HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Greenwald slams Elena Kag...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 08:30 AM

 

Greenwald slams Elena Kagan's vote on Medicaid expansion

Greenwald: (July 7th, 2012):

During the debate over Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination, those of us who opposed her selection argued that there was a substantial risk that she would join with the Court’s four right-wing Justices more often than her predecessor, John Paul Stevens, did, and more often than other potential nominees (such as Diane Wood) would, and thus have the effect of actually moving the Court to the right (using “left” and “right” here in its conventional sense). The argument was not that she would be a Scalia clone; it was that her deliberate lack of a public record on judicial philosophy, combined with the isolated glimpses into her worldview that were available, made this an unnecessarily risky choice to replace Stevens, who had become the leader of the “liberal” bloc.

Particularly since she has so often recused herself on key cases, the record is still too incomplete to permit either side of this debate to claim vindication. There have, however, been several cases in which Kagan has joined with the Court’s Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Roberts bloc in important areas, including her support for the narrowing of Miranda rights (the stalwart protection of which has long been a crown jewel of liberal jurisprudence) as well as her denial of review of disturbing death penalty sentences and an oppressive free speech ruling. In each of those cases, President Obama’s other Court appointee, Sonia Sotomayor (whose nomination I enthusiastically defended), as well as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were on the opposite side from Kagan.

The Supreme Court’s health care ruling two weeks ago provides perhaps the most potent example yet justifying these concerns about Kagan. Although it was John Roberts’ ideological apostasy that has received the most attention, Kagan joined with the Court’s five right-wing Justices (as well as Stephen Breyer) to strike down one of the most important provisions of the bill — its Medicaid expansion program — on the ground that it was unconstitutionally coercive of the states (by threatening states with a loss of benefits for non-participation); on that issue, it was Sotomayor and Ginsburg in dissent.


More: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/07/kagans_medicaid_vote/

106 replies, 9864 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 106 replies Author Time Post
Reply Greenwald slams Elena Kagan's vote on Medicaid expansion (Original post)
Marzupialis Jul 2012 OP
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #1
TownDrunk2 Jul 2012 #10
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #12
smokey nj Jul 2012 #13
stockholmer Jul 2012 #20
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #54
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #100
stockholmer Jul 2012 #15
TownDrunk2 Jul 2012 #19
stockholmer Jul 2012 #23
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #101
stockholmer Jul 2012 #104
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #105
Marzupialis Jul 2012 #86
stockholmer Jul 2012 #17
yardwork Jul 2012 #21
dionysus Jul 2012 #48
LineLineLineReply .
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #52
dionysus Jul 2012 #55
DevonRex Jul 2012 #56
dionysus Jul 2012 #84
DevonRex Jul 2012 #85
inna Jul 2012 #91
dionysus Jul 2012 #92
whatchamacallit Jul 2012 #62
MNBrewer Jul 2012 #63
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #99
Bluenorthwest Jul 2012 #2
vaberella Jul 2012 #4
rhett o rick Jul 2012 #8
nashville_brook Jul 2012 #68
vaberella Jul 2012 #3
Mass Jul 2012 #5
Sirveri Jul 2012 #96
rateyes Jul 2012 #16
yardwork Jul 2012 #22
girl gone mad Jul 2012 #81
SidDithers Jul 2012 #6
rhett o rick Jul 2012 #7
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #9
Oilwellian Jul 2012 #11
yardwork Jul 2012 #25
heaven05 Jul 2012 #49
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #40
Vattel Jul 2012 #44
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #103
kemah Jul 2012 #14
brentspeak Jul 2012 #18
stockholmer Jul 2012 #24
byeya Jul 2012 #27
ProSense Jul 2012 #28
former9thward Jul 2012 #79
ProSense Jul 2012 #90
former9thward Jul 2012 #93
ProSense Jul 2012 #94
former9thward Jul 2012 #97
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #35
nashville_brook Jul 2012 #70
bornskeptic Jul 2012 #80
woo me with science Jul 2012 #102
xchrom Jul 2012 #26
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #29
SidDithers Jul 2012 #30
Marr Jul 2012 #33
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #34
Marr Jul 2012 #37
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #39
Demit Jul 2012 #60
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #72
inna Jul 2012 #87
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #106
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #50
treestar Jul 2012 #38
Vattel Jul 2012 #46
girl gone mad Jul 2012 #82
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2012 #88
inna Jul 2012 #98
ProSense Jul 2012 #31
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #32
ProSense Jul 2012 #36
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #47
ProSense Jul 2012 #53
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #57
ProSense Jul 2012 #73
Overseas Jul 2012 #41
ProSense Jul 2012 #42
DirkGently Jul 2012 #43
Poll_Blind Jul 2012 #45
ProSense Jul 2012 #51
SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #58
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #59
SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #61
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #64
SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #65
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #69
ProSense Jul 2012 #75
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #76
ProSense Jul 2012 #78
SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #77
Demit Jul 2012 #66
SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #67
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #71
ProSense Jul 2012 #74
girl gone mad Jul 2012 #83
bvar22 Jul 2012 #89
Chan790 Jul 2012 #95

Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 08:34 AM

1. DOUCHEWALD!!!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:27 AM

10. how about not-a-democrat-apologetic-drone

 

Notice also, how the right side bars are only MSNBC "anchors" and none from Current TV whose anchors are much more liberal ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TownDrunk2 (Reply #10)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:30 AM

12. How about an anti-Obama ASSHOLE who does nothing but anti-Obama screeds like Limbaugh?

 

Current TV can suck it. I stopped watching it the day they hired that other douchebag, Cenk Uygur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #12)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:34 AM

13. Greenwald is on the President's side regarding Medicaid expansion. Elena Kagan is not.

That's the point of the article. You should read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #12)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:58 AM

20. You didn't even read the article, or else you would not have revealed your pavlovian vitriol

 

for Greenwald and Uygur, who are actually leftist-progressive and lovers of civil liberties, not simply 'party-first' hacks, flacks, or shills.



"Elizabeth Warren, asked about the Medicaid ruling last week, said “she found it ‘pretty shocking’ that seven justices would create a “new limitation on congressional power to condition spending” and ”rolled her eyes when it is mentioned that her former colleague Elena Kagan was one of those seven.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #20)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:41 AM

54. "pavlovian vitriol" = short, to the point, and exactly right

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 01:06 PM

100. I think you're lost. Greenwald was defending the President's HC policy

on Medicaid. Maybe you should go read it all again. Knee-jerk reactions to messengers tend to lose people credibility, especially when they are so very wrong.

Unless of course, as I stated above, you, like the five right wing justices, oppose the President's HC program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TownDrunk2 (Reply #10)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:50 AM

15. how about you read an article before knee-jerking?

 



"Elizabeth Warren, asked about the Medicaid ruling last week, said “she found it ‘pretty shocking’ that seven justices would create a “new limitation on congressional power to condition spending” and ”rolled her eyes when it is mentioned that her former colleague Elena Kagan was one of those seven.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #15)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:57 AM

19. I was replying to the posting of "DOUCHEWALD" in reference to Glenn Greenwald NOT to the article

 

If you had paid attention you'd have noticed that - have a nice day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TownDrunk2 (Reply #19)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:02 AM

23. so was I. Just because a person is a leftist-progressive and a fierce champion of civil

 

liberties does NOT make them a DOUCHEWALD if their concerns run into the wall of left-cover shaded corporate power that is unfortunately oh too prevalent in the Democratic party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #23)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 01:09 PM

101. You oppose the President's expansion of Medicaid also then?

I support that strongly and I'm sure he was not happy that one of his own nominees joined the Right Wing justices against him.

But hey, if you don't like Obama's policies, that's your choice. This part of the bill is the part that would provide the most help to those who cannot afford HC. Too bad to see Democrats here oppose it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #101)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 03:52 PM

104. I support the intent, but the bill, I fear is going to backfire on certain parts and be used as an

 

excuse by the corporate right to falsely accuse the government of trying to run 'socialized medicine' (which is a blatant RW lie) and thus further push off the only possible solution- single-payer with the for-profit motive utterly stripped away.

Bit by bit the minutiae of application (the good parts that we like) will be whittled away legislatively, or litigated away in court. The insurance and health care lobbyists had tremendous input into the crafting of the ACA, so they damn well know where the weak points are for their hyena-like attacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #104)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 04:18 PM

105. Oops, my apologies, my comment was intended for

Garrohaurus who seems to be very confused about Greenwald's position on this part of the bill.

I agree with most of what you are saying. There are far too many loopholes which as we all know, were probably intentional, since the Insurance Industry wrote the bill.

I am for Single Payer and hope that the fight continues towards that goal.

