Another Chick Added To The Supreme Court

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I wonder how far left leaning she is

Not very far.

 

[Puppycow]

What the Kagan pick says about Obama

It's the audacity of caution.

 

[Puppycow]

You heard correctly. Three Jews and Six Catholics would be sitting on the Court.

They're also all Ivy-leaguers.

 

[Puppycow]

True. Regardless, though, her experience as Soliciter General seems adequate -- comparable to Rehnquist, probably (I am only going by memory; I can't say that for certain). I don't think Powell had any experience as a sitting judge, either.

She seems to be a fairly consistent, liberal-leaning pick with sufficient background to show she's qualified. All in all, I haven't seen anything to indicate she isn't qualified.

I have been somewhat mystified by the reaction not on the right, but on the felt -- Greenwald for example, though there were a couple others, as well. Some on the left have compared her to Harriet Miers, which does not appear to be a fair comparison at all, experience-wise. Have you seen any of that and/or have any explanation for it?

(I'll try to root around for the Greenwald link I saw Friday or Saturday, but not sure where I read it).

Here

It's anything but surprising that President Obama has chosen Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Nothing is a better fit for this White House than a blank slate, institution-loyal, seemingly principle-free careerist who spent the last 15 months as the Obama administration's lawyer vigorously defending every one of his assertions of extremely broad executive authority. The Obama administration is filled to the brim with exactly such individuals -- as is reflected by its actions and policies -- and this is just one more to add to the pile.
. . .
One final thought about Kagan for now. As I said from the beginning, the real opportunity to derail her nomination was before it was made, because the vast majority of progressives and Democrats will get behind anyone, no matter who it is, chosen by Obama. That's just how things work. They'll ignore most of the substantive concerns that have been raised about her, cling to appeals to authority, seize on personal testimonials from her Good Progressive friends, and try to cobble together blurry little snippets to assure themselves that she's a fine pick. In reality, no matter what they know about her (and, more to the point, don't know), they'll support her because she's now Obama's choice, which means, by definition, that she's a good addition to the Supreme Court. Our politics is nothing if not tribal, and the duty of Every Good Democrat is now to favor Kagan's confirmation. Conservatives refused to succumb to those rules and ended up with Sam Alito instead of Harriet Miers, but they had a much different relationship to George Bush than progressives have to Obama (i.e., conservatives -- as they proved several times late in Bush's second term [Miers, immigration, Dubai Ports] -- were willing to oppose their leader whey they disagreed). The White House knows that progressives will never try to oppose any important Obama initiative, and even if they were inclined, they lack the power to do so (largely because unconditional support guarantees impotence).

 

[This is The End]

I wonder, if the pick had been male, would the title of this thread be:

"Another Man/Dude Added To The Supreme Court"

Or does the sex of the person only come to the front of one's mind when it is female.

Is this one of those "It was just a [bad] joke" situations?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

You would be surprised to know just how many gays are at least tangentially supportive of the GOP.

Quite a few open homosexuals agree with areas of Republican politics that do not deal with social conservatism. To reference one opinion I have heard, "If the choice is giving up on marriage or dying at the hands of terrorist bombers, I will choose to give up on marriage." Now I disagreed with this person on many levels, but it should come as no shock that homosexuals are just as varied in political thought as real people

I wonder, if the pick had been male, would the title of this thread be:

"Another Man/Dude Added To The Supreme Court"

Or does the sex of the person only come to the front of one's mind when it is female.

Is this one of those "It was just a [bad] joke" situations?

It would have been "Another sausage for the roast!"

 

[KingMerv00]

I wonder, if the pick had been male, would the title of this thread be:

"Another Man/Dude Added To The Supreme Court"

Or does the sex of the person only come to the front of one's mind when it is female.

Is this one of those "It was just a [bad] joke" situations?

It's one of those Scrut situations.

 

[Darth Rotor]

For those keeping score, Kagan apparently advised Bill Clinton to work on banning late term aboritons, and, in another matter ... from an AP article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37074480/ns/politics-supreme_court/

Kagan and White House science adviser Jack Gibbons urged the president to support a congressional ban on human cloning. Clinton followed that advice but the bill died in Congress
Kagan also recommended that Clinton support legislation banning human cloning in May 1997. At the time, the scientific and religious communities were abuzz about news that scientists had cloned a sheep, Dolly. The news raised questions about the legal and ethical boundaries of such research.

Kagan and White House science adviser Jack Gibbons urged the president to support a congressional ban on human cloning. Clinton followed that advice but the bill died in Congress

Not sure if this is germane to President Obama's picks, but that clone deal seems to relate to stem cell issues (does it?) that President Obama got off of top dead center.

Will try to see if there's some info on her position on stem cells running about the net.

DR

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I wonder, if the pick had been male, would the title of this thread be:

"Another Man/Dude Added To The Supreme Court"

It would have been: Another Person Added To The Supreme Court

Or does the sex of the person only come to the front of one's mind when it is female.

Yes

Is this one of those "It was just a [bad] joke" situations?

No

 

[Darth Rotor]

Nothing yet on Kagan and positions on stem cell research. Don't know if she participated in her role as solicitor general in the decision last year to move forward on that.

