Three reasons why I think Elena Kagen will be a GREAT SCOTUS member

[zulchzulu]

Despite all the hubbub about how Kagen isn't pure enough for Greenwald (whose works I like), I did a little research after seeing what some naysayers about Kagen were saying... namely that they were inferring she's not strong on abortion rights, gay rights and rights of Americans in general.

So a late night Sunday Googling and I found out what "conservatives" don't like about Kagen and make me firmly in her camp for being nominee and the next new Supreme Court member... Here are the three main reasons...

1.
Conservatives don't like her because she's...
PRO-CHOICE!

Pro-life groups are up in arms about yet another pro-abortion nominee President Barack Obama has put forward for a leadership position in the Justice Department. Obama wants abortion advocate Elena Kagan to serve as Solicitor General, the attorney who represents the government before the Supreme Court.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the pro-life women's group Susan B. Anthony List, tells LifeNews.com her organization is urging pro-life advocates to contact their senators to oppose Kagan.

She says Kagan has a longstanding pro-abortion position.

"In the past Kagan has been a strong supporter of the pro-abortion agenda," Dannenfelser explains. "She has vigorously opposed the de-funding of taxpayer-funded clinics which promote abortions, despite the fact that a majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars to fund abortion providers."

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4835.html

or...

Kagan, nominated to be solicitor general, the government's top lawyer at the Supreme Court, barely cleared the 60-vote threshold needed to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. Groups opposed to abortion rights had said Kagan supports public funding for abortions and would not defend restrictions such as parental notification statutes.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/03/nation/na-court-congress3

2.
Conservatives don't like her because she's...
PRO-GAY!

As talk of a possible Supreme Court nomination for Solicitor General Elena Kagan persists, conservative activists are homing in on a high-profile stand she took on gay rights as a centerpiece of their opposition if she is nominated to the Supreme Court.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304846504575178390602940072.html

3.
Conservatives don't like her because they suspect that she might be...
A LESBIAN!

Some are speculating that rather than engage in an out-and-out lesbian witch hunt, Kagan’s critics will focus on her legacy at Harvard, where she opposed the presence of military recruiters on campus because of the inherent injustice of DADT. Basically, in 2003 Harvard and other schools didn’t want to allow military recruiters on campus because DADT is a discriminatory policy, but (ironically?) the Supreme Court at the time ruled that the schools didn’t have a choice in the matter.

Kagan was one of those who strongly disagreed with the SCOTUS’s opinion. “For someone who has been so guarded on so many issues, she used strikingly extreme rhetoric. ‘Moral injustice of the first order’ would seem fit for something like the Holocaust,” said Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. “This is one issue that provides some jurisprudential clues as to how much her reading of the law will be biased by her policy views. If she is the nominee, that is an angle that I would press.”

http://www.autostraddle.com/supreme-court-42521/

No, it's not all about sex or her sexuality. I would certainly presume that her progressive opinions on issues would at least mirror those of Justice Stevens, if not be more impressive. I very much doubt that Obama hasn't figured out a lot about her before throwing her into the media puppet theater looking for anything to bring her down.

Imagine the conservatives (who will be assholes anyway) bringing up these issues to demonize her. She'll get the votes and be confirmed... not to worry. But won't it be nice to again further expose the Right Wing as last century's answer to a jackass.

[DJ13]

1. Any reasons beyond sex?

[saltpoint]

2. Yep. I think she's going to be alright. Your three reasons plus can I

toss in that she's Jewish, which might provide a little counterpoint to the Catholic-heavy Court.

[ruggerson]

3. Breyer and Ginsberg already provide that, no?

[saltpoint]

7. I'm thinking of the ultra-Catholic Scalia.

[pnwmom]

24. He's not an ultra-Catholic. He's an ultra-conservative Catholic.

Not the same thing. The ultra-conservatives may think they're the real Church, but they're not.

[saltpoint]

26. That's what I should have typed and didn't. You're right.

:hi:

[zulchzulu]

12. I bet Breyer and Ginsberg will be leaving SCOTUS before 2016

Since Obama will be re-elected, he will have replacements for them as well.

:hi:

[mucifer]

5. now it will be a Jewish heavy court. (Yes, I'm Jewish I think we are only about 5% of

the USA we shouldn't be 1/3 of the supreme court.)

[ruggerson]

8. I think it's 2%

[saltpoint]

10. I celebrate it because I want less of the burn-the-Constitution

Catholic theocracy Scalia tends to advance.

