Kagan: Partisan or Pragmatist?

Politics • Views: 2,768

As expected, the right wing is calling President Obama’s Supreme Court pick Elena Kagan a radical socialist activist lesbian this week. Rush Limbaugh is being his usual sexist slob self, saying yesterday, “We don’t need to go too deep in analyzing the babe … I guess she can change her mind. She’s a woman.”

Charming. Pamela Geller should be chiming in any minute to tell us Kagan is a sekrit Muslim convert who wants to turn the US into a caliphate.

But is any of this overheated ranting accurate? In a word, no; in fact, one of the marks of real political moderates is that they’re criticized by both left and right, and Kagan is a perfect example. The Washington Post has a good background piece today: For Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, a history of pragmatism over partisanship.

Jump to bottom

437 comments
1 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:45:54am

One thing about the Supreme Court...sitting up there often does cause judges to change or deepen their views. They know that there is no safety rope any more, nobody else to fix a mistake.

At least, I would hope this is what happens. I would hope the added responsibility has an effect.

2 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:46:05am

NPR had a bit on where one of the points they had was how good the flack from the left on Kagan actually was for the Obama administration.

Also I like his appointments so far in general. We're a long ways from Harriet Myers (sp)

3 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:46:08am

Paul Campos, one of our local progressives, on the radio this morning, was not very happy with her nomination.

"Paul Campos is a law professor, author and journalist currently on the faculty of the University of Colorado in Boulder. His books include Against the Law (with Pierre Schlag and Steven D. Smith, 1996), a collection of essays regarding legal thought in contemporary America; Jurismania (1998), a scathing critique of the American legal system; and The Diet Myth (2005) (previously published as The Obesity Myth in 2004), an expose of the hysteria surrounding weight and health in the Western world today. Campos writes a weekly opinion column for the Scripps Howard News Agency which appears in newspapers around the nation. He has also been a frequent guest on CNN, MSNBC, and other major networks to discuss legal and political issues."

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

4 Political Atheist  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:47:05am

I may have posted this before on this, but when both sides are upset, it's likely exactly the right person. I admit the lack of experience as a judge gives me pause. But this is a Presidential prerogative. I have zero interest in listening to the partisan din on this one. I have a lot on interest in her career and facts thereof.

5 ShaunP  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:47:33am

This article in the NY Times this morning gave a perfect summation.


Ms. Kagan is certainly too liberal for conservatives, who quickly criticized her nomination on Monday as a radical threat. But much like every other Democratic nominee since the 1960s, she does not fit the profile sought by the left, which hungers for a full-throated counterweight to the court’s conservative leader, Justice Antonin Scalia.
6 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:48:28am

re: #3 Walter L. Newton

I think the mistake is them wanting left idealogues to counteract the right idealogues that got shoved in. That only makes the situation worse >>

Throwing in a young center-leftist really into LAW is playing the long term, both for his politics, and for the court in general.

7 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:48:47am

Heh. Justice Marshall nicknamed her "Shorty". Awesome.

8 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:49:00am

By the way I haven't been following Kagan's history as close as some (most) other people have. Why is everybody so sure that she's a lesbian exactly?

I read/skimmed (75% read 25% skimmed) the piece Charles linked to and I didn't see anything to suggest it...

9 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:49:03am

re: #7 Aceofwhat?

That is awesome :D

10 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:49:13am

re: #3 Walter L. Newton

Paul Campos, one of our local progressives, on the radio this morning, was not very happy with her nomination.

"Paul Campos is a law professor, author and journalist currently on the faculty of the University of Colorado in Boulder. His books include Against the Law (with Pierre Schlag and Steven D. Smith, 1996), a collection of essays regarding legal thought in contemporary America; Jurismania (1998), a scathing critique of the American legal system; and The Diet Myth (2005) (previously published as The Obesity Myth in 2004), an expose of the hysteria surrounding weight and health in the Western world today. Campos writes a weekly opinion column for the Scripps Howard News Agency which appears in newspapers around the nation. He has also been a frequent guest on CNN, MSNBC, and other major networks to discuss legal and political issues."

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

[Link: www.thedailybeast.com...]

11 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:49:20am

re: #8 jamesfirecat

Wait, that's not just a joke?

12 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:50:08am

re: #4 Rightwingconspirator

I may have posted this before on this, but when both sides are upset, it's likely exactly the right person. I admit the lack of experience as a judge gives me pause. But this is a Presidential prerogative. I have zero interest in listening to the partisan din on this one. I have a lot on interest in her career and facts thereof.

The sad thing here is, once again, the wingnuts will go apeshit over her personal life, the moonbats will go nuts over the wingnuts being wingnuts and any real discussion of her qualificatiions will get drowned out in the meantime.

13 darthstar  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:50:10am

President Obama could have asked the Republicans to nominate a candidate for him, and they'd still attack her/him.

This isn't going to be good for the GOP...their best bet is to act tough on TV when they question Kagan, and shut the fuck up beyond that. Going after her for her orientation is only going to make more people less likely to support Republicans in the fall. And you can count on assholes like Limbaugh to eventually attack her for being Jewish as well. That's a sure winner for the GOP...you betcha.

14 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:50:16am

re: #6 windsagio

I think the mistake is them wanting left idealogues to counteract the right idealogues that got shoved in. That only makes the situation worse >>

Throwing in a young center-leftist really into LAW is playing the long term, both for his politics, and for the court in general.

It don't matter to me... I don't see a problem with her not having judicial experience, especially since you can be president without having any executive experience.

15 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:51:19am

re: #8 jamesfirecat

Woman + Democrat + questionable relationship statue (aka not barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen gettin hubby a beer) = lesbian

16 darthstar  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:51:20am

re: #14 Walter L. Newton

It don't matter to me... I don't see a problem with her not having judicial experience, especially since you can be president without having any executive experience.

Didn't you tell that joke yesterday? It still sucks.

17 lawhawk  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:52:34am

The left doesn't think she's far enough to the left. The right thinks she's to far to the left. Frankly, I'm not sure how anyone can figure out what her judicial philosophy is because there's no judicial rulings on which to figure out her philosophy. You can't go by what she's said as Solicitor General because her job is to advise and counsel her client - to advocate her client's position, which happens to be the US government. That means potentially engaging in pretzel logic to advocate for her client's position.

Now, her choices while as dean at Harvard law may be enlightening or informing on her position, but did she attempt to suss out nexus determinations or whether Quill is still appropriate? State taxation of Internet sales? Terrorism related cases? How about free speech? 2d amendment? Abortion rights? Criminal procedure?

No one knows. We have even less to go on with a paper record than Sotomayor, Alito, Breyer, or some of those that critics contended were stealth candidates because there were so few cases on which they ruled.

In fact, I've seen some comparing her to Miers. I don't think that's wholly warranted - but she's going to have to convince the Senators that she's capable of providing a coherent judicial philosophy and that will make her confirmation hearings all the more interesting.

18 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:52:42am

re: #16 darthstar

Didn't you tell that joke yesterday? It still sucks.

"The Best of the Walter Show" tough...

19 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:53:02am

re: #6 windsagio

I think the mistake is them wanting left idealogues to counteract the right idealogues that got shoved in. That only makes the situation worse >>

Throwing in a young center-leftist really into LAW is playing the long term, both for his politics, and for the court in general.

Basically, the left-leaning crowd is upset because they realize this is it. Obama will probably never be in a better position to put through a strongly left-wing SCOTUS candidate. And he won't. Because that is not who he is, or what his vision for the Court is.

That said, totally agree. Kagan knows law, she's about fifteen years old in Supreme court terms, and she has a good record of being able to work with both conservative and liberal thinkers.

20 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:53:20am

re: #16 darthstar

pff I thought it was cute. Not like Walter's opinion actually matters anyways :D

21 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:53:35am

re: #7 Aceofwhat?

Heh. Justice Marshall nicknamed her "Shorty". Awesome.


Saw a picture of her this morning, standing between Obama and Biden. She comes up to their shoulders, just about. It was cute.

22 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:53:39am

re: #16 darthstar

Didn't you tell that joke yesterday? It still sucks.

Actually, it wasn't funny at all. And what part isn't true. Seems you can only imply it's not funny instead of debating my opinion.

Nothing to say... huh?

23 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:54:07am

re: #8 jamesfirecat

By the way I haven't been following Kagan's history as close as some (most) other people have. Why is everybody so sure that she's a lesbian exactly?

I read/skimmed (75% read 25% skimmed) the piece Charles linked to and I didn't see anything to suggest it...

