Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

E-Mails to my Senators: DEFEAT ELENA KAGAN.

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
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:13 PM
Original message
E-Mails to my Senators: DEFEAT ELENA KAGAN.
Just sent an E-mail to my two DINO Senators, Lautenberg and Menendez. (Reference: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... )

In her confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan has stated that she supports the "Citizens United" ruling that basically sells out our government to the highest corporate bidder.

Having had nothing but disappointments with your votes on major issues, especially those related to core views of our Democratic Party, I don't know what good it will do to write you, but I am doing so now.

Filibuster the Kagan nomination. With her on the court, there is no hope of regaining control of our government by the individual.


Looks like I will have one more reason to never vote for either of these men ever again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. I take it that you have no understanding of how the Supreme Court works?
"Stare decisis."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I guess not... can you explain it for us?
Does it, for instance, mean that the Supreme Court never overturns prior decisions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. "Stare decisis" means, in essence, that precedent should be left to stand...
...unless under extraordinary circumstances.

The Supreme Court is involved in establishing the ground rules of our entire legal system; for obvious reasons, those rules need to be at least somewhat fixed, and can't be radically changing every few years when new justices come on and change the balance of the court. For that reason, the SCOTUS is extremely reluctant to overturn it's own precedent, usually doing so only when a prior decision created a clear injustice. Slaughterhouse, Brown vs. Board of Education, Lawrence vs. Texas, etcetera--and you could probably still count the number of major reversals on your hands.

For a nominee to say that they will stick by the freshly established precedent of Citizens United is not as all surprising--in fact, no one would say anything different, and it would be inappropriate for them to pre-judge any future cases that might come before them involving campaign finance. That doesn't mean that they're backing an unlimited money pipeline into the political realm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Sorry... I guess I should have used the sarcasm tag
I'm well aware what it means.

I'd just like to pick a SC justice who recognizes "extraordinary circumstances" and "clear injustice" when she sees them.

She's replacing the guy who wrote the dissenting opinion. It isn't unreasonable to ask whether she would have voted the same way.

in fact, no one would say anything different

I'm sure that were Justice Stevens given the opportunity to vote on the issue again, he wouldn't change his mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Then you should realize that respecting precedent doesn't change future decisions.
There's nothing in what Kagan said which implies that she won't support the constitutionality of substantial limits on political spending by corporations. What it does mean is that--as any nominee would--she expressed understanding of and respect for the court's standing decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. And you should realize that there's a BIG difference between "respecting precedent"
and sayiing that you support the decision (particularly when you were the one who argued the other side).

There wouldn't be a thing wrong with saying "I support the position I argued before the court." That is, of course, assuming she does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. "Stare Decisis?"
Should Plessy v. Ferguson have stood?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Do you have ANY idea what stare decisis means?
I'll answer my own question. Nope.

Stare Decisis does not prevent the overturning of any case. It simply creates a presumption that cases (in most instances) should not be overturned. That presumption can be challenged on multiple grounds, as was the case with Plessy.

Kagan never said that she wouldn't vote to overturn Citizens United (and SPECIFICALLY said she wasn't binding herself to anything).

In case you didn't notice, Stare Decisis is the only reason Roe v. Wade is still law of the land today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Thanks, Wraith; keep up the good work on this. I've gotta go.
Legal matters are always difficult to explain, here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. So you're saying that a wrongly decided Supreme Court case
can NEVER be overturned?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. No one is saying that, and ESPECIALLY not Kagan.
Kagan simply said it is settled law under stare decisis. This creates a presumption that it shouldn't be overturned, but this presumption can be challenged on multiple grounds as she herself stated in general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
35. Then she's supporting it.
If she isn't saying it was wrong and will vote to overturn it when the occasion arises, then she is supporting it and doesn't deserve to be on the Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. It would be a gaffe of historic and monumental proportions
For her to have an opinion on a case (that doesn't exist yet) to overturn the SCOTUS has already decided.


That is how you lose a confirmation battle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. So either she DOESN'T support CU, and is lying
which means she should lose, or she DOES support it, and thus should lose.

We can't expect someone unwilling to take a stand on such a fundamental issue, and such flawed logic as went into that decision, to be an advocate for the individuals who come before her looking for justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. As SG, and a nominee to the Court, she HAS to support CU
Until a case that comes along to reverse it.

(Or a Constitutional Amendment)


As a nominee, she absolutely should not tell the committee that others on the Court were wrong and how they were flawed in their decision. (And what difference would it make?) If she were to criticize the decision, she would negate the perception that she has created about being unbiased.


You just don't do that if you want to make it out of committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Well said...
The whole thing is her ability NOT to be biased, and to uphold the current laws.

You are exactly right. The worst possible thing she could do would be to challenge standing, current law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
56. No, not at all.
Takes time for 'living Constitution' to catch up with us, tho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. Okay I get this but don't know how you call Lautenberg a DINO
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Bought and paid for by investment houses and banks.
His voting record since coming back in 2003 has made me wince.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Yawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
38. Lautenberg lost my support
when he introduced Alito to the Senate. Menendez when he voted to kill the public option and force the Baucus Bill down our throats.

Does that make you yawn a little less?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #38
47. Which Senator from New Jersey would you have had introduce Alito to the Committee?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Neither.;
Let him appear alone.

