Kagan's oral argument in Citizens United.

[ProSense]

Kagan's oral argument as Solicitor General representing the F.E.C. in support of restricting political spending by corporations.

GEN. ELENA KAGAN, ESQ., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the Appellee. (PDF)

Edited to add new link: 08-205. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Reargued) 09/09/09 (scroll down to September 2009)

[IndianaGreen]

1. The Solicitor General speaks for the government. You can't discern Kagan's personal views from that

anymore that you can say that Kagan is in favour of DOMA for arguing against those challenging the law in court.

[ProSense]

2. Thanks for clearing that up. Now,

if you're interested in her personal views, which is unrelated to the OP, here:

During her deanship, Kagan supported a long-standing policy barring military recruiters from campus, because she felt that the military's Don't ask, don't tell policy discriminated against gays and lesbians. According to Campus Progress,

As dean, Kagan supported a lawsuit intended to overturn the Solomon Amendment so military recruiters might be banned from the grounds of schools like Harvard. When a federal appeals court ruled the Pentagon could not withhold funds, she banned the military from Harvard’s campus once again. The case was challenged in the Supreme Court, which ruled the military could indeed require schools to allow recruiters if they wanted to receive federal money. Kagan, though she allowed the military back, simultaneously urged students to demonstrate against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.<14><15>

In October 2003, Kagan transmitted an e-mail to students and faculty deploring that military recruiters had shown up on campus in violation of the school's anti-discrimination policy. It read, "This action causes me deep distress. I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy." She also wrote that it was "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order."<16>

more

[IndianaGreen]

4. When DOD threatened to cut off funds to Harvard, Kagan relented

Post Date: September 20, 2005

To all members of the HLS community:

I write to let you know that this fall, the Office of Career Services (OCS) will provide assistance to the U.S. military in recruiting students, as it has done for most of the past three years. This email gives newcomers to our community some background on this issue, describes recent developments affecting it, and states my own views on the matter.

The Law School’s anti-discrimination policy, adopted in 1979, provides that any employer that uses the services of OCS to recruit at the school must sign a statement indicating that that it does not discriminate on various bases, including sexual orientation. As a result of this policy, the military was barred for many years from using the services of OCS. The military retained full access to our students (and vice versa) through the good offices of the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, which essentially took the place of OCS in enabling interviews to occur.

In 2002, the then-Dean of the Law School, Robert Clark, in consultation with other officers of the University, reluctantly created an exception from the law school’s general anti-discrimination policy for the military. The Dean took this action because of a new ruling by the Department of Defense stating that unless the Law School lifted its ban, the entire University would lose federal funding under a statute known as the Solomon Amendment. (This amendment denies federal funds to an educational institution that “prohibits or in effect prevents” military recruiting.) The Law School’s own resources were not at risk: we do not receive any of the kinds of federal funding that the Amendment threatens to cut off. The University, however, receives about 15% of its operating budget from the federal government, with the Medical School and the School of Public Health receiving by far the largest share of this money for scientific and medical research. The Dean determined (as did all other law school deans) that he should make an exception to the School’s anti-discrimination policy in the face of this threat to the University’s funding and research activities.

I continued this exception in effect, for the same reasons, through the 2003 and 2004 fall recruiting seasons. In the meantime, a consortium of law schools and law school faculty members (FAIR) brought suit challenging the Defense Department’s policy on constitutional grounds. Harvard Law School is not a member of FAIR, but 54 faculty members, including me, filed an amicus brief in that suit articulating different, statutory grounds for overturning the Department’s policy. In November 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision in the FAIR case, holding that the Defense Department’s policy violates First Amendment freedoms. The Supreme Court granted review of this decision; the Third Circuit’s ruling is stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision, which is expected later this year. (Much the same group of HLS faculty members, including me, will file an amicus brief tomorrow in the Supreme Court litigation. I also understand that the University expects to join an amicus brief filed by Yale and other universities.) Although the Supreme Court’s action meant that no injunction applied against the Department of Defense, I reinstated the application of our anti-discrimination policy to the military (after appropriate consultation with University officials) in the wake of the Third Circuit’s decision; as a result, the military did not receive OCS assistance during our spring 2005 recruiting season. My hope in taking this action was that the Department would choose not to enforce its interpretation of the Solomon Amendment while the Third Circuit opinion stood. Over the summer, however, the Department of Defense notified the University that it would withhold all possible funds if the Law School continued to bar the military from receiving OCS services. As a result, I have decided (again, after appropriate consultation) that we should lift our ban and except the military from our general non-discrimination policy. This will mean that the military will receive OCS assistance during the fall 2005 recruiting season.