Didn't you see the photo of her playing softball?

//

24 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:54:12am

re: #19 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh yeah I agree.

They'd also be totally be playing the Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Bush game, and we've had more than enough of that to last us until the Quinticentennial.

25 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:54:33am

re: #20 windsagio

pff I thought it was cute. Not like Walter's opinion actually matters anyways :D

No shit... I'm just a 108 year old, ugly, supermarket bagger, who can't write worth a shit.

Or didn't you hear?

26 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:54:33am

re: #13 darthstar

President Obama could have asked the Republicans to nominate a candidate for him, and they'd still attack her/him.

This isn't going to be good for the GOP...their best bet is to act tough on TV when they question Kagan, and shut the fuck up beyond that. Going after her for her orientation is only going to make more people less likely to support Republicans in the fall. And you can count on assholes like Limbaugh to eventually attack her for being Jewish as well. That's a sure winner for the GOP...you betcha.

Agree. And good nominees are much, much, much smarter than the folks doing the questioning. Unless we discover an elephant in their CV, anything beyond a few tough questions ends up making senators of both parties look like dullards...

27 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:55:03am

re: #13 darthstar

President Obama could have asked the Republicans to nominate a candidate for him, and they'd still attack her/him.

This isn't going to be good for the GOP...their best bet is to act tough on TV when they question Kagan, and shut the fuck up beyond that. Going after her for her orientation is only going to make more people less likely to support Republicans in the fall. And you can count on assholes like Limbaugh to eventually attack her for being Jewish as well. That's a sure winner for the GOP...you betcha.

People are going to keep harping on this 'no Protestants' thing.

28 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:55:39am

re: #26 Aceofwhat?

Agree. And good nominees are much, much, much smarter than the folks doing the questioning. Unless we discover an elephant in their CV, anything beyond a few tough questions ends up making senators of both parties look like dullards...

There is no tough question, most of the questions are pre-prepped, the nominee has the questions... not unless someone on the committee goes rogue.

29 Slap  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:56:09am

re: #1 EmmmieG

Agreed, 100%. I tend to think this applies, in a lesser sense, to the Presidency, as well. I think the weight and breathtaking scope of the responsibilities in both jobs tend to invalidate most outsiders' predictions of how a person will behave once they're in place. Sometimes, the predictions turn out to be true -- but I believe that's the exception. Sometimes I think the best we can hope for in either job is a person with enough intellectual wattage and agility to be able to ride the rapids without tipping over.....

30 Fart Knocker  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:56:41am

The article had no discussion of the military recruiter ban she imposed at Harvard law. A bit of a puff piece IMHO.

Nothing pragmatic about trying to get the DoD to agree not to discriminate based on sexual orientation in violation of federal law (DADT). Nothing very scholarly either. Political? Very much so.

31 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:56:45am

re: #28 Walter L. Newton

And they all refuse to answer. The funny thing is, I seem to remember Kagan at some point complaining about the 'nonstatements' that judge-appointees tend to make.

32 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:57:04am

re: #27 SanFranciscoZionist

People are going to keep harping on this 'no Protestants' thing.

I hope not. I'm a protestant...i could care less.

But then, i'm special like that;)

33 lawhawk  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:57:05am

re: #27 SanFranciscoZionist

It's a diversity thing - too many from the Ivy Leagues, too many Northeasterners. Too many NYers.

Yet, we're now seeing the most women on the Bench at any time in the Nation's history if Kagan is confirmed. Her religion may be an issue with some, but shouldn't be an issue. I think the geographical thing could be an issue if some Senators had been championing other candidates, but that doesn't appear to be the case yet.

34 Fart Knocker  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:57:16am

re: #16 darthstar

Didn't you tell that joke yesterday? It still sucks.


True though...

35 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:57:22am

re: #30 rwdflynavy

It might not be an important issue to some people >> The way she phrased her objection is hard to argue with.

36 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:57:37am

re: #25 Walter L. Newton

No shit... I'm just a 108 year old, ugly, supermarket bagger, who can't write worth a shit.

Or didn't you hear?

Didn't we get rid of the guy who was sayin' all of that?

37 darthstar  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:58:30am

re: #27 SanFranciscoZionist

People are going to keep harping on this 'no Protestants' thing.

Let 'em harp. Nearly all of our presidents (Obama included) have been Protestants.

38 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:58:48am

re: #36 SanFranciscoZionist

Didn't we get rid of the guy who was sayin' all of that?

I wasn't here, but I think so.

39 Fart Knocker  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:58:52am

re: #37 darthstar

Let 'em harp. Nearly all of our presidents (Obama included) have been Protestants.


SEKRIT!!! nevermind...

40 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:59:01am

re: #27 SanFranciscoZionist

I find the 'no protestants' thing kinda fascinating actually. What is it that makes such a statistically unlikely set of appointments happen?

(Note I don't think of it as a scandal, just a weird hiccup)

41 Vicious Michigan Union Thug  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:59:03am

Personally, I am just delighted that a short, fat woman is successful. She is an inspiration to all the rest of the "jumbo shrimp"

42 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:59:20am

re: #37 darthstar

)(#@*$)( baptists ;)

43 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:59:37am

re: #17 lawhawk

In fact, I've seen some comparing her to Miers. I don't think that's wholly warranted - but she's going to have to convince the Senators that she's capable of providing a coherent judicial philosophy and that will make her confirmation hearings all the more interesting.

Just not wholly warranted? How is it in the least warranted?

Miers worked in commercial litigation, never touching anything constitutional or even non-litigious. She had run a lottery.

Kagan has argued six cases before the Supreme Court. She's taught constitutional law. She was nominated to be a judge but blocked by the Republicans at the time.

I don't think any comparison of the two is in the least bit meaningful. Yes, Kagan has remained determinedly unstaked on a number of big issues-- but she's been active in constitutional law, including arguing before the court.

I don't think any comparison of the two is warranted, and if you make one, it's clearly obvious that Kagan is miles above Miers.

44 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 9:59:55am

re: #31 windsagio

And they all refuse to answer. The funny thing is, I seem to remember Kagan at some point complaining about the 'nonstatements' that judge-appointees tend to make.

Yeah, she did. That's going to add a humorous touch to the proceedings.

45 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:00:08am

Hey, look:

Short

People

Are

Nothing

To

Be

Afraid

of...

46 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:00:15am

re: #27 SanFranciscoZionist

People are going to keep harping on this 'no Protestants' thing.

This morning over breakfast I argued that "Protestants" should not be considered all one sect, and the counter argument was that "Christians" including Catholics are all one sect. Which got expanded to include Jews and Muslims....breakfast over!

47 Fart Knocker  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:01:25am

re: #46 wrenchwench

This morning over breakfast I argued that "Protestants" should not be considered all one sect, and the counter argument was that "Christians" including Catholics are all one sect. Which got expanded to include Jews and Muslims...breakfast over!

It is religious Gerrymandering!!
//

48 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:01:36am

re: #33 lawhawk

It's a diversity thing - too many from the Ivy Leagues, too many Northeasterners. Too many NYers.

Well, I wouldn't mind having a Stanford or Boalt grad on the list.

49 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:03:12am

re: #45 EmmmieG

Reminds me of the essay where the guy goes on about hoping Yoda is burning forever in Jedi Hell.

50 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:03:18am

re: #30 rwdflynavy

The article had no discussion of the military recruiter ban she imposed at Harvard law. A bit of a puff piece IMHO.

Nothing pragmatic about trying to get the DoD to agree not to discriminate based on sexual orientation in violation of federal law (DADT). Nothing very scholarly either. Political? Very much so.

Dude didn't didn't "ban" them.

She restricted them.

Now this restricting may or may not have been a partisan political act.

But saying that she "banned them" or kicked them all off campus is demonstrably false.

[Link: mediamatters.org...]

51 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:04:29am

re: #40 windsagio

I find the 'no protestants' thing kinda fascinating actually. What is it that makes such a statistically unlikely set of appointments happen?

(Note I don't think of it as a scandal, just a weird hiccup)

Not sure myself. I wonder if it's that the judiciary is easier-access for ambitious Jewish or Italian or Irish kids with legal interests than, say, running for Congress. You don't have to know as many people, you can work your way up...

...but you'd think that would also favor Protestants without family connections. Dunno.

52 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:04:30am

And no, I'm not short.

Just too lazy to look up more successful short people.

(And yes, the Nac Mac Feegle are successful. In their view.)

53 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:04:52am

re: #41 Alouette

Personally, I am just delighted that a short, fat woman is successful. She is an inspiration to all the rest of the "jumbo shrimp"

LOL!! I love you, babushka!!

