Obama Nominates Elena Kagan to be Next Supreme Court Justice

[Lunar]

Please, Lunar, start a movement to get Obama to kill the Kagan appointment.  We Republicans would like nothing more than so-called "progressives" fighting so-called "progressives" over whether Obama's Supreme Court nominee is so-called "progressive" enough, creating a wedge among "progressives" and ensuring lower Democratic turnout in the mid-terms. 

No use.  I'm pretty much resigned to whining about it here.

Progressives don't have the guts to stand up to our president over this sort of thing, we're not like conservatives.

[Lunar]

Could someone make a list of Kagan's right wing tendencies, at least when it comes to jurisprudence?  I mean, she does not have that much of a paper trail, and some stuff of not much import perhaps to the contrary, so I would be interested as to the source of all of this "progressive" angst. Thanks!

I've linked to a lot of it, but if you cycle through Greenwald's blog on Salon, I think he captures 80% of the angst. 

[Torie]

Could someone make a list of Kagan's right wing tendencies, at least when it comes to jurisprudence?  I mean, she does not have that much of a paper trail, and some stuff of not much import perhaps to the contrary, so I would be interested as to the source of all of this "progressive" angst. Thanks!

I've linked to a lot of it, but if you cycle through Greenwald's blog on Salon, I think he captures 80% of the angst. 

Perhaps this is the link to which Lunar referred for those who don't want to do a hunt for it. No, I have not read it yet.

[Lunar]

aye, a google search for "greenwald" results that as the difficult to find #1 result.

His initial,  pre-Kagan selection essay is here:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

[Sam Spade]

On 2, yeah, she really hated alfonse d’amato and worked in Democratic administrations, hardly proof that she shares the progressive viewpoint on Constitutional interpretation of the law.

Heck, I hate D'Amato.  What's so wrong with that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This reminds of someone else.  Can't put my name on it.

[Sam Spade]

If I really cared about her "ideology" (and I don't), the most troubling part of her record is her views on free speech, one of the few areas of the law where there are actually some writings by her.

[cinyc]

If I really cared about her "ideology" (and I don't), the most troubling part of her record is her views on free speech, one of the few areas of the law where there are actually some writings by her.

Let me guess - Sunstein-influenced Internet-bad, government-knows-best paternalism?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Might it be a chap whose voting residence is about 3 blocks from the precinct I once voted in?

[J. J.]

Wait... Obama nominated a conservative to replace a liberal in the Sureme court ?!?

WHAT... THE... F-CK ?

This is the guy that you liked so much.

It gets worse.  Obama's commercial for Specter starts running tomorrow. 

[Sewer]

paternalism

If you hate paternalism why are you a republican?

[cinyc]

paternalism

If you hate paternalism why are you a republican?

You have that backwards.  Those who think government is the solution are usually Democrats.  Those who think government is the problem are usually Republicans.  Government knows best is the mantra of so-called "progressives", not conservatives.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Another thing that is depressing about Obama's choice of Kagan over Wood is the fact that it represents the triumph of cowardice over courage.

Wood, Sunstein, Koh and Liu have taken positions on most controversial matters and weren't afraid to talk about them, even when they were unpopular. Thus they are considered uncomfirmable.

But Kagan, perhaps driven by ambition or perhaps by cowardice, carefully avoided to make her opinions known, even among her closest friends. And so she is rewarded with an appointment at the Supreme Court. What's wrong with this picture?    

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wait... Obama nominated a conservative to replace a liberal in the Sureme court ?!?

WHAT... THE... F-CK ?

She's hardly a conservative.

Maybe, but still a depressing choice...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wait... Obama nominated a conservative to replace a liberal in the Sureme court ?!?

WHAT... THE... F-CK ?

It was already clear that Obama is a useless moderate hero. What a waste. We could have had someone center-left elected in 2008, but we wasted it on this Goldman Sacs fan-boy.

[Ogre Mage]

Some positives of the Kagan nomination --

*She's 50 and concerns about her weight and smoking habits aside, could become a progressive force over the long term once she accrues experience and seniority.  There is a good chance she will have a very long tenure.  Even Justice Stevens didn't become the figure we currently see him as until the second half of his tenure.  It takes a long time to develop that gravitas on the Court.  And while she may not be as progressive as I would like, I would bet money she's not going to turn into a reverse Souter.  Obama is calculating that she is the strongest bet long-term, although in the short term she is likely to struggle.  

*While she has not been successful in persuading the Justices as SG, my understanding is that she has good relations with them, even those she disagrees with (Scalia).  They already have a certain comfort level with her.  She's going to be working with these folks a long time and already having good established relations with the Justices gives her a leg up.  And she's had a year to watch them and try to figure out how they tick.  So she has a good base upon which to build her influence.  Once she gets past the learning curve phase, this could be important.

*The Obama administration is trying to make political hay out of the Citizens United case and since she argued the position which the majority of the public supports, she is the most logical avatar.  

As for the criticisms of Kagan, they have been aired out pretty thoroughly and I agree with a large portion of it.  She wasn't my first choice.  From a political standpoint, she is not a pick which will cause a revolt from the base.  But there will be little excitement over her selection.  It's hard to get excited about a blank slate.  She is an establishment Democrat who has carefully kept her views hidden.  Why should we be reassured about someone who remains almost completely unknown?

In terms of how the Constitution and the Supreme Court is framed intellectually, the President has ceded the field to the Right.  He could have picked a judge with a clear progressive track record who is hugely respected throughout the federal judiciary for her intellect and writing ability, who is a skillful proponent of a dynamic Constitution and who, like Kagan, would also have added gender diversity to the Court.  This is disappointing and an opportunity lost.

