Kagan's nomination to Supreme Court "jeopardizes civil liberties and basic constitutional principles

[Better Believe It]

Kagan in Context: Shafting Progressive Values
by Norman Solomon
May 10, 2010

If President Obama has his way, Elena Kagan will replace John Paul Stevens -- and the Supreme Court will move rightward. The nomination is very disturbing, especially because it's part of a pattern.

On numerous policy fronts, such conformity to a centrist baseline has smothered hopes for moving this country in a progressive direction. Now, the president has taken a step that jeopardizes civil liberties and other basic constitutional principles.

"During the course of her Senate confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan explicitly endorsed the Bush administration's bogus category of ‘enemy combatant,' whose implementation has been a war crime in its own right," University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle noted last month. "Now, in her current job as U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan is quarterbacking the continuation of the Bush administration's illegal and unconstitutional positions in U.S. federal court litigation around the country, including in the U.S. Supreme Court."

Boyle added: "Kagan has said ‘I love the Federalist Society.' This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society."

The Justice Department continues to backtrack on civil liberties.

And now, if the president's nomination of Elena Kagan is successful, the result will move the Supreme Court to the right.

Progressives should fight the Kagan nomination.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/10-0

[freddie mertz]

1. And the smear attacks on Norman Solomon will begin in 5, 4...

Move over, Mr. Greenwald.

[spanone]

5. everyone is entitled to their opinion

[freddie mertz]

8. Of course. I haven't even mad my mind up yet on Kagan.

It is the ad hominem attacks on her critics that I object to.

[saltpoint]

2. There's no grounds for the claim that Kagan moves the Court Right.

I do not believe progressives in significant number will oppose this nomination, and in any case, the argument FOR Kagan has already been made at the level of the Oval Office.

Solomon is in the ditch on this one.

I support Kagan smarts over Solomon's bias.

[Better Believe It]

7. Right. She'll actually move the Court to the left.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8302062&mesg_id=8302227

[saltpoint]

9. She may. I don't think Solomon or anyone else knows how Elena

Kagan will vote on specific cases.

You don't. I don't. Solomon doesn't.

I support the nomination and despite predictable howling from the Far Right will soar through the confirmation process.

And in fact an equally persuasive case could be made that Kagan would move the Court to the left.

Solomon has no grounds for claiming otherwise.

[Toasterlad]

19. The Grounds Are That Obama is Nominating Her.

And Obama is certainly NOT going to nominate someone as liberal as Stevens was. Stevens was the most liberal Justice, and he was considered CONSERVATIVE back when he joined the Court. There is no way that any Justice nominated by corporate whore Obama is going to move the court to the left in any way, shape or form.

The Supreme Court is lost for decades - if not generations - to come. Time to lay that old meme to rest.

[saltpoint]

27. Consider that Stevens was a Ford pick. He was not "liberal" when chosen

and would not have BEEN chosen had he been, as you indicate.

I reject your assessment of the president as a "corporate whore."

I also reject your assertion that the Supreme Court "is lost for decades."

[Toasterlad]

35. We Shall See.

[saltpoint]

36. The potential to shape the Court (and reduce its 5-4 conservative lock)

is Obama's if he were to win a second term.

Obviously he has to want one, but if he does and is elected for the second 8 years, still more SCOTUS retirements are likely, opening windows into our grandkids' adulthoods.

Should there come a correspondence shrinkage in Republican voter rolls, we may also see a more moderate Congress and not the one we have now, where people like Jeff Sessions and Jon Kyl, subversive weasels both, represent a very regressive demographic.

Over that same 8-year term would come also judicial appointments on the lower rung courts, which are also vitally important. If the Pukes continue to dump insufficiently crazy incumbents like Bob Bennett their ranks will shrink even as their shrieking intensifies. It's kind of a Kafkaesque morphing of a generationally conservative political party into a howling monster or giant insect.

No matter how scary Dracula gets, one thing's for sure -- he's not a member of the Chamber of Commerce.

[inna]

31. Yep, it's a "natural choice", sadly.

It's anything but surprising that President Obama has chosen Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Nothing is a better fit for this White House than a blank slate, institution-loyal, seemingly principle-free careerist who spent the last 15 months as the Obama administration's lawyer vigorously defending every one of his assertions of extremely broad executive authority. The Obama administration is filled to the brim with exactly such individuals -- as is reflected by its actions and policies -- and this is just one more to add to the pile. The fact that she'll be replacing someone like John Paul Stevens and likely sitting on the Supreme Court for the next three decades or so makes it much more consequential than most, but it is not a departure from the standard Obama approach.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/10/kagan/index.html

[lonestarnot]

15. There is a reason that Kyle from AZ and Hatch from Utah supported her.

And I will not! :puke:

[EFerrari]

23. For Solicitor General?

[saltpoint]

26. Your call. But she's gathering serious endorsements from liberal

constituencies, in many cases very high-profile liberal constituencies, including Planned Parenthood and N.O.W.