54 avanti  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:04:57am

re: #14 Walter L. Newton

It don't matter to me... I don't see a problem with her not having judicial experience, especially since you can be president without having any executive experience.

One third of the justices had no experience as a judge including the Nixon appointee William Rehnquist later made Chief Justice by Reagan. It's a non issue.

55 Fart Knocker  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:05:54am

re: #50 jamesfirecat

Dude didn't didn't "ban" them.

She restricted them.

Now this restricting may or may not have been a partisan political act.

But saying that she "banned them" or kicked them all off campus is demonstrably false.

[Link: mediamatters.org...]

You are correct, my mistake. I feel her restriction was partisan in nature. She is on record as being against DADT and the military's policy.

56 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:07:09am

re: #55 rwdflynavy

You are correct, my mistake. I feel her restriction was partisan in nature. She is on record as being against DADT and the military's policy.

Thank you for admitting your mistake politely.

I feel that being against DADT (if that's the only one of the military's policies she's against) is an argument in her favor rather than against personally.

57 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:07:16am

re: #54 avanti

One third of the justices had no experience as a judge including the Nixon appointee William Rehnquist later made Chief Justice by Reagan. It's a non issue.

It does buck the general trend of the last few decades.

58 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:07:23am

It's all pro forma anyway. Much ado about nothing.

She will be confirmed (unless a dead boy or a live girl turns up in her bed).

Next topic?

59 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:07:59am

re: #54 avanti

Kagan also probably picked up a thing or two clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall. Aside from a nickname.

60 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:08:25am

re: #58 Cato the Elder

It's all pro forma anyway. Much ado about nothing.

She will be confirmed (unless a dead boy or a live girl turns up in her bed).

Next topic?

I think it's the live girl that the begrudgers are hoping will somehow scuttle her.

61 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:08:43am

re: #57 SanFranciscoZionist

Yeah, but it's still pretty much ginned up.

Imagine the reaction if he'd appointed a longstanding judge from the *gasp* 9th Circuit!

that'd be alot worse :D

62 Fart Knocker  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:09:18am

re: #56 jamesfirecat

Thank you for admitting your mistake politely.

I feel that being against DADT (if that's the only one of the military's policies she's against) is an argument in her favor rather than against personally.

DADT is not a military policy. It is law enacted by Congress and signed by the President (Clinton).

63 Slap  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:09:21am

re: #60 SanFranciscoZionist

Wasn't "The Begrudgers" a Stephen King novel....?

64 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:09:24am

re: #60 SanFranciscoZionist

It would be very American if the first Gay justice (presuming that its not long past) had to hide their status >>

65 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:09:39am

re: #61 windsagio

Yeah, but it's still pretty much ginned up.

Imagine the reaction if he'd appointed a longstanding judge from the *gasp* 9th Circuit!

that'd be alot worse :D

Ah, the infamous 'Ninth Circus'.

66 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:09:51am

re: #62 rwdflynavy

I suspect that james still would think its good that she was against it :P

67 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:10:07am

re: #65 SanFranciscoZionist

Its my favorite boogeyman!

68 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:10:21am

I'm hoping for a lack of antisemitism during this process.

69 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:10:36am

re: #62 rwdflynavy

DADT is not a military policy. It is law enacted by Congress and signed by the President (Clinton).

Then just so we're clear, which military policy do you feel she's against?

70 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:10:40am

re: #68 Obdicut

I'm hoping for a lack of antisemitism during this process.

You're funny.

71 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:10:50am

re: #68 Obdicut

I'm hoping for a lack of antisemitism during this process.

You really are a dreamer, aren't you?

72 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:11:05am

re: #63 Slap

Wasn't "The Begrudgers" a Stephen King novel...?

If it isn't already I'm sure it will be soon.

73 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:11:24am

re: #68 Obdicut

I think that's pretty likely, once you leave out the 'Usual Suspects'

The lack that is.

74 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:11:31am

re: #45 EmmmieG

They got little baby legs
That stand so low
You got to pick 'em up
Just to say hello
They got little cars
That got beep, beep, beep
They got little voices
Goin' peep, peep, peep
They got grubby little fingers
And dirty little minds
They're gonna get you every time
Well, I don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
'Round here

-Randy Newman

75 charlz  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:11:37am

re: #57 SanFranciscoZionist

It does buck the general trend of the last few decades.

I believe it's intended to.

76 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:11:46am

re: #72 jamesfirecat

Din't he retire or somethin'?

77 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:12:01am

re: #75 charlz

Charlz, I freakin' loe your avatar btw :D

78 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:12:31am

re: #64 windsagio

It would be very American if the first Gay justice (presuming that its not long past) had to hide their status >>

Well, 111 justices have served or are serving. By my estimation, that's a probable ten gay justices. Can't be none at this point, statistically we're talking insane odds there.

I wouldn't mind Kagan being the first out one, but if she doesn't want to be public about her private life that is very much her business.

79 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:12:57am

re: #62 rwdflynavy

There's pretty much nothing that's a military matter that congress shouldn't take responsiblity for:

The Congress shall have Power [...]To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States

If something is wrong in the armed forces, it really is the responsibility of congress to fix it.

80 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:13:03am

re: #78 SanFranciscoZionist

Naturally. I bet (in the longterm if not the short) Obama wouldn't mind having that under his belt tho'.

81 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:13:27am

re: #14 Walter L. Newton

It don't matter to me... I don't see a problem with her not having judicial experience, especially since you can be president without having any executive experience.

How is a Supreme Court Justice without judicial experience or training any less dangerous than a neurosurgeon without any medical experience or training?

82 charlz  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:13:35am

re: #77 windsagio

Charlz, I freakin' loe your avatar btw :D

I can't remember where I stole it from. 8-(

83 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:13:53am

re: #82 charlz

Kness is what it looks like, name ring a bell?

Frenchie.

84 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:14:31am

re: #81 Spare O'Lake

How is a Supreme Court Justice without judicial experience or training any less dangerous than a neurosurgeon without any medical experience or training?

She has LEGAL experience and training, so I don't think the analogy holds up.

85 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:14:57am

re: #81 Spare O'Lake

She doesn't hold a knife?

86 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:15:06am

re: #81 Spare O'Lake

How is a Supreme Court Justice without judicial experience or training any less dangerous than a neurosurgeon without any medical experience or training?

Because no matter what her vote is only one of nine.

87 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:15:17am

re: #59 Obdicut

Kagan also probably picked up a thing or two clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall. Aside from a nickname.

From what the GOP says she picked up a hatred of the Constitiution.
/

This is still not old....yet.
Michael Steele Rips Elena Kagan For Questioning Slavery/Sexism’s Central Role In Constitution

[Link: wonkette.com...]

Because yeah, there was not a thing wrong with the Constitution in it's original form...that is if you were not a slave or a chick.

88 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:15:29am

re: #73 windsagio

I don't think so. She'll be the third Jew on the Supreme Court, and she's been supportive of executive power. I think a lot of Paulian types will connect the (imaginary) dots. Also, the anti-Israel contingent seems to be unable to separate Jewish from Israel, so I expect them to obsess over her views on rendition and the like.

89 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:16:18am

re: #88 Obdicut

Paulians are pretty close to 'the Usual Suspects' to me, as far as antisemitism goes. I just don't expect any real mainstreamers to bring it up (well maybe Rush, the chode)

90 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:16:25am

Did everyone but me know that Cleveland appointed a Supreme Court Justice named Lucius Quintus Cinncinnatus Lamar?

91 garhighway  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:16:59am

re: #81 Spare O'Lake

How is a Supreme Court Justice without judicial experience or training any less dangerous than a neurosurgeon without any medical experience or training?

You're stretching a little there, aren't you? Kagan has been in training for this gig her whole professional life, including clerking at the Court and practicing before it. She has been at the top of her profession for quite a while.

Is being on a Circuit Court of Appeals a necessary or appropriate prerequisite for being on SCOTUS? No. The neurosurgeon comparison is a false one.

92 elektramourns  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:17:15am

Fuck the Republicans. Nothing pleases you when you are an extremist. There is no center to their politics, and their purity test is for extremeness. Who gives a shit. I will continue to despise them as long as they keep up their destructive behavior. We have more than enough in our arsenal to fend them off. We are smarter and more diversified and educated, to begin with.

93 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:17:15am

re: #90 SanFranciscoZionist

I didn't, but I sure as hell am glad ot know that now!

