Kagan says she now agrees with Citizens United ruling

[brentspeak]

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.

[trayfoot]

1. NOT what I want to hear!!!!!

[DJ13]

2. She's learning to be a good politician

Say anything to get the job.

[Deep13]

3. Also, Dredd Scott, Lochner v. NY settled law.

If she really thinks that, then she is not qualified for that office.

[KingFlorez]

4. That's the answer she has to give

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.

[backscatter712]

7. Pretty much. Don't read much into what she tells the Senate. n/t

[qazplm]

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.

[Deep13]

8. Sure, but this is a hell of a time to suddenly rediscover stare decisis. nt

[onenote]

24. If you support roe v wade its not

[TheWraith]

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.

[Orsino]

47. Yes. It's a dodge, and a clumsy one...

...but it's the accepted way to avoid answering an uncomfortable question.

[WI_DEM]

6. didn't you complain about Satomayor too?

brentspeak (1000+ posts) Wed May-27-09 03:30 AM
Original message
Corporate lawyer considers Sotomayor to be a reliable pick for corporations

[harun]

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.

[xchrom]

9. What else is she going to say? She wants the job. Nt

[Pirate Smile]

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.

[Pab Sungenis]

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.

[Turbineguy]

13. Defeat her!

Obama needs to nominate a fundie conservative instead!

[ProSense]

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 committee’s ranking Republican, said in his opening statement, “The president and Congress have taken over large sectors of our nation’s 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 Court’s commerce clause precedent, he agrees with its decisions on gun rights and campaign finance. Moments after dismissing the Supreme Court’s 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 won’t 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. That’s — if the doctrine of precedent enabled you to overturn every decision that you thought was wrong, it wouldn’t be much of a doctrine.”

Indeed, the consequences of overturning the Court’s interpretation of what Congress can regulate under interstate commerce are fairly extreme. As Sy Lazarus argues in yesterday’s 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.”

[grantcart]

15. link please

[bornskeptic]

17. Here's a link, since the OP failed to provide one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9149665

[emulatorloo]

16. Yes, link please to your quote from AP. Your link goes to a CNN story

[BootinUp]

18. Your lack of politico speech interpretation is showing. nt

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inuca]

20. Why the hell do you feel the need

to twist words around like that ?!?!? 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.

[Jersey Devil]

21. You expected she'd say she'd vote to overrule it?

Were you born in a cabbage patch?

[stranger81]

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.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

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.

[onenote]

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?

[BootinUp]

26. just a guess

"Abracadabra"

[Fire1]

27. ROFLMO!!!

[Pab Sungenis]

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.

[onenote]

39. link for the claim that kagan's only qualification is her ability to sway kennedy on every case

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.

[LeftyAndProud60]

28. What has Obama done? It's just something about his woman I don't trust. NT

[Moosepoop]

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?

[Pab Sungenis]

31. I think that was a typo.

I think "this woman" was what was meant, not "his woman."

[LeftyAndProud60]

32. Thank u. NT

[jenmito]

33. And Roberts said he believed the job of the SC is to "call balls and strikes." n/t

[Dr.Phool]

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.

[jefferson_dem]

35. Defeat her.

So Obama can nominate me. That way I know I'll agree with everything the nominee says.

[depakid]

38. Too much Republican support....

[BzaDem]

41. Are you joking? How much do you want to bet that she won't get 15 Republican votes? n/t

I'm glad that you are finally making a testable hypothesis. You can now be proven spectacularly wrong in public.

[depakid]

46. Symbolic votes and actual he he handwringing are two different things

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.

[jillan]

36. That is NOT was she was saying today.

[depakid]

37. I warned people about a distubing pattern with Kagan early on right here on this forum

Thread was locked and disappeared, apparently.

[apocalypsehow]

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?

[Dawgs]

43. +1. The OP and some of the comments are embarrassing for DU.

[Ikonoklast]

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.

[BzaDem]

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.

[boppers]

50. +1,

People are playing gotcha games, and playing fast and loose with reality to support a political opinion.

[Hansel]

48. No she didn't. nt

[mmonk]

49. I feel vindicated in my opposition to her replacing Stevens.