Republican Strategy On SCOTUS

Their strategy: (4.00 / 2)

1. Threaten to filibuster
2. Milk pro-lifers and anti-gay activists for cash
3. Get bored and have the few northeastern Republicans get it over the filibuster threshold
4. Bash the President for appointing an extremist, regardless of anything related to Elena Kagan
5. Go back to pandering to the tea party come August

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon May 10, 2010 at 13:55:14 PM CDT

Judicial Qualifications (4.00 / 2)

There is mumbling that not haing judicial experience is a problem; the link below contains a list of all the priior Supreme Court Justices who were not judges when appointed.

One was New Hampshire's own Salmon Chase, who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (well, Ohio also claims Chase, since he started his career there, but, he was from Cornish.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon May 10, 2010 at 16:00:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You can't have him, Ohio! (0.00 / 0)

We've got a house and a road and a graveyard in Cornish to prove it!

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon May 10, 2010 at 17:34:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by fighting Kagan (4.00 / 1)

they insure that Democrats will fight for her - thereby guaranteeing a pro-corporate justice that the GOP will actually be very happy with. They aren't so dumb.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Mon May 10, 2010 at 14:04:49 PM CDT

Who cares what the GOP thinks of Kagan... (4.00 / 2)

... Democrats have a bigger problem on their hands. Raw Story reports that Elana Kagan does not believe in federal marriage equality. Stephen Webster reports.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)'s specific question, found on page 28 of this Senate Judiciary Committee document, was:

Given your rhetoric about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy-you called it "a profound wrong-a moral injustice of the first order"-let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage?

Her answer couldn't have been more clear:

"There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

John Byrne also reports that Kagan supported detaining terror suspects indefinitely without trial.

Questioned as to whether she'd support the detention of al Qaeda suspects without access to US laws -- or even a trial to prove their guilt -- Kagan told Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last year she backed the Obama Administration's policy of "indefinite detention."

Graham asked Kagan whether she'd apply battlefield law instead of criminal law if a suspect were believed to be financing al Qaeda.

"I do," Kagan said.

Under military law, Graham noted that prisoners can be held without trial in an effort to keep them from returning to the "battlefield."

Kagan's response went farther than previous Administrations' claims; she maintained that the battlefield can apply to terror suspects caught outside traditional war zones (agreeing with Graham, for example, that an alleged al Qaeda financier detained in the Philippines would not be granted access to US laws).

So she doesn't support marriage equality and she thinks prisoners can be held without trial to prevent them from going in the battlefield. The question is will the Democrats do what is right, stand up for their principles, and defeat her nomination, or will they stand up for someone who IMO, has indicated in several instances that she'll move the SCOTUS more to the right? I think it's the latter and it's a shame. Just because Obama names Kagan as the nominee doesn't mean the Democrats should "follow the herd" and nominate her.

The mere fact she's not on the same side as NH and VT Democrats on marriage equality, an issue that means so much to us, is enough for me not to support her.  

Deep six her nomination. I don't care if this makes the Democrats worse off (like that's going to happen). This isn't about scoring political points for the Dems or Obama and/or about maintaining power. This is about preventing  someone who doesn't belong on the SCOTUS.

I hope she's defeated.  

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon May 10, 2010 at 20:13:22 PM CDT

Is marriage if any kind (4.00 / 1)

a federal constitutional right?

How does this relate to support or lack thereof for marriage equality?

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon May 10, 2010 at 20:34:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think it's clear where she stands. (4.00 / 1)

The American Family Association is pissed.

They sent a mass e-mail to its members on Monday citing what they called "her apparent opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act."

Webster writes the following

"Ms. Kagan has already tipped her hand on one of the most important issues that is likely to come before the Supreme Court," American Family Association President Tim Wildmon suggested, in a media advisory.

They also claimed that she "almost certainly" approved of a memo classifying the Defense of Marriage Act as "discriminatory."

She did not, thus the "almost" indicating a statement of opinion, not fact.

