Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Elena Kagan: identity politics liberal, corporate/executive privilege conservative

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 01:28 AM
Original message
Elena Kagan: identity politics liberal, corporate/executive privilege conservative
Edited on Tue May-11-10 01:54 AM by Hannah Bell
note: title changed because one of the respondents took exception to the original title which was: obama picks kagan for supreme court.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8311559&mesg_id=8311586

In the run-up to the nomination, the White House maneuvered politically in the style which has become the norm for this administration. Three candidates were designated as the semi-official frontrunners: Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland, the most conservative; Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood, the most liberal; and Kagan, presented as the moderate in-between, whose selection would convey Obama’s desire for bipartisan consensus...

Kagan has never been a judge and has written little on controversial legal and social issues, making her political views relatively opaque. In her 15 months as Solicitor General, the most notable cases taken up by her office have been in defense of the prerogatives of the executive branch in intelligence, surveillance and prisoner detention. In that sphere, at least, her selection to replace Justice Stevens means a shift to the right...

While she served as a law clerk for two prominent liberals... Kagan’s liberalism is rooted in identity politics, primarily feminism and gay rights, and has no connection with the mass struggles of earlier years....Kagan served on the legal staff of the Clinton White House, rising to the position of deputy to the top adviser on domestic policy, Bruce Reed, a representative of the right-wing Democratic Leadership Council. Reed and Kagan worked closely together in drafting the Clinton administration’s welfare reform policy, which led to the abolition of Aid to Families with Dependent Children in 1996....Her best-known action at Harvard was to recruit several prominent conservatives as law professors. During this period, her strongest public pronouncement came in a legal brief signed by numerous law professors supporting a ban on military recruiters at major law schools. The ban was imposed because the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays violated the non-discrimination policies of the schools.

Kagan described the inability of gays to serve openly in the military as a “monstrous injustice,” a term which apparently does not apply to such barbarities as the indefinite detention of prisoners without trial or judicial proceeding of any kind, in US facilities like Guantánamo Bay, assassinations ordered by the US president, or the systematic illegal wiretapping of US citizens.

In her confirmation hearing as Solicitor General, Kagan embraced the Bush administration perspective of a global war on terror, in which the entire planet should be considered, from a legal standpoint, part of the battlefield in which the rules of war and military justice could be applied. She later defended the “state secrets privilege,” a legal doctrine that effectively bars suits against illegal government surveillance, and opposed granting habeas corpus rights to prisoners at US facilities in Afghanistan.

On economic policy, like the liberals she will join on the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonya Sotomayor, Kagan has a distinctly pro-corporate and pro-business record, having served as a paid member of an advisory panel for Goldman Sachs from 2005 to 2008.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/kaga-m11.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I wasn't aware that posting part of an article without comment constituted "whining"
mr. Bluestateguy, but don't let that stop you from your entirely unprovoked personal attack on me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
18. The rule of law and constitutional guarantees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. something we really, really need to understand is that as S.G., she wasn't arguing her own views
She was arguing the position of the government. The admin's policy council decides on their position to advocate and it's her job to make the best arguments for their case that she can. It's a mistake to think that we can infer anything about her own views by the positions she's advocated during her tenure as Soliciter General.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. There are two of us, at least, who understand that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. no, her own views are these:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/4/17/10224/4253


the world is the battlefield

the war is forever

anyone may be denied civil rights upon the determination by a judge that they are an "enemy combatant"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. You are grossly overstating her views. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. she agreed with everything graham said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. BREAKING NEWS!!!11!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. you didn't like the title, so i changed it to better reflect the content
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Withywindle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. So you think women's issues and LGBT issues aren't part of the "mass struggle"
Edited on Tue May-11-10 02:04 AM by Withywindle
Women are about 51% of any country's population; many of those women are poor, working-class, Black/Latina/Asian or other ethnic minorities, and/or lesbian or bi or trans, and at special risk for violence.

LGBT people are about 10% of any country's population, and many of these are female, working-class, poor, Black/Latin@/Asian or other ethnic minorities, and at special risk for violence.

ALL of them are "workers." Do you have some idea of "workers" that excludes people outside of the nexus of white/male/straight privilege?

If you try to define women's and GLBT issues as being something outside of your idealized "mass struggle", you're only left with the struggles of straight males. Sorry if I, as a bisexual biracial woman, do not have any interest in a definition of "mass struggle" that excludes most of my friends and family. Obviously I'm not part of that "mass," so you just go on without me, OK?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. so, you constructed a nice bit of straw you can wave about self-righteously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Withywindle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. You love that "straw" don't you?
You throw that out every time someone disagrees with your hyperbole.

What I got from your original post was that you think "identity politics" have nothing to do with the struggle of the "masses." Just who do you think the "masses" are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. here's my original post: tell me which part led you to that conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. Yeah, screw feminism and gay rights!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
9. Yet more Obama-bashing tripe from WSWS pretending to be "news." nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. another country heard from. no? same country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
12. Most of the article's description of Kagan's views of executive power is complete BS.
Edited on Tue May-11-10 02:32 AM by BzaDem
"a term which apparently does not apply to such barbarities as the indefinite detention of prisoners without trial or judicial proceeding of any kind"

Really? Here's the transcript.

GRAHAM: Now, the point we have to make with the world, would you agree, Dean Kagan, is that the determination that led to the fact that you're an enemy combatant has to be transparent?

KAGAN: It does, indeed.

GRAHAM: It has to have substantial due process.

KAGAN: It does, indeed.

GRAHAM: And it should have an independent judiciary involved in making that decision beyond the executive branch. Do you agree with that?

KAGAN: Absolutely.

GRAHAM: So we can go tell the world that this person is being held off the battlefield, not because one person says so, but because there's a process that led to that determination where you have an independent judiciary involved. Do you think that's important for the nation to make sure we have that kind of process?

KAGAN: I do, Senator.

----

As for the claim that she is pro-warrantless wiretapping or assassinations ordered by a US president, there is no evidence for this, because she has not expressed support for any of it. Even Kagan-basher-in-chief Glenn Greenwald admits that his criticism on these issues is that she hasn't actively repudiated these views, not that she actually supports them.

Since apparently that wasn't enough BS for the authors' sake, they added a quip at the end that she has a distinctly pro-corporate and pro-business record, solely on the basis of her having worked on an advisory panel for Goldman Sachs.

Do you ever wonder why so many people ask why you keep peddling this wsws stuff as actual, accurate news?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Agreed and seconded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. The long-standing definition of "enemy combatant" is:
the military forces of a country with which we are engaged in a war.

It's already "transparent".

Your discussion above has to do with the new, improved, Bush-era revisions, in which ANYONE the executive branch deems to label an "enemy combatant" can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial & denied other long-existant protections, including some afforded even to enemy soldiers.

I don't see the big improvement when the government's "independent judiciary" makes that determination "transparently", & I see no particular liberal bent in the passage you quote. The end result is the same: if the court decides you're an enemy combatant, you can be held indefinitely without trial.

that'll be a big help with a right-wing court & another "terrorist" panic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. just snark, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
22. More crap from a crap source.
Unrec with glee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC