read down the roster of names in the United States Senate at any time and find very many people like Bernie Sanders or Paul Wellstone. I love them dearly but they are now-and-then personages in the process, and by no means representative of the majority. That is a shame, but it is nevertheless true.

[Greyhound]

152. But your position seems to be based on the false premise that that is how

it has been and how it must always be. We're in the part of the cycle where change will happen, there is no stopping that, and what direction that change will take is dependent on where leaders point it. Obama is pointing 165° away from progress. He has succeeded in pissing the entire conservative community off and has lost the left through his betrayals. He is creating a vacuum of leadership and history says that when that vacuum is filled at random by the most persuasive conman, the results are usually very bad.

Obama campaigned on "change and audacity" but has failed to even attempt real change, writing it off as "impossible" without even an effort, or as in the case of auditing The Fed, has vigorously worked against it.

Kagan is not a horrible choice so much as she is yet another in a long list of wasted opportunities. The SCOTUS currently has at least three unabashed, vocal anti-people conservatives, but not one comparable liberal voice. He went for safe with Sotomayor and she will be fine though she is far from a liberal, now his second nominee is a corporate enigma seemingly picked for the sole reasons that he knows her and she has successfully avoided any controversy for her entire career.

ETA; As to your position that "Americans are not liberal", that has been shown false time and again. Americans are prejudiced against the label "liberal", yet when questioned about problems and their solutions, consistently show a solid majority of liberal views.

[saltpoint]

154. Incorrect on my "position." I don't have a position insofar as a mechanism,

and I'm not in politics. I do follow politics, but I'm as interested in the death of Franklin Pierce's youngest son in the 1850s as I am in whether Mark Sanford deserves his wife and kids after his Appalachian Trail jaunts to South America.

We do not agree on Obama's angle of progress.

And you characterized Kagan as "a wasted" opportunity when she has yet to even be confirmed, nevermind to have served? It's a bit early, IMO, for those kinds of assessments. You could just as easily have written in hopes that her presence on the Court will be to the LEFT of the man she is replacing and that the long-term foundation for a more forward-looking 9 Justices is being established one by one, and by the same President.

We agree also on the last point about whether U.S. citizens are liberal. They are often more liberal than the corporations who define their tastes and sponsor their news casts, certainly, and refreshingly so. But. They are not liberal enough to have sustained a progressive political society over the course of our 200-plus years as a nation. If I say to you I am frustrated with or infuriated by Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and Evan Bayh, that is not to say that I'm unaware that a Paul Wellstone would likely never win a U.S. Senate race in those Senators' respective states. Which is why I agree with Dennis Kucinich (have for a long time, actually) but would argue that he can't even win a statewide race in Ohio. Would that Ohio would send him to the Senate, but if Ohio gave us Howard Metzenbaum it also gave us Jim Rhodes, the soldiers with their rifles, and dead college student on the Kent State University campus.

The Scopes monkey trial is a great play in and of itself, but reveals the two paradigms of U.S. sociopolitical thinking. A school teacher on trial for ruffling the feathers (and not even on purpose!) of conservative (in this case also evangelical Christian) citizenry. Show the play in Hartford and the audience will root for that teacher; show it in Cincinnati and just as many or more will want the teacher suspended and a Ten Commandments kook hired in his place.

As for myself, I love the word 'liberal' or the word 'progressive.' My views are consistent with Bella Abzug's and Bobby Kennedy's, both of them entirely progressive souls, and both party Democrats to the core.

[Greyhound]

157. Understood. I'm not sold either way on her, and it is too early for judgment,

and even that will be irrelevant when it is.

My point was tangential to this thread, at best.
:hi:

[branders seine]

115. don't listen to this creature, Hannah Bell.

Most real Democrats are there with you on the left.

Right-of-center corporate conservadems just love them some Kagan.

[lillypaddle]

123. I'm a real democrat

And I think Kagan is a great choice. Don't tell me what I am because I don't agree with you on this SC nomination.

[branders seine]

126. I didn't tell you anything at all.

You are not Hannah Bell.