[opebo]

Could someone make a list of Kagan's right wing tendencies, at least when it comes to jurisprudence?  I mean, she does not have that much of a paper trail, and some stuff of not much import perhaps to the contrary, so I would be interested as to the source of all of this "progressive" angst. Thanks!

I think people just hate to see a great man go, only to be replaced by an unknown..  and one who is unlikely to be as left-leaning as he was.

The truth is that among female justices, only Ginsburg was any good, but it is also generally true that people tend to move left on the Court rather than right, so this Kagan might not be all bad.  Once she stops having to worry about popular opinion and politicians and so forth, she may do the 'right' thing.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The articles today make it seem like it's going to be an uphill battle.......we'll see.

[Lunar]

The articles today make it seem like it's going to be an uphill battle.......we'll see.

From Mike Allen to my email inbox today:

Good Tuesday morning. PLAYBOOK FORECAST: Elena Kagan will be confirmed with 65 votes -- 3 fewer than Justice Sotomayor, and 4 more than Kagan got for solicitor general last year. Here's the math, from someone smarter than us (we welcome your quibbles/rebuttals): For solicitor general, Kagan got 61 ayes and 31 nays. Safe to assume if you were one of the 31 Republicans voting nay then, you can't vote aye this time? Probably. Of the 61 ayes, seven were Republicans: Collins, Snowe, Gregg, Hatch, Kyl, Lugar and Coburn. After conservatives flexed their muscles in Utah last weekend (the Bennett effect), it's hard to see Coburn, Hatch or Kyl voting for her this time. So that would theoretically put her at 58. But Specter voted no, and could now be expected to vote yes. So that's 59. Four Democrats missed the vote. Of these, Boxer, Klobuchar, and Murray would be yes votes. So that's 62. The fourth missing Democrat was Kennedy. His successor, Brown, might be gettable. (Is the Massachusetts senator really going to vote against the Harvard Law dean?) So that'd be 63. And Franken was not seated yet last time, but would be a yes now. So 64. Three Republicans did not vote: Cochran, Ensign and Graham. Of these, Graham is gettable, but it would be tough to envision either of the other two Republicans voting for her. So that puts her at 65. That's with every Democrat (including Ben Nelson) voting yes, as well as the two Maine-iacs, Scott Brown, Judd Gregg, Lugar and Graham. Roll call on Kagan for solicitor general

[??????????]

Well the media won't question Obama, so no worries there.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Could someone make a list of Kagan's right wing tendencies, at least when it comes to jurisprudence?  I mean, she does not have that much of a paper trail, and some stuff of not much import perhaps to the contrary, so I would be interested as to the source of all of this "progressive" angst. Thanks!

I think people just hate to see a great man go, only to be replaced by an unknown..  and one who is unlikely to be as left-leaning as he was.

The truth is that among female justices, only Ginsburg was any good, but it is also generally true that people tend to move left on the Court rather than right, so this Kagan might not be all bad.  Once she stops having to worry about popular opinion and politicians and so forth, she may do the 'right' thing.

True and despite progressive concerns about Sotomayor she turned out pretty decent too.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Could someone make a list of Kagan's right wing tendencies, at least when it comes to jurisprudence?  I mean, she does not have that much of a paper trail, and some stuff of not much import perhaps to the contrary, so I would be interested as to the source of all of this "progressive" angst. Thanks!

I think people just hate to see a great man go, only to be replaced by an unknown..  and one who is unlikely to be as left-leaning as he was.

The truth is that among female justices, only Ginsburg was any good, but it is also generally true that people tend to move left on the Court rather than right, so this Kagan might not be all bad.  Once she stops having to worry about popular opinion and politicians and so forth, she may do the 'right' thing.

True and despite progressive concerns about Sotomayor she turned out pretty decent too.

There weren't any particular progressive concerns about Sotomayor. She was a well-known quantity with a clear record and a lot of people ready to vouch for her liberal credentials.

Kagan on the other hand has nothing to show but the assurances of her pals from academia and the Democratic party. Even Sheldon Whitehouse said that he hopes to learn some things about her judicial philosophy during the confirmation hearings.  

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wait... Obama nominated a conservative to replace a liberal in the Sureme court ?!?

WHAT... THE... F-CK ?

It was already clear that Obama is a useless moderate hero. What a waste. We could have had someone center-left elected in 2008, but we wasted it on this Goldman Sacs fan-boy.

Obama was one of the most liberal Senators, and IMO he tsill has reasonably progressive views. the real problem is that he is continuously trying to reach a compromise with republicans, and has still  not understood that they were just interested in uselessly ruining all his initiatives. Untill he will try to convince nutjobs that he is right instead of kicking them in the ass, he will fail everything he does.

[J. J.]

The truth is that among female justices, only Ginsburg was any good, but it is also generally true that people tend to move left on the Court rather than right, so this Kagan might not be all bad.  Once she stops having to worry about popular opinion and politicians and so forth, she may do the 'right' thing.

Ever here Byron White?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Here is an interesting analysis about Kagan and her career and why the best adjective to describe her choice is "depressing"
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/the-purity-of-her-careerism.html

And a hilarious footnote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/the-wisdom-of-age.html

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well the media won't question Obama, so no worries there.

Then you don't watch. Anything. After watching Countdown and Maddow last night I got plenty of anti-Kagan opinion.