Dems Lock Step on Kagan?

[KoKo]

The Latest on Elena Kagan

by Glenn Greenwald

(6) The New York Times' Charlie Savage today explains that executive power is one key area where Obama's choice could bring about major changes to the Court, given that his selection would replace Justice Stevens, who was so stalwart about imposing limits on such power. As Savage writes, Kagan's record (to the extent such a thing even exists) "suggests she might generally be more sympathetic toward the White House than Justice Stevens."

(7) Perhaps most revealing of all: a new article in The Daily Caller reports on growing criticisms of Kagan among "liberal legal scholars and experts" (with a focus on the work I've been doing), and it quotes the progressive legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as follows: "The reality is that Democrats, including liberals, will accept and push whomever Obama picks." Yesterday on Twitter, Matt Yglesias supplied the rationale for this mentality: "Argument will be simple: Clinton & Obama like and trust , and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama."

Just think about what that means. If the choice is Kagan, you'll have huge numbers of Democrats and progressives running around saying, in essence: "I have no idea what Kagan thinks or believes about virtually anything, and it's quite possible she'll move the Court to the Right, but I support her nomination and think Obama made a great choice." In other words, according to Chemerinksy and Yglesias, progressives will view Obama's choice as a good one by virtue of the fact that it's Obama choice. Isn't that a pure embodiment of mindless tribalism and authoritarianism? Democrats love to mock the Right for their propensity to engage in party-line, close-minded adherence to their Leaders, but compare what conservatives did with Bush's selection of Harriet Miers to what progressives are almost certain to do with Obama's selection of someone who is, at best, an absolute blank slate.

One of the very first non-FISA posts I ever wrote that received substantial attention (uniformly favorable attention from progressives) was this post, from February, 2006, about the cult of personality that subsumed the Right during the Bush era. The central point was that conservatives supported anything and everything George Bush did, regardless of how much it comported with their alleged beliefs and convictions, because loyalty to him and their Party, along with a desire to keep Republicans in power, subordinated any actual beliefs. Even Bill Kristol -- in a 2006 New York Times article describing how Bruce Bartlett had been ex-communicated from the conservative movement for excessively criticizing George Bush -- admitted that personal allegiance to Bush outweighed conservative principles in the first term and that "Bush was the movement and the cause."

To say that "Democrats, including liberals, will accept and push whomever Obama picks," based on the rationale that "Clinton & Obama like and trust her, and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama" -- even if they know nothing about her, even if she might move the Court to the Right -- seems to me to be an exact replica of what I described four years ago.

Published on Saturday, May 8, 2010 by Salon.com
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/08-6

[jenmito]

1. So are you against her?

[RandomThoughts]

2. I am not sure if it is a good choice, or the choice he would make.

Although if we assume we are a democracy, and that can be argued to be an assumption, then the idea of it being his choice makes sense. Although he has many choices on that topic, so I guess you would have to ask, is she the Kagan from the Highlander, or the one where that actor was in the outlimits episode.

Highlander - Queen - Who Wants To Live Forever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYOE_b4aYD0


So I am not thinking on that decision, but will think about beutiful ladies in Red Dresses, and not about politics.

Note that you have to view the Highlander thoughts leaving some things out, since they have a strain of the bad side in many parts of that show, but there is also love in that show. The bad is when it tries to bring competition and survival of the fittest thougths into what should be the good story of Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez helping the Highlander learn.

[Faygo Kid]

3. What happened to appointing someone not on the federal bench already?

I thought that was a damned good idea. Doesn't look like it will happen, though. Elizabeth Warren and Jennifer Granholm would be excellent choices.

[NJmaverick]

4. What a bullshit meme- If you agree with the President you must be mindless

The haters are getting more and more desperate in their attacks

[grantcart]

6. Well think about it.

If Obama is making good decisions then what value does Greenwald have?