[lillypaddle]

130. Well, you said to Hannah Belle

That most "real democratics" are with her on this. I am a real democrat, and I am not with her on this.

[branders seine]

131. tell *her* that.

I don't particularly care what you think. Why did you confront me with an issue between you and her?

:shrug:

[lillypaddle]

136. well, sheesh

maybe I got confused and replied to the wrong person. Happens sometimes. :)

[Greyhound]

128. Democrat has nothing to do with left/right. For the overwhelming majority of its history,

the Democratic Party has been the party of maintaining the status quo, IOW, the party of the powerful working against the interests of the rest.

[William Z. Foster]

133. you could be right

What a "real Democrat" might be is in flux right now. The party is moving dramatically to the right. That is changing what a "real Democrat" is.

Certainly some of us know what the other poster meant - "real Democrats as we once knew them."

As to which group - the people holding the same positions they did 40 years ago, who are now under increasing attack, or the new group of Democrats who hold all of the positions that 40 years ago were the Republican platform - is the "real Democrats" I say who cares, and time will tell. If the effort going on right now to turn the Democratic party into a replacement for the Republican party, as the new dominant conservative party, succeeds, then so will what we call "a real Democrat."

[William Z. Foster]

ya never can tell

Look how great Thomas turned out. What a surprise that was.

If we can't tell how a nominee will turn out, then what is the point of having a Democrat rather than a Republican nominate the candidates for the Supreme Court?

[saltpoint]

57. That's for your separate thread. I think the real drama in High Court's

(fairly) recent history is Indiana Senator Birch Bayh's principled opposition to Clement Haynsworth, and later, under Nixon, Senator Brooke's opposition to Carswell.

Those were definitional times for a lot of people. Not just the politicians, either.

[Jefferson23]

156. +100

[William Z. Foster]

24. let's hear them

Let's hear your reasons. Why are your reasons to be considered good ones, and critical comments are not to be considered as legitimate or constructive?

So far you have said this:

- Intelligent

- Accomplished

- On the president's list

- Not Schlafly

Are those sufficient to describe a good nominee? In your view, I mean.

[saltpoint]

28. I don't jump through your hoops, dude. You could google it for all

I care.

If you want to argue Constitutional requirements, you and I are qualified for the High Court. On the other hand, I seriously doubt you or I were on that shortlist. Just a lay perspective, you understand.

You've also lost the argument with History, as the President has chosen someone of whom you sharply disapprove.

I'm sorry you didn't get your way, but few of us get our way in politics.

Even fewer in judicial appointments, by the way.

[Hannah Bell]

32. your blah blah doesn't make a case for kagan.

"obama picked her"

so what? she's a bad, neo-lib, finance-backed choice.

even though she's a woman.

[saltpoint]

35. The case for Kagan is on-line in various sources including this site,

in threads running concurrently to this one.

When you're done torching the Capitol Building, you could, like, read 'em if you wanted to.

[Hannah Bell]

37. summers protegee. world bank. meteoric rise. all i need to know.

finance capital.

[saltpoint]

41. It's also apparently all you DO know.

And that's not enough for the big picture, Hannah.

I've read your posts on DU for a while now. You're better than this little fit you're throwing against Elena Kagan, an entirely qualified soul for the job for which she is nominated.

Your personal favorite didn't win? Tough tenets on a treadwheel. Mine didn't either, but it's the landscape before us. The nomination has provoked opposition from the Left but also from the Far Right. That's an entire thread's worth of consideration right there.

PLanned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women have endorsed the Kagan nomination. There will be others to follow. Their membership is comprised of U.S. citizens no better but also no worse than you and me.

[Hannah Bell]

43. i don't give a damn about planned parenthood's rec. abortion is effectively

unobtainable in most states anyway, & it's a wedge issue.

money, privatization, finance -- that's the real battleground, & kagan's nomination is in preparation for that fight.

[saltpoint]

59. The people Planned Parenthood have genuinely and effectively assisted

do in fact give a damn about it.