[mr_liberal]

32. NOW endorsing her is a bad sign.

cant say Im surprised though, they probably like her anti-pornography (anti free speech) views.

Im sure she is good on abortion too, although she did advise Clinton against late term abortions. and thats just one issue.

I think these groups essentially get in line. They dont want to lose their influence with the Pres, so they support basically whatever he does.

[saltpoint]

33. I guess I take it as a good sign.

There are a boatload of very progressive folks in N.O.W.

Hey -- some right around here.

[WeDidIt]

3. The stupid

it burns.

[mfcorey1]

4. Another attempt to plant the seeds of discord.

[Better Believe It]

6. That's right! Those damn liberals and progressives should just STFU!

[mfcorey1]

10. Progressives and liberals are the glue that continues to hold this country together.

we would all be in Hell if we had to depend on conservatives for anything except fattening their wallets.

[Javaman]

12. right. so questioning a nomination is un-American/un-Obama.

how very right wing of you. See, it cuts both ways.

[KittyWampus]

16. If you were paying attention, you'd notice some DU'ers post nothing but negative crap

they obviously spend a lot of time looking for on the internets. People tend to find what they are looking for to confirm their already held prejudices.

It's a big reason why I don't spend much time on DU anymore.

It isn't about honest questioning for some people.

[Javaman]

17. right...

so when someone posts something you don't agree with you close your ears.

wow, just wow.

[paulk]

21. actually, "kitty wampus" makes a good point

there are some posters here who go out of their way to find fault with everything the Obama administration does. The OP is one of them. That doesn't make the criticism in this editorial invalid, but it does lead one to question motivation.

[Javaman]

22. because people with different opinions are just evil.

yes, trying to look at the other side of the coin is always bad.

:eyes:

Ergo, those who are always negative are just as bad as those who are always positive.

[paulk]

24. some people have an agenda

that's the point

it becomes like the story of Chicken Little

--------

after awhile it hurts their credibility, which isn't a good thing -

because a lot of what they're saying is worth hearing

[Javaman]

25. Read this...

I just wrote this in response to someone else.

Agenda's amount to nothing, for or against...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4374997&mesg_id=4375380

[Larkspur]

11. I hope progressives and Bernie Sanders grill her on her outrageous statement

about the Federalist society and her view of the unitary executive and corporate personhood. If she sounds like a Republican in her responses then she is one.

[harun]

18. That sums up my three points of concern. For her and any other

nominee. Where they stand on the Federalist Society, Unitary Executive and Corporate Personhood.

However, I doubt we will get much information on any of them.

[Divine Discontent]

30. yes, they need to ask her about the FEDERALIST SOCIETY - that is an obvious question that better be

asked - because how she answers shows how she tilts.

[wiggs]

13. While executive power is a concern, people seem to be focusing just on that. Some

of our most serious issues are those related to corporate power, corporatism, lobbying with unlimited corporate money, consolidation of wealth and power into fewer hands, consolidation of media, deregulation, etc

Where does she stand with respect to these?

And in the role of solicitor general, is it not her job to defend current policy and current employees? Does she have that much of a choice in what she defends and what she pursues?

[lonestarnot]

14. I've heard enough already and I will fight!

[Octafish]

20. Kagan Sided with Rove's Alabama Chums in Siegelman Affair.

Plot Thickens On Siegelman Prosecution and Air Force Tanker Deal

She's not, apparently, on the side of the angels. Who cares, though? It's only Justice.

[TexasObserver]

28. Yes, she's terrible on some key civil rights issues.

She's far too accepting of government excess, of trampling of the rights of citizens to be free of government intrusions, of executive excess.

She's fine on a number of issues, but in my view her failure to embrace the individual over the state in key areas disqualifies her. We can do better.

[inna]

29. K&R - and here's more from...

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists:

Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Will Move the Court to the Right

President Barack Obama has chosen Elena Kagan to fill the vacancy left by Justice John Paul Stevens' retirement. Sadly, Kagan cannot fill Justice Stevens' mighty shoes.

[gulfcoastliberal]

34. K&R... Obama really isn't all that different from your average extremist republican.

Picks like Kagan and his obsession with destroying SS/Medicare are just two examples of many that bear this out.