Proponents from former first lady Nancy Reagan to the late actor Christopher Reeve had pushed for ending the restrictions on research.

That was an interesting tidbit in the stem cell article I read.

A couple of pro-life/anti-abortion sites have already gotten exercised over her support for abortion.

DR

 

[Bikewer]

So this morning when I got in the car to go buy donuts... NPR was on and they played a snippet from one of our august congressmen (didn't hear who...) who said:

"She needs to answer why she wanted to bar the men and women that serve our country from her campus."

This leads me to believe that the Reptilians are indeed among us, and that a fair percentage of our legislature is indeed from another planet...

Perhaps because it was the written policy of the university to bar recruitment by groups which discriminate?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Perhaps because it was the written policy of the university to bar recruitment by groups which discriminate?

I find it quite ironic that their policy bars recruitment from "groups which discriminate" while at the same time they greedily solicit every dime that they can possibly get from said group.

Maybe I shouldn't find it ironic. Maybe I should just call it hypocritical. It'd be more accurate.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So this morning when I got in the car to go buy donuts...

I thought that was just a stereotype.

 

[pgwenthold]

So this morning when I got in the car to go buy donuts... NPR was on and they played a snippet from one of our august congressmen (didn't hear who...) who said:

"She needs to answer why she wanted to bar the men and women that serve our country from her campus."

This leads me to believe that the Reptilians are indeed among us, and that a fair percentage of our legislature is indeed from another planet...

Perhaps because it was the written policy of the university to bar recruitment by groups which discriminate?

Hey, they don't want someone who simply follows the rules set forth by a document, and they want someone is able to think about the bigger perspective and what is right for the country and its citizens.

))

 

[Peephole]

Nothing yet on Kagan and positions on stem cell research. Don't know if she participated in her role as solicitor general in the decision last year to move forward on that.

Don't expect a lot of answers:

In the post I wrote yesterday after the Kagan announcement, I noted one genuinely encouraging aspect of her record: in 1995, she rightly excoriated the Supreme Court confirmation process as a "vapid and hollow charade" because nominees refuse to answer any meaningful questions about what they think or believe. Kagan argued that "it is an embarrassment that Senators do not insist that any nominee reveal what kind of Justice she would make, by disclosing her views on important legal issues."

...

So much for adhering to the standards one imposes on others or feigning even a small amount of intellectual consistency:

Elena Kagan no longer thinks Supreme Court nominees should have to answer direct questions

The White House Monday said that Supreme Court nominee won't follow her own advice from 1995 in answering questions on specific legal cases or issues, supporting Kagan’s flip flop on the issue that she first made a year ago.

...

"She was asked about it and said that both the passage of time and her perspective as a nominee had given her a new appreciation and respect for the difficulty of being a nominee, and the need to answer questions carefully," Klain said, prompting laughter from a few reporters.

"You will see before the committee that she walks that line in a very appropriate way. She will be forthcoming with the committee. It will be a robust and engaging conversation about the law, but she will obviously also respect the conventions about how far a nominee should or shouldn’t go in answering about specific legal questions," Klain said.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/11/kagan/index.html

 

[KingMerv00]

I find it quite ironic that their policy bars recruitment from "groups which discriminate" while at the same time they greedily solicit every dime that they can possibly get from said group.

Do they get money from the military?

 

[thaiboxerken]

So this morning when I got in the car to go buy donuts... NPR was on and they played a snippet from one of our august congressmen (didn't hear who...) who said:

"She needs to answer why she wanted to bar the men and women that serve our country from her campus."

This leads me to believe that the Reptilians are indeed among us, and that a fair percentage of our legislature is indeed from another planet...

Perhaps because it was the written policy of the university to bar recruitment by groups which discriminate?

It could be that she doesn't think the military should recruit on University grounds.

 

[KingMerv00]

It could be that she doesn't think the military should recruit on University grounds.

Her objection was to "don't ask don't tell". School policy prohibited groups that discriminated to appear on campus.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Her objection was to "don't ask don't tell". School policy prohibited groups that discriminated to appear on campus.

A policy of discrimination by the school that presents an interesting, if only semantic, irony.

It's interesting to note this policy stand objected to lawful discrimination as a cover for a commonly found Ivy League disdain for the American military that seems to have arisen around the time of the Viet Nam War. (Maybe it predates that, don't know). The source of the discrimination is clearly encoded in the laws which are the provenance of our Congress: is that who they were going after? I am skeptical. I got to meet my share of Ivy League ***** 's in the late 70's and early 80's who were nothing if not disdainful of my chosen profession.

But it gets more interesting.

We have a variety of lawful discrimination in America, to include gender discrimination against males who turn 18: females are not required to register with selective service, males are, with penalty of voiding possible educational loans/benefits if they don't. That is rather blatant gender discrimination. Where's Harvard on this one, insisting that women enroll in selective service? (If they have taken that stand, I'd love to see their position paper on it).

There is lawful discrimination that makes even less sense: you can't sell beer to a twenty year old.

Idiotic age discrimination.

I wonder how Kagan feels on the selective service issue.

DR

 

[thaiboxerken]

Her objection was to "don't ask don't tell". School policy prohibited groups that discriminated to appear on campus.

Well, if that's the policy, I don't see any legitimacy for complaint from the right.