However, I see people here who claim to support the President's bill, slamming Greenwald who is actually supporting the Medicaid expansion part of the bill, which was one of the good things about the bill. The knee-jerk reaction is stunning to be honest. It totally discredits them imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TownDrunk2 (Reply #19)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 04:13 PM

86. Translation: "I resorted to an ad-hominem attack..."

 

instead of reading and addressing the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:53 AM

17. try reading the article first before droning on with your talking point (I'm being generous with the

 

term 'talking point', btw)



"Elizabeth Warren, asked about the Medicaid ruling last week, said “she found it ‘pretty shocking’ that seven justices would create a “new limitation on congressional power to condition spending” and ”rolled her eyes when it is mentioned that her former colleague Elena Kagan was one of those seven.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:00 AM

21. Well, that's persuasive. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:34 AM

48. that'll be another 50 cents usage fee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #48)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:37 AM

52. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #52)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:41 AM

55. I'ma place a glass jar over on the counter. every time you say douchewald i want 50 cents in there.

NO PENNIES.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #55)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:03 PM

56. Is there a jar shortage or something?

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. I'll go in the penalty box by myself and feel shame now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #56)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 03:05 PM

84. and where have we been, hmm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #84)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 03:28 PM

85. I keep getting sent to the penalty box

for some reason. I didn't mean to knock out that guy's teeth. Honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #48)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 05:15 PM

91. oh yeah, he got that from you, didn't he?

figures.

except that -didn't you use to say "High Lord Douchenozzle", or some such nonsense?...

(how are those royalties working out for you, btw? )




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inna (Reply #91)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 06:02 PM

92. i almost got enough to buy a six pack from this thread alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #1)


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:25 PM

63. SO you disagree with Greenwald that the Medicaid expansion should NOT have been struck down?

Or is it just because Glenn Greenwald took a position, you must reflexively take the opposite opinion (and throw in some ad hominem for good measure)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 01:04 PM

99. I take it you oppose the Medicaid expansion and agree with the five Right Wing

SC Justices. Good to know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 08:50 AM

2. Kagan's decision to side with the Wingers did great harm to the goal of insuring more people

It is that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:04 AM

4. How? They upheld the law and have no power to change it.

So she sided on this issue, the law still stands as is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:20 AM

8. Huh? They changed the law by accepting parts and voting down parts. The part discussed by the OP

was voted down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:40 PM

68. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:02 AM

3. They didn't strike it down. They had a dissenting opinion.

The issue was not on medicaid expansion but the mandate as a tax. They can say what they want on any other aspect of the law, but the law remains. I don't see this as a clear view of her being against something liberal more so sharing an opinion that she has the right to share on the health care bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:10 AM

5. The court struck down the penalty on the states that do not implement the Medicaid expansion.

State can now refuse to implement it without penalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #5)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 08:06 PM

96. That's not true. If they refuse they lose the additional funding ACA would provide.

The issue here is that if they refused to comply they would lose ALL of their federal funding, completely defunding the state medicaid program and tossing people who were in that system into the streets. Do you really want to give right wing governors ammo to demolish their state medicaid system and attack the poor even more?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:52 AM

16. The medicaid expansion was made optional without penalty. This time Greewald

is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:01 AM

22. There was more than one law contained in this ruling. The justices struck down the Medicaid rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 02:49 PM

81. You're making some really uninformed comments in this thread.

Maybe you should read up on the decision before posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:12 AM

6. I've been waiting to see if Greenwald would comment on the ACA ruling...

and this is what he writes about. Not the survival of ACA and the millions of people who will have now have access to health care, but the fact that Kagan, in a 7-2 decision, voted with the court's conservative justices.

Breyer and Stevens also voted with the conservatives, but it's Kagan's vote that Greenwald seizes on. Now, why would that be?

Oh yeah, it's because Kagan was an Obama appointment.

Greenwald. What a clown.

Sid

Edit: That should be Kennedy, not Stevens. And I've got a mental block on Kagan, and always incorrectly spell it with an "e".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:19 AM

7. So you approve of Justice Kagen's vote? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:21 AM

9. He's going after Kagan the way teabaggers go after Roberts

 

Douchewald is a dick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:29 AM

11. So was Sotomayor

And Greenwald LOVES her. LOL

The point of Greenwald's piece is millions more may NOT have access to health care BECAUSE of Kagan's vote. Haven't you heard some of the states throwing a tantrum and saying they won't participate in the Medicaid expansion part of the Bill? Rather than attacking the messenger, why aren't you upset that Kagan, who was appointed by President Obama, imperils a key piece of his ACA Bill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:06 AM

25. The point of his column is that Kagan sided with the right wing justices to remove Medicaid

protection from potentially millions of people. Many conservative states have already stated, in the wake of the ACA ruling, that they will be seizing the opportunity afforded by the Court in this decision to refuse to extend Medicaid coverage. While the Court approved ACA as a whole they dealt a serious blow to the most vulnerable population - the Medicaid eligible. The fact that Elena Kagan, a recent SC appointee who was opposed by many on the left for exactly this reason, voted with Scalia and Co. on this is news.

Breyer was appointed long ago. We weren't talking about him a couple of years ago. Stevens is no longer on the Court. Kagan replaced him. Kagan was the one who replaced the most liberal justice. Her appointment has indeed moved the Court to the right, just as Greenwald says. You may not agree with him on much else, but he is literally and factually correct on this.

