Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kagan says she now agrees with Citizens United ruling

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 » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:49 AM
Original message
Kagan says she now agrees with Citizens United ruling
Perhaps this explains her almost inept performance when arguing the government's position in front of SCOTUS.



Kagan: Campaign finance ruling 'settled law'

(AP) 23 hours ago

WASHINGTON Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan says a high court ruling that overturned a corporate campaign spending ban should not be disrupted, even though she previously indicated it was wrongly decided.

Kagan spoke Tuesday in response to questioning by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch about the controversial Citizens United case decided in January. That case has been widely criticized by President Barack Obama and other Democrats as a sign of unwarranted activism by the Roberts court.

Kagan says she previously took the view that the spending ban was constitutional because, as solicitor general it was her job to defend the "statute as written." But she says she might take a different view as a judge and believes the ruling is now "settled law" and should not really be changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
trayfoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. NOT what I want to hear!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. She's learning to be a good politician
Say anything to get the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. Also, Dredd Scott, Lochner v. NY settled law.
If she really thinks that, then she is not qualified for that office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. That's the answer she has to give
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 11:12 AM by KingFlorez
A candidate for a court shouldn't indicate that they have an agenda, as judges only interpret the law. As campaign finance will likely come back up at some later date, she can't say one way or another how she'd vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Pretty much. Don't read much into what she tells the Senate. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qazplm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. Ummm...no she didn't
accepting something as precedent does not equal to agreeing with it.

Roe v. Wade is clear precedent, some folks don't agree with it. Miranda is clear precedent, some folks don't agree with it.

The two are not mutually exclusive, just about every case ever has those who recognize it's precedential value/import while still thinking it wrongly decided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Sure, but this is a hell of a time to suddenly rediscover stare decisis. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. If you support roe v wade its not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. Precisely. Thank you.
The Supreme Court is notoriously unwilling to overturn it's own precedent unless there's been a clear injustice done: Slaughterhouse, Lawrence vs. Texas, etcetera.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #12
47. Yes. It's a dodge, and a clumsy one...
...but it's the accepted way to avoid answering an uncomfortable question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. didn't you complain about Satomayor too?
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 11:03 AM by WI_DEM
brentspeak (1000+ posts) Wed May-27-09 03:30 AM
Original message
Corporate lawyer considers Sotomayor to be a reliable pick for corporations
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. As well he should have. They are both pro-corporate power.
Why do you think they are both easily going to be confirmed?

We need pro-justice not pro-corporate power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
9. What else is she going to say? She wants the job. Nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
10. That is not what she is saying. She is now talking about precedent but I don't
doubt that she would be in the block of 4 with Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayer, and Breyer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
11. Defeat her.
Defeat her now.

This is going too far. I will NOT stand idly by while the most liberal member of the Supreme Court is replaced by a woman who supports Citizens United.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
13. Defeat her!
Obama needs to nominate a fundie conservative instead!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
14. Here, insight
GOP Wants Kagan To Be Both For And Against Precedent

Since President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, conservatives have promised to rigorously question Kagan about where she stands on the variety of legal challenges (facing) health care overhaul. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the judiciary committees ranking Republican, said in his opening statement, The president and Congress have taken over large sectors of our nations health care system. He called on the courts to rectify this problem,Americans want a judge that will be a check on government overreach, not a rubber stamp.

<...>

But while Cornyn disagrees with the Courts commerce clause precedent, he agrees with its decisions on gun rights and campaign finance. Moments after dismissing the Supreme Courts rulings on interstate commerce, he praised the nominee for recognizing that cases like Heller, McDonald, Citizens United are are the law of the land and entitled to entitled to deference by succeeding courts, even if you may disagree with the outcome.

<...>

As Kagan reminds him, as a Justice, she wont have the privilege of choosing which precedent she agrees with. The entire idea of precedent is that you can think a decision is wrong. You can have decided it differently if you had been on the court when that decision was made. And and nonetheless you are bound by that decision. Thats if the doctrine of precedent enabled you to overturn every decision that you thought was wrong, it wouldnt be much of a doctrine.