Were she Methodist and held the same qualifications, that would be ok too.

I'd actually like a Pagan SCOTUS pick, but the White House rarely consults me on these matters.

[WCGreen]

13. More like 2%...

I don't care about demographic representation on the court...

My only concern is that she is progressive...

[elleng]

17. Did you say 'we shouldn't be 1/3 of the scotus,' and mean it?

Know why Brandeis Univ was established?

[mucifer]

20. I think the court should be more than a third female. But, Jews are 2% of the

population in this country. There is something wrong with us being 33% of the supreme court. That's my opinion.

[elleng]

25. Sorry

:thumbsdown:

[Arkana]

6. She's Jewish?

Really?

Wow, finally a little religious diversity on the Court.

[saltpoint]

9. Yep. She is.

[Arkana]

11. If it were up to me I'd like at least one atheist on the Court.

However, I realize that this will never, ever, EVER happen.

[mucifer]

14. agreed! I actually think putting another Jewish person on the court feeds into

the "Jews control the world" meme or "the Jews are more intelligent than other groups" meme and both of those theories make me sick.

[pnwmom]

27. I wonder what fraction of lawyers and judges are Jewish. It's probably disproportionate, too.

[saltpoint]

16. Well, I think it would be refreshing.

Agree with you that here in God Loves America, an atheist would have confirmation difficulties. But it is reasonable to have a confirmed appointee declare his or her atheism after all the confirmation spitfire is over with.

That would set Glenn Beck to reeling, wouldn't it?

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. Actually you're losing diversity.

Right now it's 6 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 1 Protestant. The Protestant is Stevens. With Kagan that now leaves only two religions represented on a 9 position court. Others have already mentioned the percentage of the Jewish population being somewhere between 2 and 5%, and there's no way in Hell that 2/3 of this country is Catholic either.

So it wasn't religiously diverse with Stevens, and with Kagan, even less so.

[Arkana]

36. Huh.

Like I said--I'd like a declared atheist on the Court.

[NJmaverick]

47. That's a pretty important point

[Arkana]

4. I expect a lot of very incendiary anti-gay rhetoric in the runup to the hearings.

[NJmaverick]

44. Sadly this is certainly going to be the case, but it's good to know some of us have her back

[jenmito]

15. Another reason-Obama wanted someone who will be a strong counter-part to the conservatives

on the court. Both he and Biden know her according to CNN. Oh-and browsing the freeper site, they HATE her. :D

[NJmaverick]

46. Worse than Greenwald hates her?

[FrenchieCat]

18. She clerked for Thurgood!

She was his "Shorty"....

She's gonna kick some conservative court ass!

[saltpoint]

19. She did indeed and despite much howling and gnashing of teeth by the

Far Right, I think she's going to be confirmed and will serve on the High Court this coming October!

More power to her. I hope she's confirmed and proceeds to slap the crap out of Scalia first thing.

Hiya FrenchieCat. Nice to see you on the boards tonight.

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

21. Hiya yourself! I'm only on for 1 hour.....and it is almost over....

But yeah, she'll get confirmed, cause she just got confirmed for Solicitor General, and while the teabaggers will be telling their senators not to vote for her, they will be between a rock and a hard place (those who already voted for her) trying to figure out how they are gonna rationalize not confirming someone they just confirmed. Than the Teabaggers are gonna get mad at them! :rofl:

[saltpoint]

22. LOL. Those Teabaggers'll blow their stack at just about anything!

[FrenchieCat]

23. When DU ODed on Teabagging reporting,

that's when I decided not to spent too much time here at DU....
cause the shit I was reading here was the same shit I read everywhere
in the corporate media.

So now, my maximum DU time is not more than 1 hour per day.
I'm joining the unhooked to DU generation. I already feel
much more hopeful about my and my children's future.
Spending too much time here was making me sick.

[tomm2thumbs]

38. I will try to take that advice as well

do you set an alarm, wing it, or do the kids come in and pull the cord out of the wall? <g>

time flies when you are on DU

[Lorien]

28. PRO CORPORATE POWER!

Let's be honest about it for a Change, eh?

[DJ13]

29. Dont burst their bubble

The'll figure it out when its too late.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Y'all so superior!

Still got the old fingers crossed hoping the country melts down?

[DJ13]

34. Fool me once

You know the rest.

[NJmaverick]

43. In all fairness the first time was pretty easy

[DJ13]

54. Its still easy for you

[NJmaverick]

42. !