94 Fart Knocker  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:17:29am

re: #69 jamesfirecat

Then just so we're clear, which military policy do you feel she's against?

OK, I give up! Disregard my previous post.

95 Slap  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:17:34am

re: #81 Spare O'Lake

You've tied "training" and "experience" together.

You can make a case for experience, for sure. But with her background, including clerking for Marshall, you may have difficulty selling the "lack of training" as a valid point, imo.

96 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:17:42am

re: #91 garhighway

Of course he's stretching.

But orders have come down, and its been decided that that'll be the line of attack.

97 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:17:44am

re: #81 Spare O'Lake

How is a Supreme Court Justice without judicial experience or training any less dangerous than a neurosurgeon without any medical experience or training?

What a totally false analogy. She wouldn't be like a neurosurgeon without any training, even in that analogy. She'd be someone who was an MD and had done theoretical research into neurosurgery and taught it at a high level, had assisted doctors who had performed it, but hadn't actually performed it herself.

The judges on the Supreme Court do not have the same responsibilities as judges on other trials, either.

98 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:17:51am

The only issue of concern I have, is her position that the supreme court was wrong when they overturned the (3rd Court of Appeals, and I may have the number wrong) decision to ban military recruiters at Harvard.

First it was a unanimous decision, unanimous! You rarely see the whole court say a lower court was utterly wrong. She says that the nine Supremes are wrong. That by itself causes me some concern. I stress some, because as it was pointed out earlier, if the left and right are attacking you then you are probably in the middle, which is where I think a supreme should be in my humble (not bagging groceries yet) opinion. Cheers

99 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:17:58am

re: #87 webevintage

From what the GOP says she picked up a hatred of the Constitiution.
/

This is still not old...yet.
Michael Steele Rips Elena Kagan For Questioning Slavery/Sexism’s Central Role In Constitution

[Link: wonkette.com...]

Because yeah, there was not a thing wrong with the Constitution in it's original form...that is if you were not a slave or a chick.

Not that I'm trying to start a fight, but in 1790, America was easily one of the best places on earth to be a chick (in 1790). And, while I despise slavery, better to be a slave in America than a slave in Haiti or Cuba. (Of course, being a free black in America was better than any of these options.)

The constitution planted the seeds that would become America. They just hadn't finished growing yet.

100 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:18:00am

re: #81 Spare O'Lake

How is a Supreme Court Justice without judicial experience or training any less dangerous than a neurosurgeon without any medical experience or training?

Because it just is....

101 Fart Knocker  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:18:40am

re: #92 elektramourns

Fuck the Republicans. Nothing pleases you when you are an extremist. There is no center to their politics, and their purity test is for extremeness. Who gives a shit. I will continue to despise them as long as they keep up their destructive behavior. We have more than enough in our arsenal to fend them off. We are smarter and more diversified and educated, to begin with.

I would say you are not a shiny example.

102 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:19:00am

re: #8 jamesfirecat

By the way I haven't been following Kagan's history as close as some (most) other people have. Why is everybody so sure that she's a lesbian exactly?

I read/skimmed (75% read 25% skimmed) the piece Charles linked to and I didn't see anything to suggest it...

If she's an older woman and unmarried, that's all you really need to get the 'is she or isn't she' rumors going in some people's mind. Same thing happened to me when at age 28ish I moved by myself to a small town rural area. It became the 'thing' in the gossip circles to figure out if I was or wasn't because I guess in some people's mind an unmarried woman without a significant male other only means a couple things. Either I was some sort of loony chick who couldn't have a relationship with a man or I just wasn't into them in the first place.

It was an interesting experience that I can laugh about now but it was a bit bizzare at the time.

103 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:19:07am

re: #99 EmmmieG

Speacking of slavery, I'm taking The Battle Cry of Freedom on our trip. Next time a neoconfederate shows up, I'll be able to trash them with Panache!

104 elektramourns  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:19:26am

It is one of the plums of the job. He can pick whomever. We have civil rights and immigration law covered so far,

105 Fart Knocker  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:19:50am

re: #103 windsagio

Speacking of slavery, I'm taking The Battle Cry of Freedom on our trip. Next time a neoconfederate shows up, I'll be able to trash them with Panache!

Upding for the rhyme!

106 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:20:19am

re: #103 windsagio

Speacking of slavery, I'm taking The Battle Cry of Freedom on our trip. Next time a neoconfederate shows up, I'll be able to trash them with Panache!

I hate to warn you of this, but they probably have their anti-facts armor on.

107 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:20:45am

re: #94 rwdflynavy

OK, I give up! Disregard my previous post.

Youtube Video
108 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:20:56am

re: #102 Jadespring

Oh I should add 'independent' to the descriptor as well. Older, unmarried and independent = probably a lesbian in some peoples world view.

109 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:21:09am

re: #101 rwdflynavy

I would say you are not a shiny example.

Ditto! Ha, that was a double whammie.

110 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:21:15am

re: #99 EmmmieG

Not that I'm trying to start a fight, but in 1790, America was easily one of the best places on earth to be a chick (in 1790). And, while I despise slavery, better to be a slave in America than a slave in Haiti or Cuba. (Of course, being a free black in America was better than any of these options.)

The constitution planted the seeds that would become America. They just hadn't finished growing yet.

And I don't think Kagan would deny that at all. But I think she would strongly say that we have grown toward justice as a nation, and that the Constitution we have now is better than the Constitution we had then.

If you deny that the Constitution can grow or amend in any way because the idea of a 'living document' gives you the willies, you pretty much back yourself into a corner as regards slavery and women's rights.

111 jbarelli  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:21:16am

re: #8 jamesfirecat

It's just part of a whispering campaign because the right really doesn't have any solid reasons to oppose her. As Senator Leahy noted, the President could have nominated Moses and they'd find a reason to vote against him.

The left, in a similar situation, is also grasping at straws. She isn't one of the favorites of the far left, and has said some things that have sent our fringies (OK, I admit it, I tend to be a bit left of center) into fits. What's worse, they know that if they complain about those things, almost everyone to the right of Noam Chomsky would like her more.

Personally, I don't care what she does with her spare time. Not my business. And the things that both the far right and far left seem so angry about are points where I either agree with her or at least understand how a reasonable person could agree.

She'll do.

112 lawhawk  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:21:47am

re: #43 Obdicut

Miers was providing legal counsel to the President on a wide range of issues, including on Constitutional law. She was not a good choice by any stretch and had far less experience than Kagan. You stepped aside the real issue here - what exactly are Kagan's positions on any of the issues I raised? We simply have no idea. I find it interesting that Obama chose Kagan given that he still retains a strong majority of Democrats in the Senate and could push through a justice with a record of achievement.

Also, Kagan may have appeared before the S.Ct. as Solicitor General, but then again any admitted lawyer in good standing in the US can apply to do so with two sponsors. And from what I've seen, one of her appearances didn't exactly go all that well (re: Citizens United).

113 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:21:58am

re: #107 jamesfirecat

Nerd >>

114 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:22:29am

re: #98 The 1SG

The only issue of concern I have, is her position that the supreme court was wrong when they overturned the (3rd Court of Appeals, and I may have the number wrong) decision to ban military recruiters at Harvard.

First it was a unanimous decision, unanimous! You rarely see the whole court say a lower court was utterly wrong. She says that the nine Supremes are wrong. That by itself causes me some concern. I stress some, because as it was pointed out earlier, if the left and right are attacking you then you are probably in the middle, which is where I think a supreme should be in my humble (not bagging groceries yet) opinion. Cheers

Dude I already disproved the "ban military recruiters" thing earlier in the thread.

I am so very tempted to down ding you for not paying attention.

[Link: mediamatters.org...]

115 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:22:32am

re: #92 elektramourns

Fuck the Republicans. Nothing pleases you when you are an extremist. There is no center to their politics, and their purity test is for extremeness. Who gives a shit. I will continue to despise them as long as they keep up their destructive behavior. We have more than enough in our arsenal to fend them off. We are smarter and more diversified and educated, to begin with.

was that an example of your superior education?

116 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:22:37am

The American Family Association (AFA) are a reliable group of hate mongering twits. This former "theologian" Bryan Fischer had already written a bizarre piece for the AFA entitled, Homosexual Supreme Court Justice? Not under any circumstances:

If we elevate an open homosexual to the Supreme Court, we will be elevating someone who freely admits that he (generic use) engages routinely in behavior that was still a felony in every state in the Union as recently as 1962 and a felony in the other 49 states until 1972.

