<<IS that really all you folks have to sell Kagan?>>
lol! Facts do count, which is why only an idiot would believe Glenn Greenwald's lies about Elena Kagan. And Elena Kagan never allied herself with the RNC, Grover Norquist and teabaggers in opposition to President Obama, as Jane Hamsher did when she tried and failed to "Kill the Bill". Oh, and she also wanted Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders lose his seat for voting for HCR. What a PUMA nutjob she is!
Speaking of facts, SCOTUSBlog refutes Glenn Greenwald's false criticism of Elena Kagan view on executive power:
SCOTUSBlog, in their
9,750 word profile of Kagan:
"Some have criticized Elena Kagan for supposedly favoring a strong view of executive power. They equate her views with support for the Bush Administration’s policies related to the “war on terror.”
Generally speaking, these critics very significantly misunderstand what Kagan has written.Kagan’s only significant discussion of the issue of executive power comes in her article Presidential Administration, published in 2001 in the Harvard Law Review.
The article has nothing to do with the questions of executive power that are implicated by the Bush policies – for example, power in times of war and in foreign affairs. It is instead concerned with the President’s power in the administrative context – i.e., the President’s ability to control executive branch and independent agencies. That kind of power is concerned with, for example, who controls the vast collection of federal agencies as they respond to the Gulf oil spill and the economic crisis."
Glenn Greenwald is clueless. This is not the first time he's been erred in his legal understanding and judgment, either:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=291738&mesg_id=291738His accusation that she's a "stealth candidate" who may not be a progressive only shows he's a lazy journalist. There's plenty of evidence pointing to the left side of the political spectrum:
1. Noted lefty lawyer and progressive activist Lawrence Lessig has endorsed her:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x2930842. She wrote her senior thesis on 1930's socialism:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x2935023. Furthermore, Kagan wrote that she likes "real Democrats -- not closet Republicans...committed to liberal principles..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x2930964. Biden's aide vouches for her progressive creds, as she worked for Biden on the Senate Judiciary Committee:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x2938655. Conservatives hate Elena Kagen for being pro-gay, pro-choice and a lesbian:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=292804&mesg_id=292804As for her thoughts on the unitary executive, here's her 2005 letter to Senator Leahy on executive power, where she opposed the expansion of it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x293888ThinkProgress also rejects Glenn Greenwald's lies and sets record straight on Kagan:
"Glenn also notes an exchange between Senator Lindsay Graham and General Kagan (R-SC) regarding her views on indefinite detention. In that exchange, Kagan acknowledged that America may indefinitely detain a known terrorist, yet
she was also very clear that such a detention could only occur after the detainee received “substantial due process” from an “independent judiciary” in a “transparent” process. In other words, Kagan embraces Justice Stevens’ view of detainee rights, as Stevens has consistently voted to resist Bush’s theory of detention-without-due-process.A vaguely-related issue is Kagan’s view of the White House’s role within the Executive Branch. In her seminal article on “Presidential Administration,” General Kagan touts the Clinton White House’s supervision of executive branch agencies to ensure that those agencies achieved the “progressive goals” President Clinton was elected to achieve. There is a healthy debate in the progressive legal community regarding how aggressive a president should be in supervising the agencies, but
it is also important to note what Kagan’s article is not about. Kagan’s article is about which part of the Executive Branch–the White House or the agencies–should take the lead in setting policy. It does not call for the kind of presidential seizure of power from the legislative and judicial branches that was so common under George W. Bush.Kagan is also likely to be a much-needed voice against Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito’s crusade to immunize wealthy corporations from accountability under the law. As an adviser to President Bill Clinton, Kagan spearheaded bipartisan legislation to prevent tobacco companies from marketing their products to children — only to watch the court’s conservatives apply an implausible reading of the law and hold tobacco companies immune from such regulation. So Kagan knows what it is like to see years of effort to protect the American people’s heath and safety destroyed by a Supreme Court more concerned with protecting corporations than with upholding the law. Kagan spent much of her career crafting laws intended to protect ordinary Americans–so she understands the terrible consequences of ignoring the law to suit a narrow interest group’s agenda."
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/10/kagan-nomination/What have
you got besides
"wordy bullshit and righteous indignation"?? Hmm?