[BootinUp]

5. We have chosen Obama to make these decisions,

to do the research and do the interviews and consider whether his nominee will be confirmed. Stop the hand wringing its pretty pointless. Obama has likely made his decision and won't be reading DU today. This is not necessarily aimed at the OP but at folks doing the hand wringing and wailing before the choice is even known.

[yurbud]

7. this is a trial balloon, so reaction is probably what the White House wants. and if we don't voice

opinions ahead of his pick, those with money and access will be the only voices heard.

[BootinUp]

9. I perceive that phase has passed already. nt

[yurbud]

24. it hasn't passed until she is confirmed.

[Jakes Progress]

8. Sounds just like my neighbor.

He was sure that the war in Iraq was wrong, but he said that he had voted for bush so he had to support the war.

[BootinUp]

10. Quite different.

You equate choosing a justice from the released short list with launching a war on made up bullshit. Thanks for playing.

[Jakes Progress]

13. If that makes you feel good and works for you

that is just fine. You can make it different by saying the enormity is different (though that is very debatable) but you know the comparison was drawn from the similar mind set that your post and my neighbor's statement showed.

I more agree with the poster who stated that we should let the president know what we think and when we disagree. I have already sent my letter about this issue. They can file it with my letters of agreement and disagreement on several past issues. Remember that the president asked us to tell him what we think.

[fortune]

14. Do you think Kagan is a good choice and why?

I'm sure there are people who are not bothering to do research on the candidates; because they want to wait until a candidate is chosen...in order to be able to praise whoever was chosen.

[BootinUp]

15. She seems qualified and

I haven't read anything yet that gives me serious qualms.

[fortune]

16. Is her record extensive enough or you to be confident?

Or is she a "blank slate" as a law scholar recently said?

[BootinUp]

17. I think its clear

there is not much of a record that can be used against her in the confirmation hearings, likewise by other opponents.

[fortune]

18. So you like her because she has virtually no record?

Interesting. Dangerous too.

[BootinUp]

19. Do you think Obama

would select her if he knew as little as I do or you do about her?

[fortune]

20. You mean Obama knows what none of these other scholars know?

does he have a database that we're not aware of? Or a secret Kagan file somewhere?

[BootinUp]

23. I don't doubt he has more information

than scholars that haven't worked with her directly or had lengthy interviews with her.

[brentspeak]

35. Your post confirms the legitimacy of the article's thesis

That Obama supporters are willing to uncritically accept Kagan's nomination simply on the grounds that Obama might nominate her. Nothing to see here, move along.

[BootinUp]

38. uncritically? I don't know enough about Kagan to be all that critical

and have already stated that I am willing to let Obama do the research and make the call in this instance, I add that I am confident it will be a good choice.

[brentspeak]

41. The words are different

But the content of your follow-up post is exactly the same as that of your previous one.

[brentspeak]

34. How is it possible for Kagan to "seem qualified" if she doesn't have "much of a record"?

[BootinUp]

37. You snipped out the words you wanted nicely. nt

[brentspeak]

46. That's your answer?

[TheKentuckian]

54. Qualified, proper judicial orientation, and fit are different things

I think arguing cases in front of the highest court, teaching law, and being Dean of a top Law school strongly indicate qualification.

I don't see how anyone that doesn't know the woman can talk about her fit or judicial orientation.

How she thinks and how she will apply that to her arguments and decisions is almost purely the province of "trust Obama" especially on civil liberties, Executive power, and corporate influence and regulation.
If one has questions on the President in some important areas then you can't help but have some reservation on Kagan since she has virtually no record or even written opinion to try to work from.

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. We chose Obama to make BETTER decisions, and expect him to do so.

Not just better than Chimp's decisions either. Better than Clinton's DLC pandering. If we wanted more of that corporatist triangulation horseshit, we would have elected Hillary. Now that's not a primary rehash, just a goddamn fact. Hillary would have been expected to act pretty much like Bill did, in terms of middle the road Republican-liteism.