I recommend if you have some extra charity dollars that you consider a donation. Many people are helped by that organization. They are deserving of support.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

70. So evidently you can't name any.

That's because there aren't any.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

80. I do say so. Thanks.

[Hannah Bell]

144. yes mr T.

[Tsiyu]

137. Y'Know

i don't agree with HB on every issue, but I sure as hell would not talk down to her - or any poster - as if they were two years old and "be a nice girl, now."

If you are trying to appear sane and reasonable and together, you do yourself no favors with your manipulations, insults and condescension. Cool, together, rational adults in 2010 do not talk to grown women about "having fits" or "cursing"

I mean, what the fuck is the blushing routine? This is DU goddamit, and we cuss. if you blush that easily, go hang out at Focus on the Family dot whatever where I'm sure they never say a naughty word.

Manipulative, patronizing know-it-alls kill every decent discussion anyone tries to have around here.

Thanks for you contribution. I may have not minded kagan, but your relentless insults have me re-thinking my stance.

Must be something wrong with her if assholes like her so much, is all I'm saying.

[William Z. Foster]

40. yes

But the question is, what is your opinion, what is your interpretation, where do you stand? Anyone can declare in favor whatever has already happened and then declare themselves to be on the winning side and then taunt others - "nyah nyah you lost."

I anyone who is critical of anything that is happening in the country not to be permitted to speak, not to be responded to thoughtfully and intelligently? Should they just Google "everything is fine, our leaders are handling things, so stop with your criticism?"

"Torching the Capitol building?"

[saltpoint]

52. You're free to investigate whatever you please. No one's stopping you.

I'm certainly not going to re-cite existing (and concurrent, by the way) threads on DU.

If you want a strong argument against Kagan, that information is available. If you want arguments for, that's also available.

It is clear, though, that you don't want a dialogue. If you did you'd maybe post a thread in which viewpoints posts by many form a mosaic of responses to the Kagan nomination, one that might include (but not be limited to) the notion of placing scholars onto the judicial landscape, with a view toward scholarship as a frame of judicial reference; the impulse of the unbeholden judicial votes cast against the imperative of current voter bias as reflected in cultural opinions; the value of this president's trajectory of consensus among disparate interpretations of the country, with a bank shot off Kagan's tenure at Harvard; the merits (or not) of an east coast-leaning Court; the personal drama of an aging Scalia, accustomed to bullying his way into issues whether or not they're before the court, and the rise of Justices Sotomayor and (Kagan), also sturdy souls with considerable intellectual firepower; the specific urgency of energy and environmental cases almost certainly to come before the High Court, and likely sooner rather than later; the temperament of a Solicitor General who has stated that her epmhasis in that role was the interests of the nation as an entity as opposed to the Court's presumed capacity to give voice to the voiceless (and to build consensus on that same Court to begin to break the 5-4 conservative lock; and any number of other angles and issues.

Or you could just berate me for my appreciation of an accomplished -- and qualified -- female nominee.

[Hannah Bell]

56. you sure have wasted a lot of time saying nothing of substance, though.

kagan's smart, female, & obama's pick.

BIG FUCKING DEAL, SHE'S A LOUSY PICK.

[saltpoint]

61. To me, she is entirely qualified and the case for her as the next SCOTUS

member is persuasive.

If you are this angry tonight, Hannah, what will you do when she's confirmed? Barring some unforeseen and horrendous revelation, I would say the Pukes don't have the votes to stop this nomination.

And you are being back-of-the-hand dismissive when you reject the judgment of liberal constituencies like the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood, both of whom enthusiastically have endorsed the Kagan nom.

You get your vote in the process. So also they get theirs.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[William Z. Foster]

73. ok

"...placing scholars onto the judicial landscape, with a view toward scholarship as a frame of judicial reference."

Has there been a shortage of scholars? What can scholars bring to the court that is lacking now? What would be the "frame of reference" of a scholar?

"...the impulse of the unbeholden judicial votes cast against the imperative of current voter bias as reflected in cultural opinions."

What does that mean, to you, and how does it apply in this case? "Not partisan hacks" do you mean?