And you spelled her name wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:34 AM

49. another

another hurtful Obama compromise. I wonder if he and his key advisers are kicking each other in the butt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:12 AM

40. Greenwald's own words shows he referred to both Kagan's and Breyer's votes on the Medicaid issue.

 

Kagan joined with the Court’s five right-wing Justices (as well as Stephen Breyer) to strike down one of the most important provisions of the bill — its Medicaid expansion program

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:31 AM

44. We get it, you want Greenwald to be a cheerleader, not a critic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 02:03 PM

103. Are you saying Americans should not have access to information that is of the utmost

importance to them because, well because why?

Greenwald is supporting the President. Most of us here in the US expected that his own nominee to the SC would also have supported him, especially on this most important part of the HC Bill.

Of course he pointed out her vote, as no one ever knows what Kennedy will do, often voting with the Right Wingers, so no surprise when he does.

But Kagan was an Obama nominee and most definitely her defection is newsworthy, as was the defection of Souter when it occurred.

What point are you trying to make here? Whatever it is, it is not at all clear. Are you opposing the Medicaid Expansion and supporting the Right Wing justices, or are you saying that journalists should keep quiet on certain issues for political purposes? If it's the latter, you might want to read the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. If it's the former, why on earth would you be supporting the possible denial of Medicaid to the poorest Americans, one of the best parts of the President's bill?

Iow, I have no clue what your point is, so could you please explain it?

To Progressive Democrats in this country, Kagan's vote was a huge disappointment, and no, we did not need Greenwald to tell us about it. In case you are not aware, that information is available to the public and was already known, and commented here in great detail, in RL and elsewhere.

Sorry, but our HC is a very, very important topic here in the US and NOT available to play political games with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:35 AM

14. How would Greenwald feel if one of the liberal justices spouse received money for supporting ACA

Thomas wife, Gina, well you know the rest of the story.
Thomas hid his wife's income for several years and when caught, He said, "My Bad"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:54 AM

18. Obama appointed Kagan because she was a reliable corporate stooge

Good summation of this quintessential a$$-kisser's career:



http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-will-be-the-most-unqualified-justice-in-history/

Elena Kagan Will Be The Most Unqualified Justice In History

By: bmaz Monday May 10, 2010 7:24 am

snip

One of the most laughable memes floated by Kagan’s inner circle of friends and sycophants is that she is some sort of wondrous uniter who could single handedly suave Anthony Kennedy to her side like some kind of SCOTUS Svengali. First off, this is the biggest pile of bull manure I have ever experienced; not to mention Kennedy is not so young anymore and may not be around so long. Oh, also, there is less than zero evidence the wet behind the ears rookie on the Supreme bench ever does squat along the lines people are suggesting as far as “persuasion” they glibly think Kagan can pull off.

The narrative being pitched about Kagan is the most contrived I have ever heard on a Supreme Court nominee. She has little record of legal accomplishment in any area actually in the active legal profession (although she apparently is very good at schmoozing monied corporations and benefactors of the Ivy League elite). None. She had never even set foot into a courtroom on behalf of a client, much less as a judge on a case in controversy, prior to being named Solicitor General. Her resume of written work is about the equivalent of an aggressive law school student on the top of their school’s law review; maybe less.

Kagan’s record as Solicitor General is shaky, at best (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/15/kagan_as_solictor_general): she wrote a weak amicus brief in Mohawk Industries, was unfocused on her oral argument of Citizens United, stepped in deep manure during the oral argument in Holder v. HLP when she said the material support criminal charge should be applied to attorneys representing disadvantaged clients, and no less than the Supreme Court themselves, in an 8-1 decision in US v. Stevens, basically declared her briefing and argument in said case to be laughably ill conceived, wrongheaded and misguided. Kagan herself admits she is so inexperienced she is like a deer in headlights before the Supreme Court. This is the woman who is going to be the great liberal persuader? Please; what a patently absurd contention.

Elena Kagan would be the most unqualified nominee in the history of the Supreme Court; she makes Harriet Miers look like William O. Douglas. Don’t believe me? Take a look at Miers’ curriculum vitae and slate of authored works; then think about the emptiness of Kagan’s written work and nature of her service. Both are clearly accomplished women, but it is hard to see how Kagan is superior to Miers, and Miers was flamed universally across the political spectrum as being an absurd nominee. How can Elena Kagan now be seen as superior?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:05 AM

24. big thumbs up

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:20 AM

27. You got that right. Kagan is another Democratic Whizzer White

 

and she'll be around forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:23 AM

28. You know

"Elena Kagan Will Be The Most Unqualified Justice In History"

...this is absolute bullshit! Kagan has several excellent votes, including upholding the health care law.