I have said before how much I regret making this exception to our antidiscrimination policy.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2005/09/20_recruiting.php

[ProSense]

8. "I believe the military’s discriminatory employment policy is deeply wrong – both unwise and unjust"

This is the rest of her statement:

I have said before how much I regret making this exception to our antidiscrimination policy. I believe the military’s discriminatory employment policy is deeply wrong – both unwise and unjust. And this wrong tears at the fabric of our own community by denying an opportunity to some of our students that other of our students have. The importance of the military to our society – and the great service that members of the military provide to all the rest of us – heightens, rather than excuses, this inequity. The Law School remains firmly committed to the principle of equal opportunity for all persons, without regard to sexual orientation. And I look forward to the time when all our students can pursue any career path they desire, including the path of devoting their professional lives to the defense of their country.

[IndianaGreen]

9. She caved in!

"The importance of the military to our society," other than self-defence, there is no other role for the military. There are those that literally worship militarism, which is quite different from what our Founding Fathers envisioned. They didn't trust large standing armies.

[ProSense]

10. Are you just interested in saying "she caved"

or are you interested in how she views the law?

"other than self-defence, there is no other role for the military"

What?

[IndianaGreen]

12. Other than her role as the dean in a liberal institution like Harvard

She supported a long standing anti-discrimination policy at Harvard, and did so until Harvard was threatened with a loss of federal funds.

There is nothing on her slim record that shows her views on any controversial topic.

Kagan's briefs and arguments as Solicitor General do not represent her personal views, only those of the Administration.

[ProSense]

13. She supported a long standing anti-discrimination policy at Harvard,

...There is nothing on her slim record that shows her views on any controversial topic.

Kagan's briefs and arguments as Solicitor General do not represent her personal views, only those of the Administration."


What exactly are you arguing?

You oppose her because you don't know her?

That's pretty lame.

[IndianaGreen]

14. I am taking issue with the OP's premise that Kagan's work as Solicitor General

is indicative of her personal views.

When you brought up her Harvard background, I pointed out that the anti-discrimination policy was in place before Kagan became dean, and that her defence of that policy in regards to DADT came to an end after Harvard faced the loss of federal funds.

As to her views on abortion rights, LGBT rights, you name it, we haven't got a clue as to Kagan's views because there is no paper trail.

[ProSense]

15. You're taking issue with a premise you made up? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

16. Read your own OP!

Your premise is that Kagan's arguments in Citizens United is somehow her personal views, and as such we should take into consideration if and when she is nominated for SCOTUS.

[ProSense]

17. "Your premise is that Kagan's arguments in Citizens United is somehow her personal views"

Here is what the OP states:

"Kagan's oral argument as Solicitor General representing the F.E.C. in support of restricting political spending by corporations."

Now, what the hell are you talking about?

[IndianaGreen]

18. What's the point of this thread that you started?

Please enlighten us!

[ProSense]

19. Weren't you insisting you knew the point? In any case, here's the point

a link to Kagan's oral argument as Solicitor General representing the F.E.C. in support of restricting political spending by corporations.

It's stated pretty clearly in the OP.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Why did you want DUers to know Kagan's oral argument in Citizens United?

There must have been a reason why you posted the OP?

[ProSense]

21. Why, should people be shielded from this information for any reason? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

22. How is her oral argument in Citizens United relevant to her personal views?

C'mon, you are making remarkable progress.

[ProSense]

25. You tell me, you're the one linking the two.

Do you have some knowledge that she personally supports Citizens?

[IndianaGreen]

26. From my very first post on this thread, I delinked the two

The Solicitor General speaks for the government. You can't discern Kagan's personal views from that anymore that you can say that Kagan is in favour of DOMA for arguing against those challenging the law in court.

Unless your OP was a McGuffin to begin with.

[ProSense]

29. "I delinked the two" They weren't linked in the OP.

You obviously delinked them to support your "premise."

:rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

30. So this thread you started is just a McGuffin

unless one thinks that Kagan's arguments and briefs as Solicitor General have any bearing with her personal views, which would be very much relevant were she to be nominated to SCOTUS.

[brentspeak]

23. What the hell does that have to do with Citizens United? n/t

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

28. The pleasure of seeing President Obama's desperate detractors

clinging to one ridiculous claim after another is enough for me.

[Cha]

3. Sorry the link cannot be found.

[ProSense]

5. Added a new link. There are

brackets in the original that appear to be causing a problem.

[Cha]

11. Thanks, Pro~

[NYC_SKP]

6. Alternate link:

http://newsroom-magazine.com/2009/law/supreme-court-argmument-citizens-united-vs-federal-election-commission/

[ProSense]

7. Thanks n/t

[NJmaverick]

31. Shame her number one attacker (better known as blog troll Greenwald)

totally supported Citizens United.