Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Greenwald slams Elena Kagan's vote on Medicaid expansion [View all]
Greenwald: (July 7th, 2012):
During the debate over Elena Kagans Supreme Court nomination, those of us who opposed her selection argued that there was a substantial risk that she would join with the Courts 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 Courts 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 Obamas 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 Courts 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 Courts 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/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
106 replies, 12105 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (32)
ReplyReply to this post
106 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How about an anti-Obama ASSHOLE who does nothing but anti-Obama screeds like Limbaugh?
GarroHorus
Jul 2012
#12
Greenwald is on the President's side regarding Medicaid expansion. Elena Kagan is not.
smokey nj
Jul 2012
#13
You didn't even read the article, or else you would not have revealed your pavlovian vitriol
stockholmer
Jul 2012
#20
I was replying to the posting of "DOUCHEWALD" in reference to Glenn Greenwald NOT to the article
TownDrunk2
Jul 2012
#19
so was I. Just because a person is a leftist-progressive and a fierce champion of civil
stockholmer
Jul 2012
#23
I support the intent, but the bill, I fear is going to backfire on certain parts and be used as an
stockholmer
Jul 2012
#104
try reading the article first before droning on with your talking point (I'm being generous with the
stockholmer
Jul 2012
#17
I'ma place a glass jar over on the counter. every time you say douchewald i want 50 cents in there.
dionysus
Jul 2012
#55
SO you disagree with Greenwald that the Medicaid expansion should NOT have been struck down?
MNBrewer
Jul 2012
#63
I take it you oppose the Medicaid expansion and agree with the five Right Wing
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#99
Kagan's decision to side with the Wingers did great harm to the goal of insuring more people
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2012
#2
Huh? They changed the law by accepting parts and voting down parts. The part discussed by the OP
rhett o rick
Jul 2012
#8
The court struck down the penalty on the states that do not implement the Medicaid expansion.
Mass
Jul 2012
#5
That's not true. If they refuse they lose the additional funding ACA would provide.
Sirveri
Jul 2012
#96
There was more than one law contained in this ruling. The justices struck down the Medicaid rule.
yardwork
Jul 2012
#22
The point of his column is that Kagan sided with the right wing justices to remove Medicaid
yardwork
Jul 2012
#25
Greenwald's own words shows he referred to both Kagan's and Breyer's votes on the Medicaid issue.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#40
Are you saying Americans should not have access to information that is of the utmost
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#103
How would Greenwald feel if one of the liberal justices spouse received money for supporting ACA
kemah
Jul 2012
#14
Th claim that Miers was more qualified than Kagan may be the stupidest thing I've ever seen here.
bornskeptic
Jul 2012
#80
And I won't read the piece. Douchewald is no different from Limbaugh. He is an enemy. n/t
GarroHorus
Jul 2012
#39
Which makes your posts, on whatever Greenwald is writing about, completely without merit.
Demit
Jul 2012
#60
I'm sick of making arguments about Douchewald, Uygur, Hamsher, and other idiots on the left.
GarroHorus
Jul 2012
#72
And yet it's constitutional to offer people a choice that isn't really a choice at all?
girl gone mad
Jul 2012
#82
The ruling in question, Medicaid expansion, had nothing to do with corporations
SickOfTheOnePct
Jul 2012
#88
Did you know that the "right-wing" ACLU has the same position as Greenwald?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#32
If you need an explanation, it is commonly understood that the ACLU is about as far left as any
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#47
No. Try to be logical. My words speak for themselves. They mean exactly what they say.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#57
K&R. So sad Kagan felt it was "too punitive" to prioritize healthcare for the destitute.
Overseas
Jul 2012
#41
If you are unhappy with the Greenwald's headline, and if you truly want to know why
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#69
I think his point was that Kagan was a blank slate when she came in, & now we are seeing how
Demit
Jul 2012
#66
It's not odd at all when Breyer has not equally supported the right-wing faction in the way that
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#71