I mean, Clarence Thomas is a seat warmer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 01:17 PM

79. She did not vote to uphold it. That is the point.

She voted to reject the provision in the law which penalized states for not expanding Medicaid. In fact some states are using the ruling to cut their medicaid programs. Maine is dropping 20,000 people off.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303684004577511103843368654.html?KEYWORDS=states+interpret+ruling+to+cut+medicaid+now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #79)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 05:11 PM

90. No

"She did not vote to uphold it. That is the point."

...the point is exactly what I said it was.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002868210

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #90)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 06:18 PM

93. Only two Justices voted to uphold the entire law.

Ginsberg and Sotomayor. The expansion of Medicaid was one of the most important sections of the law. You can shout it was upheld but that does not make it true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #93)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 06:24 PM

94. So

"Only two Justices voted to uphold the entire law. Ginsberg and Sotomayor."

...the final, and key decision, was 2-7?

I mean, you can hang onto the Medicaid decision, but without Kagan's vote on the final decision, everything else would be moot.

The decision was 5-4. See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=913900

Period!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #94)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:46 PM

97. You use the term "final decision" as if that overruled everything else.

There was no final decision. There were really only two sections of the law being contested. The mandate and the Medicaid expansion. The mandate, a gift to the insurance companies, was upheld 5-4. Expanding Medicaid, which was a step towards single payer, was rejected 7-2. As I linked in an earlier post some states, such as Maine, are using the decision to drop Medicaid recipients. So in those cases the number covered by insurance will be less after the decision than before. Some victory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:02 AM

35. Exactly. Thanks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:44 PM

70. thanks for posting this -- good reminder!

we're left hoping that in the course of her lifetime appointment she'll mature beyond corporate sycophancy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 02:36 PM

80. Th claim that Miers was more qualified than Kagan may be the stupidest thing I've ever seen here.

1. Elena Kagan was a Circuit Court clerk.
2. Elena Kagan was a Supreme Court clerk (for Thurgood Marshall).
3. Elena Kagan was a law professor at the University of Chicago.
4. Elena Kagan was a full Professor at Harvard Law School
5. Elena Kagan is the author of a number of acclaimed scholarly articles on Constitutional issues, and is one of the foremost authorities in the country on administrative law.
6. Elena Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law School.
7. Elena Kagan was Solicitor General of the United States.
She was not my first choice for the seat. I would have preferred Kathleen Sullivan or Pam Karlan, or perhaps Diane Wood. That does not change the fact that Kagan is one of the most qualified Supreme Court nominees in many years.

1. Harriet Miers was a tort lawyer and later head of a law firm which coughed up $20 million to settle a lawsuit in which it was accused of fraudulent activities..
2. Harriet Miers was the president's personal attorney.
When did those start being qualifications for the Supreme Court? The post above brags on her publications, but I wasn't aware that she had ever published anything. Where do we find these publications - The National Review?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #18)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 01:16 PM

102. The truth hurts, but until you acknowledge it, you cannot fix it.

We are looking at another four years of corporate enabling and construction of the corporate, authoritarian state even with the better of the two options we are given in 2012. This is why voting is not enough anymore. The Supreme Court is moving rightward EVEN under a Democratic administration.


Occupy. Pressure Democrats to move leftward. Get the corporate money out of politics. We are in serious, serious trouble in this nation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=889484

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:09 AM

26. Du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:27 AM

29. Meh, justices are supposed to rule on constitutionality

Justice Kagen, along with six other justices, believed it was unconstitutional to offer states a choice that wasn't really a choice at all.

We consistently lambaste conservative judges that rule based on ideology, and then lambaste a liberal judge when she doesn't? Am I the only one that sees that as hypocrisy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #29)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:35 AM

30. No...

but to some around here, St. Glenn's pronouncements are words from on high.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:00 AM

33. And to some, they're to be dismissed out of hand with a shout of "DOUCEHWALD".

I see a lot more of the sort I describe than what you describe. It's intellectually lazy group think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #33)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:01 AM

34. I dismiss anything Douchewald writes out of hand

 

He's earned that level of scorn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #34)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:07 AM

37. Yes, I know-- you make a wonderful argument.

"Douchewald". How could anyone argue with such reasoning?

Do you really think that pavlovian response is anything but embarrassing? You clearly didn't even read the piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #37)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:10 AM

39. And I won't read the piece. Douchewald is no different from Limbaugh. He is an enemy. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #34)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:12 PM

60. Which makes your posts, on whatever Greenwald is writing about, completely without merit.

And a waste of space. And intellectually lazy. And childish. This forum is better than that, with members who prefer reason-supported argument. There is a blog that encourages your kind of blinkered devotion and declaring of people who don't agree with you 'enemies'. You should go there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demit (Reply #60)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:49 PM

72. I'm sick of making arguments about Douchewald, Uygur, Hamsher, and other idiots on the left.

 

So the simplest thing to do is roll my eyes at what they write.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #72)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 04:58 PM

87. lol, incredibly ignorant series of posts there, Garro


- but hey, thanks for being (mildly) entertaining!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #34)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 04:23 PM

106. Which is why your own

contributions to this discussion will be mostly dismissed. How embarrassing to admit, that you would oppose facts simply because you don't like the author of the facts. I sure hope you are not in any way representative of the Dem Party. This seems to me to be a quality we criticized vehemently when displayed on the Far Right.

Greenwald is supporting the President's expansion of Medicaid, which was in fact a good part of the bill.

I have asked you already, do you oppose the President on the Expansion of Medicaid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #33)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:36 AM

50. Absolutely.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #29)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:10 AM

38. +1

People need to look at the reasons she gives in her decision, at least. Just because we like a thing doesn't mean it is constitutional, which goes for right wingers, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #38)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:33 AM

46. I agree!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #29)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 02:53 PM

82. And yet it's constitutional to offer people a choice that isn't really a choice at all?

The ruling was corporatist garbage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #82)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 05:04 PM

88. The ruling in question, Medicaid expansion, had nothing to do with corporations

You're free to dislike the ruling, but you should at least have a clue about what it is and isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #88)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 01:00 PM

98. Your condescension is misplaced and reflects poorly on you - just so you know, nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:37 AM

31. I find this

During the debate over Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination, those of us who opposed her selection argued that there was a substantial risk that she would join with the Court’s four right-wing Justices more often than her predecessor, John Paul Stevens, did, and more often than other potential nominees (such as Diane Wood) would, and thus have the effect of actually moving the Court to the right (using “left” and “right” here in its conventional sense). The argument was not that she would be a Scalia clone; it was that her deliberate lack of a public record on judicial philosophy, combined with the isolated glimpses into her worldview that were available, made this an unnecessarily risky choice to replace Stevens, who had become the leader of the “liberal” bloc.

...to be so ironic and a bit disingenuous. Or is it hypocritical? I mean, Greenwald supports Citizens United. He does not side with the Court's "liberal bloc."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #31)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:59 AM

32. Did you know that the "right-wing" ACLU has the same position as Greenwald?

 

Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.

It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.

Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united


Should we trash the ACLU as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:04 AM

36. Yes, and

I completely disagree with the ACLU. I mean, it's non-partisan, and I sometimes don't agree with them.

Point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #36)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:33 AM

47. If you need an explanation, it is commonly understood that the ACLU is about as far left as any

 

organization that can be found. It is so far left that it will defend Constitutional principles even when doing so results in an incidental benefit to persons that those on the left can find to be repugnant. It defends Constitutional principles, not individuals. The organization does not trash others based upon whether they are unpopular or espouse views that others on the left may disagree with.

Greenwald's position on the Citizens United case is the same as the ACLU's. On this, his liberal position is as bona fide as the ACLU's.

But you disregard his analysis of Kagan, you trash him, and you do so while indicating that his position on the Citizens United case (which is totally irrelevant to his analysis of Kagan's actions re Medicaid) are not sufficient liberal for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #47)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:38 AM

53. So

"It is so far left that it will defend Constitutional principles even when doing so results in an incidental benefit to persons that those on the left can find to be repugnant."

...are you saying that Greenwald and the ACLU are "so far left" in siding with the RW Justices on Citizens United?

Who knew?

Absurd!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #53)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:08 PM

57. No. Try to be logical. My words speak for themselves. They mean exactly what they say.

 

Good thinking, clear thinking, does not involve the use of fallacies such as the ad hominem fallacy.

As an example:
If someone was trying to squelch your free speech rights in a serious way and based, for example of your repetitive use of an ad hominem fallacy, the ACLU might even defend your use of that fallacy or others. If the ACLU did so, they would be defending the principle of free speech. They would not be siding with an ad hominem fallacy.

If ad hominem fallacies work for you, go for it. Their usage will save you a lot of time. You won't have to spend as much time thinking based upon logic, evidence, and reasoning. And if your expression of vitriol makes you feel good, go for that as well.

You say, with a rhetorical question, "...are you saying that Greenwald and the ACLU are "so far left" in siding with the RW Justices on Citizens United?" The answer is obviously no. Greenwald and the ACLU did not side with the RW Justices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #57)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:52 PM

73. Nice

You say, with a rhetorical question, "...are you saying that Greenwald and the ACLU are "so far left" in siding with the RW Justices on Citizens United?" The answer is obviously no. Greenwald and the ACLU did not side with the RW Justices.