Obama was supposed to be better than that. Not necessarily Kucinich level better, or even Dean level better, but somewhere left of the goddamn useless DLC that has destroyed this party.

But with people like Emanuel, Duncan, Salazar, Geithner, Summers, VilSuck, etc. surrounding him, it appears that he's not making the decisions we thought he would. And particularly when it comes to a Supreme Court justice, that person will be on the bench long after all the previously mentioned corporate fellation experts are gone, whether that is in 2013 or 2017.

This choice cannot be wasted on another right wing ass kissing tool. And Kagan appears to be exactly that. :evilfrown:

[BootinUp]

12. I think the one thing we know is that

he will pick someone that has a record of standing up for the less powerful in society. As I recall that has been his primary criteria. Another criteria I think he has mentioned is following established precedent.

[NYC Liberal]

21. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth here on DU with Sotomayor too.

She has ended up being a very good choice. Obama already has a track record with choosing Supreme Court nominees.

But with people like Emanuel, Duncan, Salazar, Geithner, Summers, VilSuck, etc. surrounding him, it appears that he's not making the decisions we thought he would.

Maybe not the decisions YOU thought he would, but he's making the decisions he SAID he would during the campaign and he's been making the decisions I expected him to. What he's done thus far is why I voted for him.

[Sebastian Doyle]

25. There's a big difference there.

Sotomayor was arguably to the left of Souter. I wouldn't exactly call her a liberal either, but a reasonable choice to replace the Poppy Bush appointee whom the right wing will never forgive him for.

That does NOT apply with Kagan. She is clearly far to the right of Stevens, and it is absolutely unconscionable for a Democratic president to drag this already morbidly unbalanced court further to the right.

As for Obama's campaign rhetoric matching his decisions, I seem to forget which speech it was where he said he would appoint a cabinet full of corporate fellating DLC retreads. Got a transcript?

[NYC Liberal]

26. Sorry, but the same arguments you are making now were made

about Sotomayor. And they were never based in reality.

As for Obama's campaign rhetoric matching his decisions, I seem to forget which speech it was where he said he would appoint a cabinet full of corporate fellating DLC retreads. Got a transcript?

If you don't know what Obama has already accomplished, you need to catch up. As for "corporate fellating DLC retreads" - are we playing "how many buzzwords can I fit in a sentence"?

[dionysus]

28. he has yet to use bankster and corporate whore i believe.

[brentspeak]

36. You can play whatever game you want

The rest of us will not be dumb enough to uncritically support Kagan or Obama's decision-making.

[glitch]

31. Thank you for keeping it real amongst the swarm of cheers..

It's tempting to just leave them to their echo chamber.

[suffragette]

40. With Sotomayor, we had info to go on

And some of us looked at that info, posted it and determined we could support her as an informed choice:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5733426

In light of the dearth of info about Kagan, supporting her seems to be almost faith-based, that is having faith in Obama that even if we know little about Kagan, by virtue of him being the one picking her, she must be the best choice.

I'd rather go by evidence than faith.

In that respect, Greenwald has previously made a good argument for Wood and backed it up with evidence:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/19/wood

[yurbud]

22. Democrats who blindly accept what Obama does only exists in Rahm's wet dreams

the DLC is envious of the GOP's room-temperature IQ base who will believe anything Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck tells them.

Democrats are a little more critical of their representatives.

[dionysus]

27. this fellow is pompous and full of himself.

[fortune]

29. That's an ad-hominem attack

I think you should debate his argument instead of his alleged personality.

[paulk]

30. it's the attack du jour for the faithful

and it proves Greenwald's point

[Bluenorthwest]

33. It sure does

[saltpoint]

32. This piece has a lot of maybes and mights and mays and possiblys in it.

And even more which aren't actually typed.

No sale here. Kagan may not be the first choice of progressives but were she nominated and confirmed there's no strong argument against her voting with the liberal block on the Court.