Or, if he NEEDS to be introduced, then Lautenberg could have used a "hold" on the nomination and refused to present him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:49 PM
Original message
Be resonable. It is tradition.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabbycat31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. agree
I'm pleased with the job both Lautenberg and Menendez are doing.

And we must keep them in office because Governor Burger King badly wants those seats to go to teabagging wingnuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Better an admitted teabagger to a stealth teabagger.
With the admitted one, you know what you're getting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabbycat31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. better a Democrat than a teabagger
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. even if the teabagger
calls himself a Democrat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Are you including Ben Nelson?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
6. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Thank you
but the Blue DUgs and the "Obama Right Or Wrong" crowd have you outnumbered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. I am not from New Jersey
but since you show no understanding of how the Supreme Court works, I would have to question your understanding of your senators

I prefer to get my information from more informed sources
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northoftheborder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
11. I think you misunderstand her comments.
She said, she considers their decision "precedent" and "settled law" simply because the Supreme Court's ruling is in the past. That does not mean she agreed with it. She did her best to argue for the Administrations's position on this case, but she failed. She cannot state her personal opinion on anything. That does not mean Congress can pass other laws concerning these issues, and as a Justice, she may have the last laugh when laws concerning campaign finance come up. The Court has to consider "precedent", but as in the past, they often come to new conclusions. We have NOT heard the last of this topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. As I said below
if she is not willing to come right out and say that the decision was wrong, she doesn't deserve to sit on the Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. If she had said that she would have dissented with the majority opinion,
Would that have satisfied you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. No.
I want to hear that she thinks it is wrong, and will vote to overturn it when the occasion arises.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Then you simply don't understand the point/precedent/reality of Judicial Confirmation Hearings
It's ok.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. She herself mocked the way those hearings take place.
Now she's doing what she criticized.

She doesn't belong on the Court. I'll even go so far as to say that I think she might do real harm as a Justice. Not as much as Alito has done, but harm nonetheless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. But she still has to play the game. You may think that she doesn't belong on the Court
Because of perceived ideology, but the fact remains that the duly elected President nominated her, and the Senate will confirm her with 78+ votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. I fear you may be right
and it makes me fear for our country once she's in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. Good luck with that.
:rofl:

She said that Citizens United was a decided case, entitled to weight under stare decisis. This is in fact a factually accurate statement. That does not mean it can't be overturned and it does not mean she supports the decision. In case you didn't notice, she ARGUED against the outcome in front of the Supreme Court.

She will be confirmed easily (notwithstanding any e-mails you may send or desire to send), with the votes of Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, and other progressives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
18. Invisible rec. Btw, Thom had Governor Siegelman on today. nt
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 01:11 PM by EFerrari
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
20. And here we have, in one post, an illustration of why the "left" will never win...
First, a complete misunderstanding of Kagan's carefully scripted comments concerning stare decisis in an overly politicized hearing. There may be reasons to vote against her, but this is not one of them.

Then, calling Menendez and Lautenberg DINOs. They may not be far enough left for some, but they are as left as it gets in NJ, and that's not bad.

BTW, just what are those "core views" of the Democratic Party I keep hearing about? I grew up with Tammany Hall Democrats in NY and when I lived in Joisey the machines still called all the shots.

I see county Democratic leaders Lesniak and Norcross haven't retired from the Senate yet-- how they doin' with those core values? I don't remember this DiFilippo woman when I lived in Elizabeth, but she seems to have taken over a lot of Lesniak's territory without the immunity from prosecution.

Can they put the Jersey City mayor's name on the reservoir up by Route 46 yet? There was a time when the mayors got indicted so fast it wasn't worth making a new sign.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Anyone who will not come out and say that CU was a BAD decision
Does not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court at all, let alone replace the most liberal justice on that Court.

I'm tired of stealth nominees. I'm tired of the Democratic Party helping to push our country even further to the right. We have to draw the line somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
25. I get bad vibes from her. The kind of vibes I get from someone unable to think outside the box. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. consider eating less spicy food, might solve those vibes :) and yes i'm joking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
29. What an absurd post!
And what an absurd letter to two above average Senators. Like and respect Lautenberg, Menendez - not so much, but still he is anything but a DINO.

My only hope is that you were not serious....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
37. Yes, voting with EVERY OTHER DEMOCRATIC SENATOR
for a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT's nominee makes one a DINO.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Other actions of theirs make them DINO's.
Voting for Kagan has nothing to do with it, although their track records as DINO's makes me convinced they won't take a stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
41. FUG this SHIT...GOPesque prop
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
43. I'll send an Email to my same Senators Combatting your Email
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. You're welcome to.
But don't look at me when the damage is done once she's sworn in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. Dont worry, I'll never look at you for any reason...ever
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
52. This is a perfect illustration of the old proverb...
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You don't get it, but you're all fired up over a GOP talking point and you are going to take your show on the road... brilliant.

No wonder we're doomed.

Fucking doomed. No matter how many times it's been explained to you here, you still don't get it and you're fired up ready to cause a ruckus. Fucking brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
54. hmmm...
On the one hand it was a bad decision.

On the other hand, I don't think the campaign finance laws they knocked down were accomplishing anything anyway. They weren't doing anything to decrease corporate influence in government so it's hard to care. I don't know if I would oppose her over that one issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
55. Uhm, the ACLU supports Citizens United
I don't, but it's a perfectly acceptable legal reasoning.
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 Sun Dec 21st 2014, 06:44 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