Sodomy is still a felony in the criminal code of about a dozen states. The Lawrence decision of 2003, an egregious act of judicial activism, prohibited enforcement of these laws, but the fact remains that 25% of the states in the Union still regard it as criminal behavior.

We simply should not elevate to the highest court in the land people who are known for engaging in sexually abnormal behavior which would technically make them felons in a quarter of the states over which they will have jurisdiction.

Then they wonder why many consider them the "American Taliban."

117 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:22:45am

re: #102 Jadespring

If she's an older woman and unmarried, that's all you really need to get the 'is she or isn't she' rumors going in some people's mind. Same thing happened to me when at age 28ish I moved by myself to a small town rural area. It became the 'thing' in the gossip circles to figure out if I was or wasn't because I guess in some people's mind an unmarried woman without a significant male other only means a couple things. Either I was some sort of loony chick who couldn't have a relationship with a man or I just wasn't into them in the first place.

It was an interesting experience that I can laugh about now but it was a bit bizzare at the time.

My dad is Catholic, and my mom is not. At some point when I was a kid, we moved to a new town, and he went to Mass by himself every Sunday, until one week my mother came with him for some reason. From the responses when he introduced her to people, they figured out that everyone had assumed he was gay. Single man, in his thirties...

118 lawhawk  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:23:36am

re: #84 SanFranciscoZionist

She has LEGAL experience and training, so I don't think the analogy holds up.

There's no specific qualifications to be a S.Ct. justice - no requirement to be a lawyer or a judge, but it certainly helps.

She has the legal experience and was dean at Harvard Law, so she knows something about the law, but as to what her philosophy is, I don't think we have a good idea where she'll end up on the ideological spectrum.

119 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:23:49am

re: #112 lawhawk

Man, I hate to say this;

You're seriously reading from the boilerplate here.

"Here is the list of reasons you can bring up to oppose Kagan, because of course you must oppose her"

120 Fart Knocker  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:24:15am

re: #110 SanFranciscoZionist

And I don't think Kagan would deny that at all. But I think she would strongly say that we have grown toward justice as a nation, and that the Constitution we have now is better than the Constitution we had then.

If you deny that the Constitution can grow or amend in any way because the idea of a 'living document' gives you the willies, you pretty much back yourself into a corner as regards slavery and women's rights.

I think most he get the willies over the "living document" have concerns about interpreting the constitution to extremes. Both slavery and women's rights weren't improved by interpretation, but by amendment.

121 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:24:22am

re: #98 The 1SG

The only issue of concern I have, is her position that the supreme court was wrong when they overturned the (3rd Court of Appeals, and I may have the number wrong) decision to ban military recruiters at Harvard.

First it was a unanimous decision, unanimous! You rarely see the whole court say a lower court was utterly wrong. She says that the nine Supremes are wrong.

Did she say they were wrong?
Link please.

And BTW:

When Kagan became dean of Harvard Law School in 2003, she criticized "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," calling it "terribly wrong." But she left in place a compromise that the law school made with the military before she arrived. As the New York Times explains in helpful detail, the law school did bar military recruiters from using its Office of Career Services in 1979. In the 1990s, Congress pushed back with the Solomon Amendment, which said that no Department of Defense funds would go to universities that barred military recruiters from "entry to campuses or access to students on campuses." Harvard backed down halfway: As the NYT relates: "While the school did not allow military recruiters to use its main placement office, it did allow them on campus through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, a student group. The recruiters met with students in the same classrooms, just under different sponsorship."

Other law schools made similar accommodations. But after 9/11, Congress decided they weren't good enough. Unless the law school gave the military "equal" access, Congress was prepared to deny the university as a whole $328 million in federal funds. With that much at stake, it wasn't much of a contest. In 2002, Kagan's predecessor as dean, Robert Clark, let the recruiters into the law school's placement office. Kagan did the same thing when she took over in 2003. In short, she never barred a military recruiter from campus. These facts make Beinart's notion that she should apologize seem weirdly heavy-handed.

[Link: www.slate.com...]

122 Slap  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:24:43am

re: #118 lawhawk

Is that such a bad thing? Not trying for facetiousness, here.

123 charlz  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:24:44am

re: #98 The 1SG

The only issue of concern I have, is her position that the supreme court was wrong when they overturned the (3rd Court of Appeals, and I may have the number wrong) decision to ban military recruiters at Harvard.

Do you have a source for the assertion that she said the Supreme Court was wrong? From what I've read, she and a substantial number of the Harvard Law faculty opposed military recruiters at Harvard.

124 Dynomite  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:24:51am

re: #98 The 1SG

The only issue of concern I have, is her position that the supreme court was wrong when they overturned the (3rd Court of Appeals, and I may have the number wrong) decision to ban military recruiters at Harvard.

First it was a unanimous decision, unanimous! You rarely see the whole court say a lower court was utterly wrong. She says that the nine Supremes are wrong. That by itself causes me some concern. I stress some, because as it was pointed out earlier, if the left and right are attacking you then you are probably in the middle, which is where I think a supreme should be in my humble (not bagging groceries yet) opinion. Cheers

So do you have the same problem with any judge who has been on the wrong side of an 8-1 decision? I've seen some pretty strongly written 8-1 dissents, where the 1 was in effect saying the rest of the court was outright wrong, and doing an injustice.

I think what that shows me is that, even without a "judicial record," she *does* have strong positions, and isn't afraid to take them. That's why I want out from a SCOTUS nominee.

125 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:25:16am

re: #113 windsagio

Nerd >>

You expected me to celebrate my victory some other way given my avatar?

126 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:25:48am

re: #125 jamesfirecat

I accept your argument, but it doesn't change a thing!

127 RadicalModerate  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:25:50am

Of course, the right wing has zero credibility in my mind on deciding a Supreme Court nominee.

Keep in mind on who they wanted to take Sandra O'Connor's place when she retired in 2005:

Conservative Caucus's Choice for Top Court Is Cast in Stone

In this room, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, assumed to be Bush's personal favorite to replace O'Connor, is a "big step backward," and only one man, really, is qualified for the job: Roy Moore, former chief justice of Alabama, best known for refusing to follow a federal order to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the state courthouse and was therefore removed himself two years ago.

128 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:26:06am

re: #110 SanFranciscoZionist

And I don't think Kagan would deny that at all. But I think she would strongly say that we have grown toward justice as a nation, and that the Constitution we have now is better than the Constitution we had then.

If you deny that the Constitution can grow or amend in any way because the idea of a 'living document' gives you the willies, you pretty much back yourself into a corner as regards slavery and women's rights.

Denying amendments does away with the Bill of Rights, and what loony wants that?

I will say, though, that words mean what they mean. I, personally, am a major grump about words being used for something the opposite of what they actually mean. Also, there's nothing written in the blank spaces between the words. People do that to the Bible all the time, and it annoys me then.

Amendments are for when we grow, as a people. (I'm not really sure what prohibition was. Some sort of whiplash.)

129 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:26:08am

re: #125 jamesfirecat

Also, its not necessarily a bad thing :D

130 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:26:27am

re: #120 rwdflynavy

I think most he get the willies over the "living document" have concerns about interpreting the constitution to extremes. Both slavery and women's rights weren't improved by interpretation, but by amendment.

That's fine, but there's absolutely no issue with what Kagan said, and when people try to make it such, they look like lunatics.

131 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:27:17am

re: #68 Obdicut

I'm hoping for a lack of antisemitism during this process.

Good time to root it out.

132 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:27:37am

re: #130 SanFranciscoZionist

That's fine, but there's absolutely no issue with what Kagan said, and when people try to make it such, they look like lunatics.

Or like they actually think that slavery was A OK with them....

133 lawhawk  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:27:46am

re: #119 windsagio

I think she's going to be confirmed, but can anyone out there tell me her judicial philosophy? How they think she's going to rule on any issues?

Don't you think we should wait to see how she's going to answer those questions before deciding whether to support or oppose?

And with all that, I still think she'll be confirmed unless there's some skeleton in the closet that Obama's vetters missed.

134 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:28:08am

re: #128 EmmmieG

Prohibition was about somebody showing the power of controlling the margins with single issues (prohibition was the abortion of the naughts and teens), and about one of those occasional culture wars the US goes through.

135 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:28:13am

re: #116 Gus 802

The American Family Association (AFA) are a reliable group of hate mongering twits. This former "theologian" Bryan Fischer had already written a bizarre piece for the AFA entitled, Homosexual Supreme Court Justice? Not under any circumstances:

Then they wonder why many consider them the "American Taliban."

*hangs head*

There is more Christianity found amongst the atheists here at LGF than in that pathetic rant.