...try. They took the same position as the RW Justices, the very thing that Greenwald is now using to lambaste Kagan.

I mean, the most important vote she took on health care was upholding the law. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:17 AM

41. K&R. So sad Kagan felt it was "too punitive" to prioritize healthcare for the destitute.

I shared Greenwald's reservations about Kagan. Adding a threat of loss of benefits to the Medicaid funding was important in this current climate of having so many GOP storm troop governors in charge. Without it we can see that some of them are saying they will refuse the Medicaid funding.

We can only hope that the voters in those right wingers' states will cast them out of office for putting politics above caring for the poor.

I do wish President Obama had put a stronger liberal than Kagan onto the court to balance out the very activist right wingers his predecessors appointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:23 AM

42. "UPDATE: Elizabeth Warren, asked about the Medicaid ruling last week...

UPDATE: Elizabeth Warren, asked about the Medicaid ruling last week, said “she found it ‘pretty shocking’ that seven justices would create a “new limitation on congressional power to condition spending” and ”roll her eyes when it is mentioned that her former colleague Elena Kagan was one of those seven.” Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick asserts that “liberals have been strangely silent” about Kagan’s vote because liberals generally expect more betrayals from Supreme Court Justices than conservatives do and have a less clear idea of what to expect from Justices, but she argues that liberals are perhaps too indifferent to Court appointees (“instead of smugly chuckling at the ways conservatives have turned on their chief justice this week, liberals might also want to take a page from their playbook. The courts matter. How we talk about the courts matters. And who is on the courts matters as well”).

From the OP article, that's some hilarious stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:26 AM

43. KNR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:32 AM

45. Blast from the past: Kagan on Scalia: ""He's made a huntress out of me!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002518685

Did she ever get a chance to bag that antelope? I must say, the thought of she and Scalia with one foot each on a twitching beast, covered in blood, would make a perfect poster for the kind of "bipartisanship" we have nowdays.

"To the right, Left!"



PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #45)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:36 AM

51. Do you

think that Greenwald will attack her if she votes against Citizen United at some point?

All we need is one more justice for the "liberal bloc."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:09 PM

58. I don't know it kind of seems kind of disingenuous

and like one has an agenda to ONLY go after Kagan. What about Breyer?
There are two differences between Breyer and Kagan.
Breyer was appointed by Clinton and Kagan by Obama.
BOTH Breyer and Kagan held that Medicaid expansion be limited.

I'm not sure what the agenda is, but if you were really unhappy about that ruling and you were on the liberal side of the isle, you would go after BOTH liberal justices NOT JUST ONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #58)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:11 PM

59. Greenwald's own words referred to both:

 

Kagan joined with the Court’s five right-wing Justices (as well as Stephen Breyer) to strike down one of the most important provisions of the bill — its Medicaid expansion program

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #59)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:14 PM

61. He only acknowledged the vote

He didn't go after him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #61)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:28 PM

64. His words refer to both.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #64)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:33 PM

65. Not at all

The title of the article is
Kagan’s Medicaid vote


He does NOT go after Breyer, he mentioned his name only as an acknowledgement on the vote. The entire article is going after Kagan.
I still stand by what I said, it is disingenuous and seems like Greenwald has an agenda.

His words do NOT refer to both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #65)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:44 PM

69. If you are unhappy with the Greenwald's headline, and if you truly want to know why

 

Greenwald "went after Kagan" but not Breyer (and if you disregard the fact that Greenwald actually referred to Breyer in his analysis), you might want to consider both (1) Greenwald's headline and (2) Greenwald's subhead for the analysis:
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/07/kagans_medicaid_vote/

Can you claim that Breyer has sided with the right-wing faction of the Supreme Court as often as Kagan? If so, then maybe there is an argument that both should be criticized for doing so.

If not, then maybe there is a logical reason for distinguishing the two and placing some emphasis on Kagan's actions.

Greenwald's subhead clearly indicates:
The Obama Court appointee once again sides with the right-wing faction in an important ruling


You want Greenwald to criticize Kagan and Breyer equally? How about showing that Breyer and Kagan equally joined in supporting the right-wing faction of the Supreme Court?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #69)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:56 PM

75. Maybe you

Can you claim that Breyer has sided with the right-wing faction of the Supreme Court as often as Kagan? If so, then maybe there is an argument that both should be criticized for doing so.

...should actually read what Greenwald wrote, as convoluted as it is.

