Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Thanks.
I mean, look at Napolitano. Hillary.
What is it with this guy?
And between you and Mud, I'm sure you two are just male models of the year.
If either of you are as ugly as your personalities, don't even bother posting a picture.
Fuck. Kagan is a terrible, but predictable, choice. She's as careerist as they come, has practically no discernible record, is subservient to power and claims of expanded executive privilege, and will move the court further to the right when Obama should so obviously be using his majority to move it to the left (especially after Roberts and Sc'Alito and with the departure of the court's most liberal member) or at least keep it status quo.
This is another sad day for progressives, who Obama continues to let down.
Take a look in the mirror first.
My comments are solely because I feel that being in the Supreme Court is too important for tokenism. You should only allow the best legal minds in the country in and not use it to kiss any special interest groups ass or pay back a former associate....which in this case accomplishes both.
so what? ....your post should have your opinion about the news. Otherwise it's just spam.
really? interesting. perhaps on other boards you've haunted. not here.
there is nothing inappropriate or 'spam' about providing information.
or do i have to go through every rightwingnut thread to show you what spam is?
Good for you. I prefer to get my own news. I come here to view other peoples opinion about the news.
Why does Obama have this thing for ugly dykes? Yech. WHo wants to see her fat ugly ass in black robes?
Why does Obama have this thing for ugly dykes? Yech. WHo wants to see her fat ugly ass in black robes?
So Rabbi, how is it living in 1955?
He's right. She puts the UGH in Ugly.
That's interesting that you say that. Kagan has a long track record in judicial writings. She is obviously no friend of the military, barring recruiters from Harvard and then urging students to protest their presence after the ban was struck down by the Supreme Court.
So conservatives (hell, anyone who loves this country) won't be too happy either.
Kagan's lack of a record
One of the difficulties in assessing Kagan's judicial philosophy and view of the Constitution is that direct evidence is extremely sparse. That's not only because she's never been a judge, but also because (a) her academic career is surprisingly and disturbingly devoid of writings or speeches on most key legal and Constitutional controversies, and (b) she has spent the last year as Obama's Solicitor General, where (like any lawyer) she was obligated to defend the administration's policies regardless of whether she agreed with them. As Goldstein wrote at SCOTUSblog: "it seems entirely possible that Elena Kagan does not really have a fixed and uniform view of how to judge and to interpret the Constitution."
As I've previously documented and examine further below, the evidence that is available strongly suggests that a Kagan-for-Stevens substitution would move the Court to the Right in critical areas. But Kagan's lack of a real record on these vital questions, by itself, should cause progressives to oppose her nomination. That's true for two reasons:
First, given that there are so many excellent candidates who have a long, clear commitment to a progressive judicial philosophy, why would Obama possibly select someone who -- at best -- is a huge question mark, and who could easily end up as the Democrats' version of the Bush-41-appointed David Souter, i.e., someone about whom little is known and ends up for decades embracing a judicial philosophy that is the exact opposite of the one the President's party supports? As Goldstein wrote of Kagan:
Are there risks for the left in a Kagan nomination? God yes. The last nominee about whose views we knew so little was David Souter. . . . I don’t know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade.
Why would any progressive possibly want to take risks like that given how large the stakes are, and given how many other excellent, viable candidates Obama can choose who have a long and clear record?
This was exactly the argument which conservatives such as David Frum made to force George Bush to withdraw Harriet Miers as his replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor and instead choose Sam Alito. As Frum put it on PBS during the fight over Miers:
Stakes are so enormous in this seat. This is something, as Bill Kristol said, the conservatives have worked for, for a long time. . . . I mean she has been a lawyer for more than three decades. In that time she has never found it necessary to express herself on any of the great issues of the day. . . Part of what isn't good enough is for the president to say -- although there are lots of conservatives of incredible distinction who have written and published, where the world can know what they think -- "I have a secret, I know something and nobody else does. And I'm going to go with my personal knowledge."
Republicans have been disappointed with that kind of knowledge often before, and although they trust and support this president, he is asking too much.
[It's ironic that the anti-Miers case was grounded in conservatives' refusal to place too much faith and trust in their President's judgment. Can anyone envision Democrats mounting a serious and sustained campaign against Obama's Supreme Court nominee of the type mounted against Bush by conservatives, whom progressives like to accuse of blind leader/party loyalty?]
There's a lot we don't know about Elena Kagan, because she hasn't told us
Imagine a candidate for the U.S. Senate who has never taken a public stand on almost any policy issue. Imagine that her campaign consists of asking people for their support because, according to friends and colleagues, the candidate is smart, fair, and good to others. When her friends are asked what her views are on various political matters, they reply that they don't know—but that they're confident she'd make an excellent senator.