"...the value of this president's trajectory of consensus among disparate interpretations of the country.."

Right, triangulation and compromise with the right wing. Is that an appropriate consideration ion Supreme Court nominees?

"...a bank shot off Kagan's tenure at Harvard.."

She was at Harvard, yes. What is the significance of that? Is it a plus or a minus, in your view?

"...the merits (or not) of an east coast-leaning Court..."

Not seeing how geography is relevant to much. Interesting trivia I guess.

"...the personal drama of an aging Scalia, accustomed to bullying his way into issues whether or not they're before the court, and the rise of Justices Sotomayor and (Kagan), also sturdy souls with considerable intellectual firepower."

Well the hope is that someone would kick his ass, yes.

"...the specific urgency of energy and environmental cases almost certainly to come before the High Court, and likely sooner rather than later..."

The urgency of the types of cases likely to come before the court has no bearing on the qualifications of a nominee, of course.

"...the temperament of a Solicitor General who has stated that her epmhasis in that role was the interests of the nation as an entity as opposed to the Court's presumed capacity to give voice to the voiceless..."

So you say we are hoping that she changes her stance in her new role. Doesn't this contradict the "president's trajectory of consensus among disparate interpretations" consideration?

"...and to build consensus on that same Court to begin to break the 5-4 conservative lock."

Well, yeah. I would hope that Democratic party appointments would make the court less conservative. That is sort of a given, isn't it?

[William Z. Foster]

36. huh?

Wow.

So your main argument is that you are on the side of the person who has the power, which makes you right, and I am presumably not, which makes me wrong.

Might makes right.

Isn't this a little like waiting until the game is over, and then picking the team that won and declaring yourself a winner?

[dionysus]

153. boy comrade bell, the kagan pick sure has you in a teeth grinding mode!

[William Z. Foster]

18. you betcha

What are those distinctions, in your view? That is the question.

In response to me, you said the distinction was who was and who was not on the president's list.

What if Phyllis Schlafly were on the president's list? Then what would you do? Would the rest of us be permitted to offer any critical comment about that nominee?

[saltpoint]

22. You definitely need a new news source.

I've not seen Obama's short list of potential nominees. I'm guessing you haven't either.

It seems unlikely to me that Schlafly would be on it, however. If you wish to fantasize that she is or was, that's your call.

[William Z. Foster]

31. did you really miss what I said?

I didn't say that Schlafly was on the list.

Some, back a couple of years ago, thought it highly unlikely that the current nominee would be on any list should a Democrat be in the White House. In fact, they voted based on that in response to the constant mantra that we must vote for a centrist Dem no matter what for the sake of the Supreme Court nominations.

So it is not whoever was on the president's list, then, since we didn't know who was on it, but rather it is whoever the president nominates.

So, your ideal Supreme Court nominee:

- A woman

- Intelligent

- Accomplished

- Not Schlafly

- Whoever the president nominates

[saltpoint]

38. Again, if you want to play hula hoops, go outside. I don't do your hoops.

You've lost the argument, WZF, and you're pouting through your anger, evidently at Kagan, or Obama, or who knows who.

I'm up to date on the qualifications for the job as delineated in the Constitution. They aren't demanding, but traditions and protocols rule in just about all human activity and most certainly in politics.

I think the smart money's on the solid pick, and Obama's made one with Kagan.

[William Z. Foster]

44. I haven't argued anything

Can't lose a debate that hasn't even started.

Now it is "the qualifications for the job as delineated in the Constitution" we are shooting for in a nominee?

I am not angry, and I am not talking about Kagan nor Obama. I am talking about you, about what you wrote.

Yes, I would wager that Kagan will be on the court. So what? There is your "smart money." A "solid pick" - which is fine, except this isn't a horse race we are handicapping.

I understand you like Kagan. I merely asked why. Your responses have been pretty weak.

[Hannah Bell]

46. very weak. she's smart. she's a woman. obama picked her. that's all i need.

[saltpoint]

66. If that's all you need, it's not much to run on, and it won't win you

your way.