Indeed, the consequences of overturning the Courts interpretation of what Congress can regulate under interstate commerce are fairly extreme. As Sy Lazarus argues in yesterdays Politico, if accepted by the Supreme Court, these theories could shatter the constitutional foundations of landmark programs like Social Security, Medicare, civil rights and environmental protections.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
15. link please
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Here's a link, since the OP failed to provide one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
16. Yes, link please to your quote from AP. Your link goes to a CNN story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
18. Your lack of politico speech interpretation is showing. nt
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 12:22 PM by BootinUp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
20. Why the hell do you feel the need
to twist words around like that :mad:?!?!? I have no legal background, but it's obvious to anybody with a brain and a modicum of objectivity that "settled law" does NOT mean AGREE.

Have your fun though. I am sure you enjoy being called names and people pointing out how incorrect many of your statements are, else I cannot imagine why you would continue making them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
21. You expected she'd say she'd vote to overrule it?
Were you born in a cabbage patch?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stranger81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
22. Saying Citizens United is entitled to stare decisis -- which is unquestionably is,
whether you agree with it or not (and I certainly don't) -- is not the same as saying she agrees with the ruling. It's also not necessarily an indication of how she would rule in the future if presented with the same question. While precedent is entitled to great weight, court can and do revisit and overturn earlier rulings, depending on how good the rationale is that they're offered for doing so.

I really think this is a nonissue simply because of the posture. There's really not any other appropriate answer, from a judicial perspective, than the one she gave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #22
44. The decision itself revoked and violated stare decisis.
If she really wanted to be truthful and accurate.

I've heard enough if she supports that God awful decision. Just like she continued the persecution of Seligman. Just like her hiring practices at Harvard. Sounds like she'll be a good Roberts soldier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
25. question for the OP about Kagan's supposedly "inept" performance
in arguing the CU case:

what might she have said differently that would have changed the minds of Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy? What magic words would have made that conservative majority go all weak in the knees?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. just a guess
"Abracadabra"


;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. ROFLMO!!!
:spray: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Wasn't the whole argument for her
that she could sway Kennedy with logic? Either she's incapable of doing that, which destroys the only real argument for nominating her, or she didn't try, which makes her unfit for the Bench.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #30
39. link for the claim that kagan's only qualification is her ability to sway kennedy on every case
Edited on Thu Jul-01-10 12:16 AM by onenote
that may be the most ridiculous thing I've read about Kagan, and given some of the crap spewed by r's at her hearing, that's saying something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyAndProud60 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
28. What has Obama done? It's just something about his woman I don't trust. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moosepoop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. "His woman"?
I wouldn't refer to either Elena Kagan or Michelle Obama as "his woman." But which of them is it that you don't trust?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. I think that was a typo.
I think "this woman" was what was meant, not "his woman."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyAndProud60 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Thank u. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
33. And Roberts said he believed the job of the SC is to "call balls and strikes." n/t
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 08:47 PM by jenmito
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. The trouble is, he left his glasses and seeing eye dog in the Federalist Society conference room.
A bean ball is right down the pipe with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
35. Defeat her.
So Obama can nominate me. That way I know I'll agree with everything the nominee says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Too much Republican support....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. Are you joking? How much do you want to bet that she won't get 15 Republican votes? n/t
Edited on Thu Jul-01-10 03:00 AM by BzaDem
I'm glad that you are finally making a testable hypothesis. You can now be proven spectacularly wrong in public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #41
46. Symbolic votes and actual he he handwringing are two different things
Edited on Thu Jul-01-10 09:40 AM by depakid
You should be happy though- Kagan might just represent your attitudes beliefs and values very well. And the proof of the pudding in that will be in the rulings and opinions.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
36. That is NOT was she was saying today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
37. I warned people about a distubing pattern with Kagan early on right here on this forum
Thread was locked and disappeared, apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
40. Ever heard of *stare decisis*? It's every bit as holding with Citizens United as it is with Brown.
What did you expect Kagan to say? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. +1. The OP and some of the comments are embarrassing for DU.
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. The OP has an agenda, and it has nothing to do with Democrats.
And some of the others just don't understand what Kagan's previous job entailed, and what these hearings are actually all about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
42. People should have some idea of what they are talking about before posting.
She said nothing more than it was a decided case by the Supreme Court (entitled to the same weight as all other decided cases). She could have course said it wasn't a decided case, but then she would have been wrong. She could have pretended it was decided the other way, but then she would have also been wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. +1,
People are playing gotcha games, and playing fast and loose with reality to support a political opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hansel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
48. No she didn't. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
49. I feel vindicated in my opposition to her replacing Stevens.
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 Fri Apr 25th 2014, 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency 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