The crossfire will heat up if the president announces tomorrow or Tuesday that she is his choice.

The final paragraph in the excerpt runs off the road and deep into the ditch. What is known about a SCOTUS nominee is what is determined from a variety of collateral sources, plus, presumably, an interview held between the potential nominee and the staff at the White House. That goes a long way toward establishing a fairly thick file in most instances but does not necessarily serve as a harbinger of that nominee's future judicial temperament. It could, yes. But it also could not.

There is a natural tendency to back a president with good judgment on appointments and nominees. And so what? This president has interviewed a good number of folks for the appointment and will announce his choice shortly, according to reports.

Greenwald is mistaken to assert that progressives will declare that Kagan will move the Court to the Right. Once the confirmation vote places a nominee onto the Court, there is no mechanism for predicting how that Justice will vote, what judicial temperament that Justice will represent. There's an element of the unknown involved in SCOTUS appointments. Greenwald might just as easily have cited the scenario of Kagan being more progressive than her staunchest supporters believe she will be. That would be no more and no less accurate than to warn she'd move the Court to the right. Greenwald has no idea and neither does anybody else.

[BootinUp]

39. well stated. nt

[Jakes Progress]

43. No it wasn't. nt.

[Jakes Progress]

42. Did you read what you wrote?

According to you no one knows anything about anyone and no one should say anything about any possible appointment because the fates will decide. At the end of your logical road is a place were justices are picked by lottery and at random because after all, "there is no mechanism for predicting how that Justice will vote, what judicial temperament that Justice will represent".

As for your last sentence, you may want to make the appointment a gamble and have no idea about how things work. bit Greemwald and many others do.

[BootinUp]

44. As viewed through a black and white filter. nt

[Jakes Progress]

45. Yes, through a black and white filter, it might make sense.

A filter that allows for no judgement or discernment. A filter that says any words are okay if they support the party line.

I don't use those.

[hayu_lol]

47. She has almost no history on anything...

she should not be a nominee for SCOTUS.

[saltpoint]

50. At base line any adult who meets very modest qualifying points is

eligible for the Supreme Court.

Traditionally appointments go to more career-specific nominees.

Kagan is one of those.

[saltpoint]

49. There's indirect party involvement in presidential appointments to

the SCOTUS and elsewhere, but the Court, in theory, examines cases through the lens of justice, not partisan politics.

[saltpoint]

48. O for god's sake, Jake. Folks can and should speculate and wrangle and

pronounce favorites and reasons why and why not until they're blue in the face.

I do it myself and have ever sense LBJ's nominations.

Have at it, but consider the base point: no one knows what is going to take place on ideological tilt once a nominee is confirmed. Those are the rules and I kind of like 'em.

[Jakes Progress]

51. Thank God. At least you are changing your point of view.

Now you say no one knows the future. That is accurate. But the post I replied to stated that no one has any idea what might happen. That is just silly.

[saltpoint]

52. No it isn't silly at all. Once a nominee is confirmed by the Senate, he or she

is no longer beholden to anyone on votes cast on cases before the Court.

Those votes occur in the future.

I stand by the point.

[Jakes Progress]

53. Very silly.

You mean that no one had any idea that Alito or Thomas might just make the court more conservative? You stand by a very silly point.

[saltpoint]

55. Poppy thought that of David Souter. You have to allow for the

point at hand.

Once
a
nomineee
is
confirmed
he
or
she
is
not
beholden
to
specific
ideology
when
casting
votes.

[Jakes Progress]

56. Silly syntax isn't thought. It's just silly.

I could spell it out carefully for you, but I think you really understand what I'm saying. You continue to defend a silly premise. You want to say that a judge may be different than we thought after in office, that is okay. But your original statement was that we would have no idea, no clue, no basis for predicting what they would do.

Just let go. You said a silly. Happens all the time. Defending it is just sillier.