It's the president's domain to select Court nominees. He's chosen Kagan. You hate her. So what.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

71. If you are interested in a dialogue, Hannah, I'm still up and the candle

still burns.

I'll take a broad landscape of socialist / economic democracy. So far, it's been over 200 years since the Revolutionary War and I'm seeing exactly zero examples of economic democracy or socialism in the government of our country.

I challenged you to choose a president who represented that Leftist posture. I don't think you can.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Moochy]

151. You are not interested in dialog, this much is clear to all who read this thread

Apparently your condescending blather is what passes for Loyalty Flacking this week at DU. I guess the first stringers are on vacation.

[saltpoint]

155. Yep. You'll have to settle for me.

[Hannah Bell]

45. he's not pouting, & has expressed no anger. hmm, why would you say he has?

[William Z. Foster]

50. missed that

I missed the "pouting" part.

Damn, now them's fightin' words.

[Hannah Bell]

54. not only pouting, but "pouting through your anger" - now there's a trick.

the poster has advanced no arguments whatsoever except that kagan is smart & female (so what?), & is obama's pick (so what, still a lousy one), but declares *you* to have "lost" an argument that never took place, & to be both pouting & angry.

conclusion: he has no actual argument.

[Moochy]

117. typically dishonsest debate tactics from The Blind Booster Crew

I'd venture that's why all of the threads without any new substance on Kagan ("throwing down the gauntlet" are being locked.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[havocmom]

114. ABSOLUTELY!

Being in favor of someone just because (or even primarily because) of gender is SEXISM. There are too many examples of females who would eat other female's young in American politics.


Policy matters. Plumbing & identity, not so much.

[Hannah Bell]

146. thanks for that. you seem to be one of only a few who agree on that point.

like having a privileged woman (black, white, asian, hispanic, gay, indian, disabled person, male, etc.) as the face of the power that's grinding down the majority of women, (blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, gays, indians, disabled, men, ad infinitum) makes a dime's worth of difference.

[havocmom]

148. oh, say Condi Rice for example

;)

Three female Sec of State in recent administrations. LOTS of difference between them

Policy, not gender.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

68. !

:rofl:

[William Z. Foster]

6. sure

Why not Secretary Rice then?

[saltpoint]

9. According to news sources, Condi was not nominated.

Unless you know something the rest of us don't.

[William Z. Foster]

15. lol

You said that the persuasive case was for an extremely intelligent woman, not to mention a very accomplished woman.

If the persuasive case is actually "whoever is on the president's list" you should have said so. In that case, they may as well shut the board down while Democrats are in power and we can all stop talking about politics. Whatever is on the president's list can be the final word.

[saltpoint]

16. As it happens, the President does in fact select SCOTUS nominees.

If you've heard different, you heard wrong.

[Hannah Bell]

20. with the advice & consent of his -- ahem -- backers & funders.

[saltpoint]

25. Don't disenfranchise yourself.

You're welcome to offer a disssenting view, but a realistic assessment of the time and place and person would suggest that Obama has made his choice, the choice is convincing to significant liberal constituencies like PLanned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women, and I predict, Sens. Boxer, Feingold, and Sanders.

I wouldn't expect you to kowtow to 'sellouts' like those.

[Hannah Bell]

27. his advisors & backers have made their choice, you mean.

kagan's career is - uh - meteoric, & she was mentioned as a pick shortly after obama's inauguration.

yeah, she's that, uh, "smart".

recycled clinton/summers/world bank/pro-finance

[saltpoint]

29. No, it is not what I meant and it isn't what I typed.

It's a president's domain and he's made the choice for Kagan.

[Hannah Bell]

34. so what? it's a lousy choice. it's the choice of international finance capital.

& i have my speculations about the upcoming cases *this* particular choice represents the "fix is in" for.

[saltpoint]

76. Well it sounds like you're living a doomsday scenario.

Some of the rest of us don't share it.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

83. Yet the Kagan nomination is what has you in particular off the tracks.

You don't like her. That's plain.

But it's also too bad. The system is not perfect, Hannah, but it is in place. It's been in place a long time.

If you have any constructive suggestions for changing it overnight, by all means post a thread and offer them up for discussion. Let's see how that goes.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

99. So do Bonnie Raitt and Nina Simone recordings, both of which

I strongly recommend.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

105. I like all of her albums. Late. Early. All of it. The first two especially,

though, I'd admit.

I know some "yuppies" who don't care for her. I know some who do.

[Hannah Bell]

138. interesting how most of my comments got deleted, including this totally innocuous one

about how i knew bonnie raitt before the yuppies discovered her & i don't like her later albums.

incendiary stuff.

[Moochy]

150. You've stumbled onto

an angry faction in the hot tub who clearly supports the Ignored posters' position. Typical bullshit around here.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

75. If it were pathetic I don't think Obama would be on the verge of

yet another victory.

Kagan is likely to be nominated, IMO.

Despite your dismissal of the nomination.

[William Z. Foster]

79. not talking about Obama or Kagan

I am talking about your "defense" and "support" of them.

[saltpoint]

85. Both of which stand unless there's some counterpoint which eclipses

them, or sudden turn in the news which might do the same.

Hasn't happened since the president's announcement this morning, no matter how many bitter objectionists squawk on DU.

[William Z. Foster]

89. sure

So what? It is whether or not your arguments can stand that is at issue.

"Bitter objectionists squawk?"

I am picking Pittsburgh to win last year's Stanley Cup. Sorry, you lose.

[saltpoint]

91. Pittsburgh is a great town. I hope we can agree on that.

I think my argument in favor of Kagan, not that she's ever heard of me, will be in the general crossfire at the confirmation hearings.

You'll heard bits and pieces of DU comments there, mostly through inadvertence and in varied form, but still present.

I put the likelihood of her confirmation as near-certain.

[William Z. Foster]

96. I want to destroy the right wing

We are never going to do that with the arguments and the approach you are using.

That effort will never be harmed by the critics you are attacking - it will be strengthened.

[saltpoint]

101. That's not reversible and needs to be, WZF. There is what other

approach?

The president makes the appointment. The Senate votes to confirm or not.

The confirmed Justice serves on the Court.

I assert that Elena Kagan is qualified to do so, and not just in the strict Constitutional definition. You've read the case in favor of her nomination. You know she's attracted endorsements from reliably progressive constituencies. And you know she's likely to be confirmed.

It does seem that that's where we are in the game. Do I have that wrong?

[William Z. Foster]

102. I give

Unbelievable.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Hannah Bell]

139. sure is.

[ultracase24]

21. The more Im reading on Elena Kagan,

the more center right she seems to be. Which is consistent with Obama's picks for important and influential positions. There is nothing persuasive about a center right candidate for the Supreme Court unless that what is really what you are supporting. There are plenty of liberal, left of center candidates that Obama could have chosen that are well qualified and accomplished.

[saltpoint]

78. Kagan's ideological disposition is less formed than other potential

nominees Obama could have chosen -- Judge Wood, for example -- but that does not indicate a center-right posture, and in any case, if she is confirmed she is her own free vote.

[William Z. Foster]

82. true for Clarence Thomas as well

After he was confirmed he was his own free vote.

[saltpoint]

88. Agree, not that it's news. The application holds for ALL Justices.

If you counter with Clarence Thomas you are pretending that he is an exception, or that Kagan, were she confirmed, is an exception.

Neither is an exception.

The application pertains to everyone who serves on the Court now, or will serve on it in the future, or who has ever served on it.

[Hannah Bell]

87. Goldman Sachs advisor during the bankster meltdown.

good advice, elena!

summers.

clinton.

[saltpoint]

90. Not disqualifying. Not even illegal.

You might prefer a more perfect set of circumstances or even a different nominee.

As a citizen, though, you have access to news sources that tell you that where we are right now is a nomination of Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court.

You've made it clear you don't like her.

It's a tad late to blast her as a pick once the pick is made, though. The battle now goes to Kagan's confirmation process and Senate questioning by the likes of Jeff Sessions.

I predict she will prevail.