While she supports ending DADT, that still doesn't provide much insight into how she'll rule about things on the Court.

In '97 she urged "Bubba" Clinton to ban late term abortions. Late term abortions are usually a question of the mother's life vs. the fetus. So much for women's rights.

Like I said, just because Obama nominated her, doesn't mean the Dems should "follow the herd" and approve her nomination. I think it would be a good thing for the Dems not to approve her for the SCOTUS.  

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon May 10, 2010 at 20:56:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Because Kagan did not explicitly (0.00 / 0)

state her opinion in a document not meant to be an expression of her opinion, and one that an anti-gay group is using to oppose her, that makes her positions on LGBT clear, and clearly anti-LGBT?

I am confused.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon May 10, 2010 at 21:10:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK, let me clarify :) (0.00 / 0)

I can see now that Kagan's quote doesn't mean that she opposes gay marriage. But when you look at that quote more in depth, it seems that she sees this as a matter of political process, not a constitutional right.  Now that's concerning to me, especially since the legality of Prop 8 will be coming up before the SCOTUS soon.

Does that clarify things?  

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon May 10, 2010 at 21:23:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why didn't I say all of this in the first place? n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon May 10, 2010 at 21:30:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Given her fight with the military recruiters over DADT (4.00 / 1)

it seems likely to me that she is in favor of gays and lesbians being treated equal to non-gays and lesbians.

But the nice thing is that we'll have hearings, in which we can hear her going over these and other matters.  She herself once wrote that SCOTUS nominees need to be more open in their hearing responses and Senators need to ask better questions.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue May 11, 2010 at 04:51:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll give her credit for DADT (0.00 / 0)

But does it doesn't provide much insight into how she'll rule about things on the Court? I'm not so sure.

Glenn Greenwald did some more investigation into the DADT case. I think he explains it well why we should be more concerned with Kagan.

AMY GOODMAN: She also said-just to say for the record, she said the military's ban on gays is, quote, "a moral injustice of the first order." And she said, "The importance of the military to our society-and the extraordinary service that members of the military provide to the rest of us-makes the discrimination more, not less, repugnant."

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. But even there, look at what she did. She banned recruiters from campus, but then the federal government, once the Solomon Amendment was enacted and once it was upheld as constitutional, Harvard Law School faced the loss of a couple hundred millions of dollars out of-in federal government money, out of an endowment of $60 billion that that college has, and the minute there was a cost to this, you know, crusade of-moral crusade of the first order, as she called it, she immediately reversed herself... So the minute there was a cost to this great moral stand that she was taking, she immediately reversed herself and allowed military recruiters to come onto campus. That doesn't sound like much of a commitment to a moral position to me, abandoning it the minute there's a cost to it.

I think Greenwald is right. But you are too, Dean. Let's see what the hearings do.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Tue May 11, 2010 at 07:04:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Right" (0.00 / 0)

1. Solicitors General defend the government because it is their job, not because they necessarily agree with all of its policies.

2. Not everything that's a good idea is a constitutional right.  We use the term "right" too loosely in this country.  Gays and lesbians have a right to equal access to legal institutions, much as we are all entitled to receive those Social Security benefits for which we qualify in light of the fact that the program exists.  There is no Constitutional basis to assume that people have a right to legally-recognized marriage, nor is there anything in federal law preventing any state from abolishing marriage as a legal institution altogether; only that should such a thing exist, everyone must have equal access to it.  These are the kinds of nuances I think judges should see.

That's not to say I know better than anybody else what Kagan actually believes; I just think everybody knows less than many pretend to.

Really, you hope she's defeated?  Because Presidents are emboldened by defeat, and Obama would nominate Diane Wood instead?

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue May 11, 2010 at 22:55:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kagan does (4.00 / 2)

support  the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists.

Glenn Greenwald says it so much better than I can:

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.

The New York Times this morning reports that "Mr. Obama effectively framed the choice so that he could seemingly take the middle road by picking Ms. Kagan, who correctly or not was viewed as ideologically between Judge Wood on the left and Judge Garland in the center."  That's consummate Barack Obama.  The Right appoints people like John Roberts and Sam Alito, with long and clear records of what they believe because they're eager to publicly defend their judicial philosophy and have the Court reflect their values.  Beltway Democrats do the opposite:  the last thing they want is to defend what progressives have always claimed is their worldview, either because they fear the debate or because they don't really believe those things, so the path that enables them to avoid confrontation of ideas is always the most attractive, even if it risks moving the Court to the Right.

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Mon May 10, 2010 at 22:34:48 PM CDT

Greenwald is right this time. (0.00 / 0)

Check out the debate Greenwald had with a "Kaganista."  Not only did Greenwald pwn the guy, it shows how shallow the pro-Kagan case really is.  

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Tue May 11, 2010 at 06:57:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

She's not the President, she's not the Attorney General, she's not the Secretary of Defense, and she's not a judge. (0.00 / 0)

She isn't in a position to change those policies, but it is her job to defend the government when it gets sued.  She might actually agree with 100% of it, but it is part of a lawyer's job to be able defend a side she doesn't necessarily agree with.

I'll remind you that former Attorney General Ramsey Clark has served as defense counsel to Nazis, cultists, Lyndon LaRouche, Slobodan Milosevic, Charles Taylor, and Saddam Hussein.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue May 11, 2010 at 23:02:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and as I predicted upthread (0.00 / 0)

the GOP opposition to her nomination has guaranteed a spirited defense of a tepid (at best) candidate  by the Democratic party faithful.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Wed May 12, 2010 at 16:08:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't see how sitting out this fight leads to someone more reliably progressive. (0.00 / 0)

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu May 13, 2010 at 11:47:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits (4.00 / 1)

I'll leave it here. I'm not interested in a Kagan pissing match, but the more that comes out on Kagan, the more likely I see her nomination fail.

Raw Story reports this morning that Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits.

John Byrne reports.

Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama's latest nominee to the Supreme Court, helped protect the Saudi royal family from lawsuits that sought to hold al Qaeda financiers responsible in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The suits were filed by thousands family members and others affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. In court papers, they provided evidence that members of the Saudi royal family had channeled millions to al Qaeda prior to the bombings, often in contravention of direct guidance from the United States.

But Kagan, acting as President Obama's Solicitor General, argued that the case should not be heard even if evidence proved that the Saudis helped underwrite al Qaeda, because it would interfere with US foreign policy with the oil-rich nation. She posited "that the princes are immune from petitioners' claims" because of "the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit."

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer published Tuesday, the mother of a man who was killed on United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania said he didn't know why Kagan argued that the case not even be heard. By keeping the case off the dockets, the Saudis were spared scrutiny of their finances.

"We had hoped she would be with us so that we could have our day in court," Beverly Burnett said.

To read more click here.

What's that old saying? "You are the company you keep."

Like I said, just because Obama nominated her, doesn't mean we should support her.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Tue May 11, 2010 at 09:05:00 AM CDT

In all of your postings, ex-Pat... (4.00 / 2)

...you appear to forget that it is NOT the job of an attorney (or Solicitor General) to vote on legislation or judge the law or offer personal views on cases.

It is the job of the Advocate (noun)  to Advocate (verb) on behalf of their client, and allow the Judge and/or Jury to decide the merit of the question(s) after hearing both sides.

Remember, John Adams defended the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre.  

By no means did that mean he preferred King George to Independence.

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Tue May 11, 2010 at 11:25:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nice try spliting hairs... (0.00 / 0)

You may be right about the position of solicitor general, but I think it's pretty clear, based on what we know about her, that she'll move the SCOTUS more to the right under the guise of "consensus building," a term used so often that I find so shallow and insincere from politicians, regardless of political party.

Dan Kennedy of Media Nation has another take on Kagan. Seems to me she has problems with freedom of speech. I have my problems with Kennedy (especially since he's a Zionist apologist ), but he's often times spot on.  

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Tue May 11, 2010 at 12:48:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]