136 Jaerik  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:28:14am

I note with mild amusement that no one ever questioned the sexuality of Condoleezza Rice nor Harriet Miers, both of whom were similarly unmarried and of a certain age.

137 Vicious Michigan Union Thug  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:28:20am

Why does everyone assume that she must be a lesbian? If she is, that's her business, but she may just be married to her career and not go out much because guys want something thinner and blonder with longer legs.

138 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:28:35am

re: #84 SanFranciscoZionist

re: #85 windsagio

re: #86 jamesfirecat

re: #91 garhighway

How does one know whether she will be a good judge if she has no judicial experience or training? It seems like a bit of a crap shoot, but what the heck, who really cares about proven skill and competence...after all, the SCOTUS is more of a legislative body these days than a Court in any case.

139 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:28:36am

re: #103 windsagio

Speacking of slavery, I'm taking The Battle Cry of Freedom on our trip. Next time a neoconfederate shows up, I'll be able to trash them with Panache!

Don't just use the book, use the song too. Favorite this on YouTube and play it while you smack 'em down:

Youtube Video
140 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:28:42am

re: #68 Obdicut

I'm hoping for a lack of antisemitism during this process.

This Catholic is really glad she is not another Trad Catholic.

141 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:29:21am

re: #112 lawhawk

Why are Kagan's positions on any of those issues supposed to be fully-formed? Shouldn't they depend on the actual case in front of her?

Wasn't Clarence Thomas disparagingly saying that most justices have made up their minds before the case-- wouldn't someone who actually is listening to the argument be kind of nifty? In addition, given the delta of change that justices experience when on the bench, it's odd to see a fixation with their views before appointment take precedence over the most basic question: Are they well qualified to think and reason on constitutional matters?


I did not 'sidestep' a real issue. There is no comparison between Kagan and Meirs. The objections to Meirs were not due to her not having fully formed views on constitutional issues, but on being a legal lightweight who had probably never even considered those issues.

I find it interesting that Obama chose Kagan given that he still retains a strong majority of Democrats in the Senate and could push through a justice with a record of achievement.

By your logic, wouldn't it actually be easier to 'push through'-- I'm not sure why you choose that phrase-- a justice? I mean, clearly Kagan is going to be attacked on the grounds of having no judicial experience-- which requires ignoring Rehnquist devotedly-- so wouldn't the justice actually be an easier push?

What is 'interesting' is that Obama has chosen someone who is far more centrist than the progressive wing of the Democrats would have liked. Obama's relentless centrism is still amusingly surprising to most.

142 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:29:33am

Not that I really care, but why is she assumed to be a lesbian, and Condi Rice wasn't?

143 ShaunP  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:29:39am

re: #136 Jaerik

I note with mild amusement that no one ever questioned the sexuality of Condoleezza Rice nor Harriet Miers, both of whom were similarly unmarried and of a certain age.

It actually was an issue with die hard Republicans...

144 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:29:54am

re: #133 lawhawk

I'd say good luck at getting any nominee to answer any question straight.

They haven't done that for decades, like it or not.

That being said, you can get a pretty good feel of how she'll be from her background:

(imo: Hardcore legal scholar, middle-left, not a big idealogue)

145 Summer Seale  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:30:23am

I guess Rush can be a sexist jerk. He's a fucking asshole.

146 Vicious Michigan Union Thug  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:30:29am

re: #136 Jaerik

I note with mild amusement that no one ever questioned the sexuality of Condoleezza Rice nor Harriet Miers, both of whom were similarly unmarried and of a certain age.

Guys liked to fantasize about Condi and those boots she had for walkin'

147 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:30:41am

re: #133 lawhawk

I think she's going to be confirmed, but can anyone out there tell me her judicial philosophy? How they think she's going to rule on any issues?

Don't you think we should wait to see how she's going to answer those questions before deciding whether to support or oppose?

And with all that, I still think she'll be confirmed unless there's some skeleton in the closet that Obama's vetters missed.

Doesn't she rule on the merits of the case, not on her judicial philosophy?

148 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:30:51am

re: #138 Spare O'Lake

You're being painfully blindly partisan.

Give it a break, and actually try to look at the situation and the woman.

149 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:30:56am

re: #136 Jaerik

Beat me.

150 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:31:01am

re: #136 Jaerik

I note with mild amusement that no one ever questioned the sexuality of Condoleezza Rice nor Harriet Miers, both of whom were similarly unmarried and of a certain age.

Condi has long been rumored to be a lesbian. I think there's supposed to be a longtime girlfriend.

151 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:31:08am

Elena Kagan was never a judge?

William Rehnquist anyone?

[cough]

152 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:31:12am

re: #119 windsagio

Man, I hate to say this;

You're seriously reading from the boilerplate here.

"Here is the list of reasons you can bring up to oppose Kagan, because of course you must oppose her"

dude. really? i want to go on record as being fine with this nomination - but she got pwned in front of the SCOTUS on more than one occasion. that's not boilerplate.

153 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:31:31am

re: #147 Walter L. Newton

Thats what they all do, according to to their appointment hearings :D

154 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:31:39am

re: #112 lawhawk

Interesting read. I agree the slights received from the court are in fact telling of their opinion, albeit brief.

155 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:31:52am

re: #150 SanFranciscoZionist

Condi has long been rumored to be a lesbian. I think there's supposed to be a longtime girlfriend.

Oh, come on, don't you stand in the supermarket check-out line?

She was having an affair with George Bush.

Several times, during slow news weeks.

156 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:31:58am

re: #150 SanFranciscoZionist

Condi has long been rumored to be a lesbian. I think there's supposed to be a longtime girlfriend.

I've also hear rumors that Condi was secretly getting things on with President Bush as another way of explaining her age + no boyfriend, but that was probably more because of the sheer amount of loyalty she showed to him...

157 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:32:10am

re: #136 Jaerik

Man, am I missing sarcasm, or did you really never hear the 'gay Condi' stuff?

158 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:32:20am

re: #149 EmmmieG

Kinky!

159 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:32:35am

re: #97 Obdicut

What a totally false analogy. She wouldn't be like a neurosurgeon without any training, even in that analogy. She'd be someone who was an MD and had done theoretical research into neurosurgery and taught it at a high level, had assisted doctors who had performed it, but hadn't actually performed it herself.

The judges on the Supreme Court do not have the same responsibilities as judges on other trials, either.

Even if we accept your diluted analogy for argument's sake, would you want a neurosurgeon with those credentials drilling into YOUR brain?

160 Randall Gross  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:32:42am

I'm an elections have consequences type of person, the president has the right, the power, and the duty to appoint, only in extremely rare cases of factual malfeasance should the congress fail to approve.

161 garhighway  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:32:49am

re: #128 EmmmieG

Denying amendments does away with the Bill of Rights, and what loony wants that?

I will say, though, that words mean what they mean. I, personally, am a major grump about words being used for something the opposite of what they actually mean. Also, there's nothing written in the blank spaces between the words. People do that to the Bible all the time, and it annoys me then.

Amendments are for when we grow, as a people. (I'm not really sure what prohibition was. Some sort of whiplash.)

Yes, the words mean what they mean. But they were written in a very different time, and some interpretive process HAS to take place to determine what those words mean now, when we have a very different society. For example: how can you possibly determine how the Fourth Amendment applies to wiretapping and electronic surveillance if you are going to fetishize the Framer's words? Ditto the Commerce Clause: they knew our economy as a local one. We have one now that is highly integrated.

It's a different world, and those charged with interpreting the Constitution have to take that into account, because the framers aren't here to answer these questions for us.

162 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:32:51am

re: #156 jamesfirecat

She also accidently called him her husband once, if I remember right >

163 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:32:52am

re: #151 Gus 802

Elena Kagan was never a judge?

William Rehnquist anyone?

[cough]

Oh sure, throw in facts again.

164 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:33:16am

re: #138 Spare O'Lake

re: #85 windsagio

re: #86 jamesfirecat

re: #91 garhighway

How does one know whether she will be a good judge if she has no judicial experience or training? It seems like a bit of a crap shoot, but what the heck, who really cares about proven skill and competence...after all, the SCOTUS is more of a legislative body these days than a Court in any case.

William Rehnquist was never a judge.

165 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:33:17am

re: #138 Spare O'Lake

How does one know whether she will be a good judge if she has no judicial experience or training? It seems like a bit of a crap shoot....

It is always a crap shoot.

166 lawhawk  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:33:30am

re: #141 Obdicut

What is 'interesting' is that Obama has chosen someone who is far more centrist than the progressive wing of the Democrats would have liked. Obama's relentless centrism is still amusingly surprising to most.