[Hannah Bell]

97. rigged processes usually do. prevail, i mean.

[gmoney]

118. This alone should disqualify her.

Won't surprise me if it comes out she's a rig safety advisor for BP, too.

[ultracase24]

92. a lot is not known about her except she is a Washington insider

who doesnt rock the boat. Sounds like a perfect pick to continue center right policy. What is known about her so far is that she sounds iffy on abortion and that you dont hear any screaming from Republicans, which usually means that the pick is far enough to the right that they wont make a huge bother about it. The more telling thing is that there are several other qualified left leaning choices that Obama could have made. He didnt. That speaks volumes more than this pick.

[depakid]

2. Triangulating

as in other instances.

[QC]

4. Don Siegelman is long since forgotten, now that

his jailers are on our team.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[QC]

81. Yes, everything changed and yet nothing changed?

Has the oil arrived yet where you are? So far we are free of it.

[flyarm]

95. not yet ..but we have had bad bad air to breathe..now winds have taken the stink away..for now

I hope you stay free of it..but the marine life is so suffering..we will all feel that too soon!
And for the rest of my lifetime..and prob my grand daughters lifetime as well!

We will all feel it in our food supply as well.

I am so disgusted ..and angry..beyond words.

And the little fuckers who come here and post propaganda and try the cover up routine really piss me off!..big time..I want to eat them alive!

Thanks for the concern..I am concerned for all of us on the gulf ..but the wildlife and marine life dying this way..leave me with a hole in my heart..

I always taught my children to never Hate..or even use the word..I always said it is a waste of good..

but right now..I have to admit..I have hate in my heart..for these pigs who have done this to our beautiful Gulf..and her life that is being snuffed out..that hate goes to both parties and the corporate whores!..Greed is killing our Gulf..greed and power hungry bastards!

I sincerely hope you stay Oil free!!!

Thanks for the concern!!:hug: :grouphug:

[rudy23]

120. With you on the coast, and with you in your anger towards the corporations & their apologists

Hurts worse coming from the left--but we're still fighting along side you.

[annabanana]

143. I have not forgotten.. . . n/t

[housewolf]

5. Her job as Soliciter General is to represent the position of the US Governement

not her own personal views. With that said, I don't think anyone can accurately predict her future decisions based on what her arguments as Soliciter Gereral have been. She's done what the administration and the government has told her to do. She is not an indenpenent actor in her role. To that I'll add this - I think most of us have been disappointed in the administrations decision to carry forward a number of the Bush policies and opinions such as the one you mentioned. But Kagan is not the administration, she's arguing the administrations positions.

[SlipperySlope]

10. True, but then how do we know her personal views?

Serious question; if her record as Solicitor General can't be used to understand her positions then what can?

[Hannah Bell]

108. here's one clue:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/959-jack-kenny/3286-elena-kagan-the-worldwide-qbattlefieldq

[Hippo_Tron]

124. Personal views are soft information, nobody can know them for certain except the person who has them

What we do know is that because a Democratic President is nominating her, she will most likely vote with Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor on most split decisions. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor vote differently enough on both economic and social justice issues than Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts that I can certainly see a huge difference. But for the "they're all corporatists anyway" crowd, apparently not.

[avaistheone1]

48. Good point. However it is a sad reminder the Obama is carrying forward

Bush's evil draconian prosecution of Don Siegelman.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[avaistheone1]

58. Never read Strauss. Is there a particular work of his where this happens?

Interesting...

[flyarm]

100. it used to be on all the Project of the New American Century stuff..

much of it has been scrubbed..but you would prob find it at the Univ Of Chicago web sites!!

Google him up ..and it could lead you to his writings..

It was and is the neo con- neo- lib playbook and blue print!

Sorry i no longer have it in my files..my old computer crashed and with it went some of my files!!

[William Z. Foster]

86. that could be said of every Republican

We could say that about every person who worked with the Bush White House. "None of them were the administration, they were just arguing the administrations positions. They were not independent actors in their roles."