This is more than an isolated instance. In Kagan’s short time on the Court, it’s beginning to look like a trend. She’s issued some impressive (dissenting) opinions and has, more often than not, been a reliable vote with the “liberal” wing of the Court (neither of which is at all surprising). But her propensity to join with the Scalia-led bloc in criminal justice cases, along with this latest ruling, seems a harbinger of things to come. That’s particularly true since one of the areas of greatest concern raised by her appointment — her views on broad theories of executive power in the national security and Terrorism context — has yet to be tested because she has recused herself from the bulk of cases in that area due to her advocacy for Obama’s expansive theories when she served as his Solicitor General (recusals which resulted in several right-wing, pro-government rulings being upheld).

His focus on Kagan and not Breyer smacks of an agenda, and there it is. He's a tool, pure and simple. He's using the Medicaid vote, which he likely cares nothing about, as cover for his attacks on Obama's national security policy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #75)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:59 PM

76. Did you read the words from your own posting? Did you understand them?

 

But her propensity to join with the Scalia-led bloc in criminal justice cases, along with this latest ruling, seems a harbinger of things to come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #76)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 01:05 PM

78. Did you

"Did you read the words from your own posting? Did you understand them?"

...see any examples or a bullshit segue after the "but"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #69)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 01:01 PM

77. Ok

I refer, of course, to Justice Elena Kagan.

Kagan voted for portions of Chief Justice John Roberts’s controlling opinion declaring unconstitutional a major provision in President Barack Obama’s health care law, namely the Medicaid expansion.

While Roberts has been denounced by conservatives as an ideological heretic and turncoat for siding with liberals to uphold the individual mandate in the law, Kagan’s conclusion that the law’s Medicaid expansion was unconstitutionally coercive toward the states has triggered no similar wave of condemnation of her by liberals.

The absence of public outrage toward Kagan is particularly notable since she wasn’t parting company just with her liberal ideological counterparts, but with the president who appointed her to the court and with the administration she served as Solicitor General immediately prior to taking the bench.


Again he doesn't go after Breyer.

He admits, however

Re: Kagan
She’s issued some impressive (dissenting) opinions and has, more often than not, been a reliable vote with the “liberal” wing of the Court (neither of which is at all surprising).



http://www.salon.com/2012/07/07/kagans_medicaid_vote/

I acknowledge your opinion, I just don't happen to agree with it. Time will tell if he goes after Breyer as well. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #58)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:33 PM

66. I think his point was that Kagan was a blank slate when she came in, & now we are seeing how

conservative she is turning out to be. He says it's not completely clear yet, but he does give his reasons for why, so far, it's working out the way he was afraid of. This essay of his was about Kagan. Perhaps next he'll write a piece examining Breyer's vote on this decision. Breyer has a long record of voting reliably liberal, and maybe Greenwald will muse on why exactly he voted with the conservatives this time. But this piece was about a new justice, who has no record of decisions, and that is the piece he was interested in writing.

It never ceases to amuse me when writers are criticized for writing what they wanted to write about, and not writing a piece instead that a reader thinks they should have written.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demit (Reply #66)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:39 PM

67. IF he does write about Breyer

that will help rectify the image of the way it looks now.

It's just odd that Greenwald represents himself to be on the liberal side and would only go after one Liberal Justice for siding with the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #67)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:47 PM

71. It's not odd at all when Breyer has not equally supported the right-wing faction in the way that

 

Kagan has.

If you believe that Breyer and Kagan have equally supported the right-wing faction, can you show where Breyer has done so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #71)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:53 PM

74. What utter nonsense. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #74)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 02:58 PM

83. Don't you mean utter drivel?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 05:11 PM

89. I must be a bad person...

... because I'm having fun watching the contortionists bend themselves into pretzels trying to defend the indefensible in this thread.

Kagan's decision was not unexpected to those who did their homework on her appointment.
Many were attacked here for pointing out that replacing an unashamed Liberal (John Paul Stevens) with a "Moderate"
moved the overall makeup of the Supreme Court to the Conservative Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marzupialis (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 06:37 PM

95. That's a two-fer shock.

1.) I've never agreed with Glenn Greenwald on anything before. In fact, I've argued that his Salon column should be unwelcome on DU.

2.) That's the most non-libertarian thing I've ever heard from the anti-war libertarian Greenwald.

3.) I'm not shocked that Kagan is Kagan, I opposed her appointment when she was nominated. I think we should be nominating the "great legal scholars" of our era with histories on the important issues of contemplation and wisdom: someone like Nadine Strossen or Larry Lessig. (I'll be irate if Ginsberg dies or retires and he replaces her with someone like his first two nominees. Go big, Barack!) No more moderates who favor corporations and whose key accomplishments are administrative or political; I don't think judicial experience is as important as a great legal mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread