Obama should pick a true liberal for the court.

[dumpdabaggers]

He needs something to fire up the base this election. Thhe Democrat turn out has been dismal in every election ince 2009.

[Bitwit1234]

1. That's because it seems to me and I bet a lot of democrats

he is doing more to appease the republicans than to do what we voted for him to do. Kagan is an out and out conservative. How he can appoint her to the supreme court is beyond me. And her sitting on the board of Goldman is just another point. What is he thinking. WHO IN THE HELL IS INFLUENCING HIM TO ALL HIS BAD , AND I MEAN BAD, CHOICES.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[dumpdabaggers]

4. I don't think Kagen is a conservative, but

She is a terribly uninspiring pick. If he was going to be that conventional I would have rather seen someone like Sheldon Whitehouse.

[WeDidIt]

6. There's a damned good reason she'd be an uninspiring pick

Anybody with a very liberal record would never get confirmed.

That's the fact of how it works now. Nobody with any sort of a record can be confirmed. Sotamayor flew under the radar and barely got confirmed. Alito had enough of a record to have trouble getting confirmed.

That's how the process works now.

[msongs]

9. you've bought the "be afraid it wont work so why try" argument eh nt

[WeDidIt]

11. No, I've actually paid attention to politics for the past three decades

Elena KAgan has been carefully groomed for an appointment to the high court.

There's a damned good reason she has no clearly liberal record.

But don't let the facts of how judicial appointments work get in your way of a good rant against Obama.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Kagan supports Cheney's view of a unitarian Presidency, that makes her a neocon

and a threat to all of our liberties.

[WeDidIt]

19. Link n/t

[WeDidIt]

23. Still wainting for a link demonstrating your assertion. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

24. From Duke Law Journal

B. The Unitarian Accord: The Bright Line Between Independent Agencies and Other Executive Agencies

Professor Kagan contends that the "common ground" for discussing the issue of centralized presidential control or policy-based <*pg 874> influence over discretionary conduct of nonindependent executive agencies is that the "current system of administration is not strongly unitary."119 But her analysis actually supports quite a different conclusion: in one form or another, we all seem to be unitarians now. Despite Kagan's disagreement with the notion that the unitarian position is constitutionally mandated,120 her own defense of centralized presidential authority over nonindependent executive agency decisionmaking is aggressively unitarian. Kagan's unitarianism regarding EOP authority over and policy-based influence on discretionary regulatory conduct of nonindependent agencies is significant because, from the inception of centralized presidential regulatory review in 1981 during the Reagan administration, such agencies have been the site of the dispute over unitarianism. The Reagan executive orders did not assert such EOP authority on or influence over the independent agencies.

The Clinton administration not only accepted, but also extended the unitarian premises of the Reagan and Bush administrations. For example, Professor Kagan acknowledges that the Clinton administration's executive order, in contrast with earlier versions, claimed, at least "implied," the "authority ultimately to displace the judgment of agency officials," an authority that "even Reagan . . . had disclaimed."121 That is, the Clinton administration apparently asserted "presidential directive authority over discretionary decisions assigned by Congress to specified executive branch officials (other than the President)."122 And that authority was asserted aggressively without the additional authorizing legislation that the ABA and former Carter administration Counsel Lloyd Cutler had recommended.123 This is a strongly unitarian position in that it assumes authority in the EOP to command agency decisionmaking, essentially substituting presidential priorities for those of agencies and displacing the exercise of enforcement discretion nominally lodged with agency leadership.124

<*pg 875>

Thus, Professor Kagan's vision (ostensibly expressing the Clinton administration's view) is quite unitarian. While rejecting the constitutional basis for this unitarian stance, Professor Kagan (and other nonconstitutional unitarians)125 reach their position on grounds of policy and through principles of statutory interpretation. To reach this unitarian end, Professor Kagan advocates a presumptive "interpretive principle" -- that, absent an express statutory provision that precludes presidential involvement in agency decisionmaking, a "standard delegation" to a nonindependent executive agency should be "read . . . as including the President."126 This means that the unitarian approach guides administration of executive agencies other than independent agencies, which were excluded from the Reagan and Bush executive orders and whose decisionmaking Professor Kagan recognizes to have been "insulate . . . from the President's influence."127

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?51+Duke+L.+J.+851

Bottom line: while Kagan has denied in writing that she believes in a unitary executive, a close analysis of her views supports the allegation that she is a unitarian.

[WeDidIt]

25. Oh Brother!

Kagan was an Associate White House Counsel during the Clinton administration. She zealously advocated for her client (the White House) which is what attorneys do regardless of personal belief or opinion.

:eyes:

[cbayer]

5. Accuracy being very important at this time, I think it is important to quash the

misinformation that Kagan was on the board of Goldman.

Kagan served on a Goldman advisory council between 2005 and 2008, with the task of providing expert "analysis and advice to Goldman Sachs and its clients." For her work she earned a $10,000 stipend.

This is a far cry from being on the board.

[Arkana]

3. You seem to be so full of ideas. Why not email them to the White House

rather than posting them on an internet message board?

[msongs]

8. yeah! squelch dissent on DU, right on! nt

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[dumpdabaggers]

17. Uh, is this forum not about sharing ideas?

Or do you feel it is only here for you ti belittle those of whom you don't care for?

Why are you so quick to insult people who agree with you on 99 percent of the issues?

Are we all required to worship Robert Gibbs? Agree 100 percemt on affirmitive action? If we do this we are not much different than the tea baggers

In case you haven't noticed the Democratic Party is a much bigger tent than the Republikkkan Party..

[HughMoran]

7. "...in every election since 2009"

:rofl:

Yeah, normally 'tweener elections have stupendous turnout from the party in power.

lol

[boppers]

29. Since 2009?

That caught my eye, too... since we've had so many elections in the last 5 months...

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. For the record, we don't call our party "democrat"

"Thhe Democrat turn out has been dismal in every election ince 2009."

Since you want to "dumpdabaggers" (cute name by the way), perhaps you should "dumpdabaggerslanguage" first. Also turnout is one word. I only tell you this because spelling & grammar aren't strong suits for "baggers". Also, didn't you start a thread about Madigan already? What was the point of starting another USSC thread?

One final question, just how many elections have there been since 2009? :shrug:

[dumpdabaggers]

15. Is this what you do all day? Scan the board looking for code words?

To question someone's "loyality?" My how Joe McCarthy of you.

I am posting from a blackberry. I am not as careful with my terms as you would like.

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. Nice try, but you still didn't answer any of my questions. (nt)

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[WeDidIt]

18. Nice attempt at deflection

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Democrat is a noun, Democratic is an adjective

I take you at your word that it was unintentional, but you should not confuse the two. The Republicans use "Democrat" as an adjective such as "Democrat Party" as a smear term. Their discipline in using the term is quite astounding. If you go to pretty much any Republican website you will see phrases like "Democrat Party" "Democrat Congress" or something along those lines.

I can understand not always being careful with your language but in this instance it is important to. Using Democrat as an adjective really gets under the skin of many Democrats and they will call you out on it.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Self-delete.

[ZombieHorde]

26. What is a true liberal? nt

[Bodhi BloodWave]

30. Ask 5 people who claim to be one, and you'll have 15 answers when done n/t

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

31. I do think his choice will make a big difference in getting Dems out to vote - or not. nt