On that I agree.

167 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:34:04am

re: #116 Gus 802

The American Family Association (AFA) are a reliable group of hate mongering twits. This former "theologian" Bryan Fischer had already written a bizarre piece for the AFA entitled, Homosexual Supreme Court Justice? Not under any circumstances:

Then they wonder why many consider them the "American Taliban."

Pieces like that will mean most of the Republicans will fall noisily into opposition to Kagan (even though she does seem an improvement over Stevens). They're caught in something of a trap: Displease the base and lose the election. Alienate the center and lose the election. Most of them will thus vote 'no' and then try to weasel in the fall.

168 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:34:08am

re: #163 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oh sure, throw in facts again.

We now await the "But That's Different" clause, in 3, 2, 1...

169 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:34:15am

re: #152 Aceofwhat?

That's kinda a minor point to his argument, which is really just 'the usual'.

170 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:34:57am

re: #159 Spare O'Lake

Even if we accept your diluted analogy for argument's sake, would you want a neurosurgeon with those credentials drilling into YOUR brain?

Everybody has to have a first surgery.

171 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:35:12am

re: #164 Gus 802

Except you know...


After he joined the supreme court :D

172 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:35:20am

re: #142 EmmmieG

Not that I really care, but why is she assumed to be a lesbian, and Condi Rice wasn't?

Good question. Beyond the political nature of the label I'd say 'looks' play a large part in it.

173 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:35:33am

re: #170 jamesfirecat

I prefer 80 year old surgeons who had 30 years of good experience >>

174 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:35:57am

re: #121 webevintage

mind you, though, during the short period when the heavier restrictions were permitted (after the 3rd Circuit ruling but before the SCOTUS reversal), she was quick to reach for the heavier restrictions.

it didn't put her in a different ideological league with regard to plenty of other law school deans, but at the same time, Harvard already had a perfectly workable solution in place regarding the military's use of the OSS. She could have kept opposing DADT without increasing the restrictions immediately after the 3rd circuit ruling.

175 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:35:58am

re: #172 Jadespring

Again, condi was assumed just that, in some circles.

176 Dynomite  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:36:04am

re: #168 Gus 802

We now await the "But That's Different" clause, in 3, 2, 1...

Nope, you won't get that. It's going to be completely ignored. "Rehnquist" is a non-starter in today's sound-bite talking head media.

177 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:36:05am

re: #159 Spare O'Lake

Even if we accept your diluted analogy for argument's sake, would you want a neurosurgeon with those credentials drilling into YOUR brain?

Who is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Yes, I'd be fine with her being one of the nine neurosurgeons coming up with a plan for my brain. Why wouldn't you?

178 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:36:21am

re: #136 Jaerik

I note with mild amusement that no one ever questioned the sexuality of Condoleezza Rice nor Harriet Miers, both of whom were similarly unmarried and of a certain age.

People questioned Condie a lot about that.

Not to her face, though. She would have eaten them for a snack.

179 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:36:33am

Lets look at the real issue here.

Whats her position on hybrid seeds?

180 HappyWarrior  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:36:36am

re: #151 Gus 802

Elena Kagan was never a judge?

William Rehnquist anyone?

[cough]

Oh you know that's "different." I love how they're making her to be this crazy anti military zealot too. She has a legitimate beef with Don't Ask and furthermore, I read a story about how one Harvard law graduate when he got promoted to captain in the national guard not just invited Kagan to the ceremony but had her put the captain bars on him. Doesn't seem like the mark of an anti military person. What I've liked about Kagan so far is that she seems to be a really smart lady. Seems to have a good sense of humor too which is a nice bonus.

181 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:36:57am

I'm just wondering which SNL cast member will play Kagan if she stays in the spotlight in the next week or so.

182 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:36:59am

re: #168 Gus 802

We now await the "But That's Different" clause, in 3, 2, 1...

I expect Rhenquist to be jettisoned from the conservative pantheon in order to attack Kagan.

183 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:37:00am

re: #173 windsagio

I prefer 80 year old surgeons who had 30 years of good experience >>

But Doc! My toes are at the end of my feet, not my hands. Nurse get him his glasses please.

184 Nimed  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:37:21am

Humpf. Obama is predictably going to be grilled over any nomination. He might as well have chosen Diane Wood over a justice that will likely expand Executive power even further.

Somebody should be designing a scepter and a crown for our future Presidents' official ceremonies.

185 garhighway  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:37:36am

re: #181 Mad Al-Jaffee

I'm just wondering which SNL cast member will play Kagan if she stays in the spotlight in the next week or so.

Fred Armisan is my pick.

186 Lidane  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:37:42am

re: #19 SanFranciscoZionist

Basically, the left-leaning crowd is upset because they realize this is it. Obama will probably never be in a better position to put through a strongly left-wing SCOTUS candidate. And he won't. Because that is not who he is, or what his vision for the Court is.

Which is just more proof that people didn't really pay attention to what he was saying during the election, or to who he actually was.

187 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:37:45am

re: #181 Mad Al-Jaffee

I'm just wondering which SNL cast member will play Kagan if she stays in the spotlight in the next week or so.

Ellen Degeneress (don't feed me a straight line like that, I wouldn't help myself)

188 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:38:05am

re: #163 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oh sure, throw in facts again.

It's not about facts, its about Wingnut Rage. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh et al stoke up the rage, and then those thus stoked demand that office holders take "Real Conservative" positions, and in an off-year primary the office holder has to comply or face defeat.

189 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:38:09am

re: #182 Obdicut

I expect Rhenquist to be jettisoned from the conservative pantheon in order to attack Kagan.

In that case they'll probably bring up Harriet Miers.

190 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:38:18am

re: #179 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I feel a burning need to know about her position on "Crucifying mankind on a Cross of Gold".

191 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:38:18am

re: #175 windsagio

Again, condi was assumed just that, in some circles.

huh. i didn't know. which circles?

192 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:38:38am

re: #186 Lidane

Which is just more proof that people didn't really pay attention to what he was saying during the election, or to who he actually was.

Including the progressives who didn't pay attention.

193 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:38:46am

re: #182 Obdicut

I expect Rhenquist to be jettisoned from the conservative pantheon in order to attack Kagan.

Why not, it seems like they've already handily forgot Ike's warning about the military industrial complex....

(To a certain degree democrats have to, but he wasn't a president running on their party's platform)

194 KingKenrod  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:38:53am

It's possible Obama nominated Kagan because she has shown support for strong executive power, where she has worked as an advocate and a negotiator.

Obama's the pragmatist here; Kagan will probably wind up being the leftist Sam Alito.

195 Slap  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:39:00am

re: #187 Walter L. Newton

John Goodman.

(He was so good as that Tripp thingy....)

196 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:39:05am

I'm not happy about this....

96-0: Fed Audit Passes Senate

The momentum behind a Fed audit is an indication of surging populist sentiment and a financial industry on the defensive.

197 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:39:08am

re: #179 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Lets look at the real issue here.

Whats her position on hybrid seeds?

Given where Monsanto is going with GMO seed law suits that is a very valid question. Kagan's mentions a term at Gold/Sachs hmmmmm.

198 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:39:25am

Hey! Let's start a facebook page to get Betty White on the Supreme Court.

199 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:39:35am

re: #191 Aceofwhat?

Well for one, the Boondocks comic strip got in a hell of alot of trouble for seeming to imply that.

200 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:39:52am

re: #199 windsagio

Too much trouble for the idea to not be floating around really >

201 garhighway  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:39:55am

re: #189 Gus 802

In that case they'll probably bring up Harriet Miers.

But it was the right wing that killed Miers nomination. She wasn't certifiably right-wingish enough for them. It had nothing to do with credentials, it had to do with ideological reliability.

202 Walter L. Newton  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:39:56am

re: #196 Killgore Trout

I'm not happy about this...

96-0: Fed Audit Passes Senate

RON PAUL!

203 jbarelli  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:40:15am

re: #98 The 1SG

First it was a unanimous decision, unanimous! You rarely see the whole court say a lower court was utterly wrong. She says that the nine Supremes are wrong.

She also followed the ruling. Additionally, while nine Justices did concur, they were overturning an appeals court ruling, so apparently there were good arguments on the other side, but the Supreme Court decided that they weren't good enough.

Still, we don't evict someone from the bench because they were the lone holdout in an 8-1 vote.

