Reply #10: I said it before and I'll say it again ...

[gleaner]

If Obama is so progressive and so trustworthy why did he and his administration obtain a supreme court decision legalizing torture as a tool of interrogation, give his administration the ability to name someone an "unlawful detainee," American or otherwise so that their right to Habeas Corpus could be suspended, they could be held without charges or legal counsel, and individuals could be legally subjected to rendition if the White House says the word?

That is not constitutional, and since he does have the constitutional knowledge and background you write of in you post it makes him less than truthful, less than trustworthy and certainly not "progressive." As I understand the word "progressive" when applied to a member of the Democratic party. it means one who respects human rights, wants the constitution to be the law of the land and who does not support torture or other means of unusual punishment, especially for people not even convicted of a crime. It is pure George Bush.

So you trust him without evidence if you want to. I can't. I need proof. He has lied and changed positions too often for me to believe anything he says without it. OP is right about Johnson too. He was a much more dynamic president and even if much of what he did was wrong, he stood up and took the heat for it. Even on Viet Nam, he did most of his warmongering out in the open, allowed the press to report on it and answered his critics instead of dropping drones as secretly as he could on civilians as Obama is doing in Pakistan. I believe a drone killed six more Pakistanis today did it not? If I am wrong, please correct me.

Kagan is his Harriet Mier. Slight experience and no public profile to speak of. We need liberal judges not cyphers.