This bizarre hypothetical closely resembles the actual campaign to put Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court. (The White House will reportedly announce her nomination on Monday.) Of course, a Supreme Court justice is not a conventional politician in the way a senator is, but being a justice involves making often controversial judgments about the law, and these judgments are unavoidably political. Unfortunately, nobody seems to know what Kagan's views are on most political issues, nor does anyone know what she believes about how judges ought to interpret the Constitution, how much deference courts should give to Congress and state legislatures, and what role the judiciary should play in checking the powers of the executive branch. We don't know because she hasn't told us. Indeed, Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and publisher of SCOTUSblog, describes Kagan as "extraordinarily—almost artistically—careful. I don't know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade."
so what? ....your post should have your opinion about the news. Otherwise it's just spam.
Yesterday, I read everything Elena Kagan has ever published. It didn't take long: in the nearly 20 years since Kagan became a law professor, she's published very little academic scholarship — three law review articles, along with a couple of shorter essays and two brief book reviews. Somehow, Kagan got tenure at Chicago in 1995 on the basis of a single article in The Supreme Court Review — a scholarly journal edited by Chicago's own faculty — and a short essay in the school's law review. She then worked in the Clinton administration for several years before joining Harvard as a visiting professor of law in 1999. While there she published two articles, but since receiving tenure from Harvard in 2001 (and becoming dean of the law school in 2003) she has published nothing.
so what? ....your post should have your opinion about the news. Otherwise it's just spam.
They haven't told him how he should feel yet...
The guy in charge of that was playing golf today....
No, but if it's from HuffyPuffy it isn't worth posting...so what? ....your post should have your opinion about the news. Otherwise it's just spam.
They haven't told him how he should feel yet...
The guy in charge of that was playing golf today....
you mean if it isn't rightwing spam, it isn't worth posting? surely that isn't what you're saying.
i can't speak for him, but i can speak for me....
I dont think she should have been his nominee... he should have gone with Judge Diane Wood.
I'm tired of him pandering to the right and getting nothing for it.
I dont think she should have been his nominee... he should have gone with Judge Diane Wood.
I'm tired of him pandering to the right and getting nothing for it.
Breaking:
Elena Kagan To Be Nominated To Supreme Court By Obama To Replace Justice John Paul Stevens
NBC is reporting that Elena Kagan will be nominated to the Supreme Court by Barack Obama.
Looks like it's the Harriet "My Little Crony" Meyers redux.Where did you get your information Rabbi? She's not a judge, so she has no judicial writings. And if you mean legal writings, she's got three law review articles, a couple reviews, a couple essays.
Compared to the other potential nominees, that's about a tenth of their writings on law, essays and opinions published, not to mention 0% of their judicial rulings.
We know basically nothing about Kagan and are expected to just trust that Obama made a good choice on faith.
No, but if it's from HuffyPuffy it isn't worth posting...
I'll wait for other sources....
Haven't read up on her...
My rule of thumb is if they're not qualified to be on the SCOTUS bench then they shouldn't be nominated...
Looks like it's the Harriet "My Little Crony" Meyers redux.Where did you get your information Rabbi? She's not a judge, so she has no judicial writings. And if you mean legal writings, she's got three law review articles, a couple reviews, a couple essays.
Compared to the other potential nominees, that's about a tenth of their writings on law, essays and opinions published, not to mention 0% of their judicial rulings.
We know basically nothing about Kagan and are expected to just trust that Obama made a good choice on faith.
I'll give odds that they blindly fall in line.Looks like it's the Harriet "My Little Crony" Meyers redux.Where did you get your information Rabbi? She's not a judge, so she has no judicial writings. And if you mean legal writings, she's got three law review articles, a couple reviews, a couple essays.
Compared to the other potential nominees, that's about a tenth of their writings on law, essays and opinions published, not to mention 0% of their judicial rulings.
We know basically nothing about Kagan and are expected to just trust that Obama made a good choice on faith.
She's much more experienced than Miers (she was Dean of Harvard Law and Solicitor General)... but yeah, compared to the rest of the people he was seriously considering, she's got a practically Miers level of experience (judicially none) and lack of record.
The question now is whether Democrats, who often (appropriately) chide Republicans for being lock-step behind their leaders, will have the integrity and conviction to oppose Kagan's nomination on the same grounds Republicans opposed Miers and force Obama to choose someone qualified and reliably representative of his party's judicial philosophy and Stevens' rulings. If not, they're revealed as huge hypocrites and worse, the court is rendered even less interested in protecting civil rights and Constitutional protections.