[Jennicut]

129. Yup, people quoting her cases as SG (both positive and negative) keep forgetting that.

She has been described as a center-left by her colleagues. I would say that is where she is.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Obama will protect the Bush crew at all costs

Smoke pot? Go to jail.

Commit war crimes and wipe your ass with the Constitution? Fine, if you're a member of the Priviledged Class that Obama so cherishes.

[Lorien]

84. Someone is keeping a seat warm for him at the Carlyle table. nt

[progressoid]

11. But today Sean Hannity told me that she's a radical liberal.

What gives? :shrug:

[JCMach1]

12. no, she's TRIANGULATED

[glitch]

113. It's called "gaming the ref"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gaming+the+ref%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[gmoney]

119. And Savage Weiner says she's a "red diaper doper baby"

whatever the hell that is...

[TexasObserver]

65. This DUer doesn't.

[pnwmom]

106. As Solicitor General, her job is to argue for Obama's policy. So your disagreement

should be with him, not with her.

[Hannah Bell]

110. actually, in her comments to graham during the vetting, she agreed with

him that

the world is a battlefield

the war is forever

the judiciary may deem people enemy combatants with no civil rights

[pnwmom]

121. What does that have to do with the Siegelman case, the topic of the OP?

And once again, you are misrepresenting her views.

[old mark]

107. There has not been a REAL LIBERAL appointed since Marshall

in the late 1960's...I think we need a new Democratic President before we can think about having an actual Liberal on the Court.
What we have seen from Obama is what we will continue to get - middle of the road, steering to the right.

mark

[Davis_X_Machina]

111. John Marshall.... n/t

[mmonk]

109. Bottom line, they shouldn't

but some would support a lollipop if Obama presented it as a nominee.

[tnlefty]

112. I wish that I could rec this more than once.

This is the same unscrupulous behavior that brought us our 'Broken Government' as detailed by John Dean and keeps it broken.

The mantra of it was her job is exactly the problem. Whatever happened to standing up and doing the correct thing and righting wrongs?

Sickening and all I've heard on the radio this morning is rah rah by some who have interviewed Seigelman.

[ProSense]

116. DUers are a monolithic bloc? Still, DUers don't have to back Kagan

She will be subject to a confirmation hearing and then a Senate vote.

"Obama does nothing about the Seigelman case, keeps Laura Canary as US Attorney in Alabama, and then appoints someone who sides with the Rove/Canary/Fuller Alabama Mafia in a legal brief. Is there a logical explanation somewhere I'm missing?"

In fact, given that it's Obama nomination to make, the above statement pretty much indicates that Kagan and Obama are the same in your eyes.

[Hippo_Tron]

127. Because at the end of the day she will probably vote with Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor

And I think Citizens United is just the latest example of why the people who are claiming that Breyer, Ginsburg, or Sotomayor or just as "corporatist" as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are completely full of crap. But that's just me.

[QC]

134. We are supposed to back her because the president said to.

That's really what it comes down to.

[saracat]

135. She is the best this Administration would allow. She is too conservative for me but

we aren't going to do any better. I really think she accurately reflects this administration. She refuses to endorse gay marriage and the expansion of executive powers and seems to admire bipartisanship and going along to get along but in the end we may be pleasantly surprised.She is also the blank slate contemporary presidents look for so they may be confirmed. But I really have no real optimism. The choice could have been worse.

[2 Much Tribulation]

140. Kagan is no Justice Stevens, she signs briefs arguing for unitary executive power re Gitmo, etc. n/

[bvar22]

141. Obama and the "Centrist" Democratic Party Leadership WILL be successful...

...at moving the country even FURTHER to the RIGHT.
All the rest of the "debate", rationalizations, and Cover Stories are just plain BULLSHIT.
The RESULTS is the only important thing.
The Supreme Court WILL be moved further to the RIGHT.


"By their works, you will know them."

Another "Centrist" DLC Mission Accomplished.
Pardon me for NOT joining in the "Centrist" VICTORY parade.



"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[LWolf]

142. I don't. nt

[jpak]

147. I still say she's a witch

and I'm stil a newt

:(