:spray:

[NJmaverick]

41. You are thinking of her biggest critic, Greenwald

he is the one that supported Citizens United

[IndianaGreen]

30. #3 is irrelevant even if true. No evidence of #1, and scant evidence of #2

GOP will oppose anyone Obama nominates, even if it were someone like Joe Lieberman.

[Tumbulu]

31. I am thrilled!

for all these reasons and more. Primarily she seems to be young enough to have a lasting influence.

[Hekate]

32. Nice research, zz. I think she's a great pick and I hope she can withstand the RW BS ...

... coming her way in 3..2..1... splat!

I look forward to her being on the SCOTUS a longlong time.

Hekate

[activa8tr]

48. I think there's just as much liberal/progressive BS coming out

right here.

[besdayz]

37. f

i'm a bit concerned on her view on individual rights vs the state, in regards to detention, torture, immigrants.

and if obama is relected, yeah he might have a chance to name breyer and ginsbergs replacement. but he'll never have as much a stranglehold on the senate as he does now. now is the time to nominate a liberal like stevens.

would be great if scalia or thomas retire in the next 6 yrs. how old are they and how is their health?

[ShortnFiery]

39. Pro- Unitary Executive? Pro-War? eom

[besdayz]

40. 3 worrisome things:

1) kagan is probably not progressive on presidential unitarian powers, individual liberties in the war on terror ie detention, rendition. this alone is infuriating. i didn't vote for this at all.
this guy either has no balls at all and is constantly moving to the middle like some obsequious jackass only worried about being liked or he is truly not a liberal progressive.

so far in his presidency, i'm very disappointed. extension of wars, no prosecution of violations in the bush/cheney regime.

2) she is a blank slate, no record at all. she seems qualified but for someone in her field to not have expressed too many real opinions (besides DADT and unitary power) bothers. so we are to trust obama. why? because he has lived up to what liberals hoped for so far?

3)he is undoing stevens legacy. he will not have better support in the senate than he has now. so why not go for broke now. SCOTUS is more important than any legislation that he can pass, including health care. laws are subject to change and usually do in different administrations. this is a generational influence.

that he referred to kagan as his friend in the introduction would have normally not bothered me but it did given the similarity to the meyers fiasco. clearly she is more qualified but still it feels like obama is treating SCOTUS too lightly. either that or i don't know who the guy is and i was completely fooled 2 yrs ago.
i hope he knows something about her that we all don't and that her silence on issues was strategy for confirmation rather than true lack of opinion.

[NJmaverick]

45. Media Matters have disputed these talking points

[besdayz]

50. liberal yes

she will probably be on the liberal wing on most issues. fine. but my point is
to replace stevens there was a need for a real progressive gamechanger type and she is more of a "consensus builder"- code word for non-controversial centrist...

he is missing his chance...

[NJmaverick]

51. Leadership matters just as much. You can have the farthest left views possible

if you can't win anyone over to your side you will not help the cause.

[activa8tr]

52. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!! I still think Obama is the sharpest guy in DC !

He knows EXACTLY what he is doing.

[activa8tr]

53. Are you a liberal lawyer or are you just trying to sound important here?

probably not progressive? is that a position or lack of one?

"presidential unitarian powers"? (Meaning which? The unique power to appoint with Advice and Consent or Senate confirmation or the power to conduct wars according to law?)

"rendition"? (evidence?)

"detention": There is federal, military, and international law on the topic of detention, which I suggest you read. There is also ample public testimony from Kagan, herself, on this before her current appointment, you can read THAT, too, in her past appointment hearings transcripts.

"obsequious jackass"? (legal term I guess)

"blank slate, no record at all": (Most Deans of Harvard Law School and U.S. Solicitor Gens. never did anything in their lives to get appointed, RIGHT!) And, other than that, I doubt you have read any of her published papers.

"hope he knows something about her that we all don't" (How could he if he as an obsequious jackass?) Actually he knows her very well, and, YES, TRUE, we all don't, including you.

If you are a lawyer, your arguments are full of big words but without logic or foundation, and scant on factual reference.

Just nothing convincing there, either.

[greencharlie]

49. she'll be confirmed with 70+ votes... the right is relieved. nt

[NJmaverick]

56. and the left is ecstatic that Stevens was replaced by such a capable woman

[martymar64]

55. Roy Cohn was gay too? Would you have supported him as SCOTUS?

Were is she on workers rights versus corporations?
I could give a shit about what tingles her bits, I want a justice that actually stands for justice, unlike the majority of the court right now.