And finally, was the Supreme Court wrong? Banning military recruiters from the campus of a private college seems to me like Constitutionally protected behavior, even if all nine Justices disagree. Directly to point would be Freedom of Association, and as the University is home to some of it's students, you could even throw in a Third Amendment argument just for fun.

(Mind you, I'm not agreeing that it was a good idea, just that my limited understanding of the Constitution says that it is a Constitutionally protected one, regardless of what all nine Justices said.)

Perhaps a similar case will come up years from now, and the decision gets reversed. Stranger things have happened.

204 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:40:21am

re: #196 Killgore Trout

I'm not happy about this...

96-0: Fed Audit Passes Senate

Just for reference since I'm out of the loop on this particular crazy issue, what does this mean we can look forward to now that it has passed?

205 KingKenrod  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:40:30am

re: #196 Killgore Trout

I'm not happy about this...

96-0: Fed Audit Passes Senate

Not surprised; this is Congress voting themselves more power.

This is very troubling.

206 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:41:00am

re: #199 windsagio

Well for one, the Boondocks comic strip got in a hell of alot of trouble for seeming to imply that.

OT.
The new season of Boondocks 1st episode was teh funny...

207 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:41:17am

re: #108 Jadespring

Oh I should add 'independent' to the descriptor as well. Older, unmarried and independent = probably a lesbian in some peoples world view.

I think Kagan also just has that je ne sais quoi that would make seeing an HRC sticker on her notebook not particularly surprising.

That said, constitutional law is no joke, and you don't just wake up one day in your 20's and think "well if this Gap thing doesn't work out there's always the supreme court." You have to make sacrifices if you're competing for one of the most exclusive jobs in the world.

If she were gay and closeted I could understand other openly gay people being disappointed that she wouldn't take a risk for a cause very close to their hearts. But it's her life. And asking someone to basically immolate themselves and their life's work for a nebulous cause that may or may not be advanced by that immolation is an immature position.

208 reine.de.tout  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:41:19am

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Everyone is blaming everybody else for the blowout and oil spill.

WASHINGTON – BP PLC told Congress Tuesday its massive Gulf oil spill was caused by the failure of a key safety device made by another company.

In turn, that company said BP was in charge, and that a third company that poured concrete to plug the exploratory well didn't do it right. The third company, which was plugging the well in anticipation of future production, says it was only following BP's plan.

209 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:41:25am

re: #201 garhighway

But it was the right wing that killed Miers nomination. She wasn't certifiably right-wingish enough for them. It had nothing to do with credentials, it had to do with ideological reliability.

True. In that case some would have to engage in revisionism and attempt to paint their prior opposition to Miers was based on her lack of judicial experience.

210 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:41:46am

re: #191 Aceofwhat?

huh. i didn't know. which circles?

Gay and lesbian ones, for starters. She was judged a hypocrite for not "coming out" on demand.

People also forget that asexuals are a large minority in the spectrum of sexuality. Some people find intimate relationships too much to handle, or just plain gross.

It's a perfectly legitimate stance, and such people used to be looked up to by (some) others for their abstinence and continence - it was once even considered a virtue.

In our hypersexualized society, though, you're weird if you're not banging someone.

211 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:41:49am

re: #206 webevintage

It was!

I like the ending especially, Huey being 'retired'.

Its a kind of an odd place for an oldschool 'black radical' to be now >

212 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:42:59am

re: #196 Killgore Trout

Yep, the Democrats are desperately trying to prove they can be as stupid as the Republicans on that one.

Morons.

213 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:43:15am

re: #135 Aceofwhat?

*hangs head*

There is more Christianity found amongst the atheists here at LGF than in that pathetic rant.

Thank you Ace. That is very complimentary.

214 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:43:16am

re: #198 EmmmieG

Hey! Let's start a facebook page to get Betty White on the Supreme Court.

I'm seeing that name pop up all over recently. Did she say or do something interesting recently?

215 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:43:28am

re: #203 jbarelli

She also followed the ruling. Additionally, while nine Justices did concur, they were overturning an appeals court ruling, so apparently there were good arguments on the other side, but the Supreme Court decided that they weren't good enough.

Still, we don't evict someone from the bench because they were the lone holdout in an 8-1 vote.

And finally, was the Supreme Court wrong? Banning military recruiters from the campus of a private college seems to me like Constitutionally protected behavior, even if all nine Justices disagree. Directly to point would be Freedom of Association, and as the University is home to some of it's students, you could even throw in a Third Amendment argument just for fun.

(Mind you, I'm not agreeing that it was a good idea, just that my limited understanding of the Constitution says that it is a Constitutionally protected one, regardless of what all nine Justices said.)

Perhaps a similar case will come up years from now, and the decision gets reversed. Stranger things have happened.

i have a limited understanding of the myriad interpretations of constitutional law, too.

so when 9 justices vote unanimously, yes, i take the position that i was wrong and they are right.

Freedom of Association? yikes.

216 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:44:06am

re: #214 Cato the Elder

I'm seeing that name pop up all over recently. Did she say or do something interesting recently?

Somebody started a facebook page to get her as the host of SNL. 500,000 fans later, it worked, and she hosted last night.

The new campaign is Carol Burnett.

217 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:44:21am

re: #210 Cato the Elder

Gay and lesbian ones, for starters. She was judged a hypocrite for not "coming out" on demand.

interesting. you know, if a straight person does that, they're bigoted. go figure.

218 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:44:22am

re: #214 Cato the Elder

I'm seeing that name pop up all over recently. Did she say or do something interesting recently?

She did a commercial where she got tackled by a football player and it went viral, so people started going crazy over Betty White.

219 [deleted]  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:44:25am
220 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:44:46am

re: #210 Cato the Elder

The difficulty is distinguishing between A) people who really are abstinent and/or continent B) people who say they are and C) people who are odd about sex and derive pleasure in ways unrelated to other people.

I personally just don't give a shit about the sex life of anyone other than myself, as long as everything's consensual and above-board.

221 Dynomite  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:44:46am

re: #214 Cato the Elder

I'm seeing that name pop up all over recently. Did she say or do something interesting recently?

Super Bowl commercial for Snickers. I'm still pissed there hasn't been the same upswell for Abe Vigoda.

222 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:44:51am

re: #216 EmmmieG

Somebody started a facebook page to get her as the host of SNL. 500,000 fans later, it worked, and she hosted last night.

The new campaign is Carol Burnett.

And she was hilarious. One of the best shows in a long time, IMHO!

223 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:45:07am

re: #215 Aceofwhat?

Windie's Favorite links: Dunnking-Kruger.

224 Four More Tears  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:45:13am

re: #219 SupremeCourtMike

It was a pleasure to not meet you. Bye now.

225 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:45:23am

re: #196 Killgore Trout

Interesting that Judd Gregg referenced William Jennings Bryan. That might get him in trouble with Beck:

JUDD GREGG BROUGHT UP BRYAN!!1 HE WANTS FREE SILVER TO UNDERMINE OUR GOLD!!!1 HE'S A PROGRESSIVE RINO!!11 ELEVENTY!!!111

226 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:45:29am

re: #217 Aceofwhat?

interesting. you know, if a straight person does that, they're bigoted. go figure.

Sounds like we need a game show or a scientific study to find out if gay people have better gay-dar than straight people do....

227 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:45:35am

re: #210 Cato the Elder

Gay and lesbian ones, for starters. She was judged a hypocrite for not "coming out" on demand.

People also forget that asexuals are a large minority in the spectrum of sexuality. Some people find intimate relationships too much to handle, or just plain gross.

It's a perfectly legitimate stance, and such people used to be looked up to by (some) others for their abstinence and continence - it was once even considered a virtue.

In our hypersexualized society, though, you're weird if you're not banging someone.

Upding for banging.

228 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:45:39am

re: #219 SupremeCourtMike

Mike, I somehow doubt that you're really on the supreme court.

229 Lidane  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:45:43am

re: #151 Gus 802

Elena Kagan was never a judge?

William Rehnquist anyone?

[cough]


Hell, for that matter, John Roberts almost didn't become a judge before joining SCOTUS.

His first nomination to the Circuit Court of Appeals in D.C. died in 1992 without ever coming to a vote and was rendered moot when Bush Sr. lost the election. His second nomination in 2001 died because the Dems refused to give him a hearing. It wasn't until the GOP got control of the Senate again in 2003 that he even got on the Circuit Court at all, and two years later he found himself being named Chief Justice when Rehnquist died.

230 Slap  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:45:43am

re: #220 Obdicut

Add "between ADULTS", and we're all good....!

231 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:45:49am

re: #219 SupremeCourtMike

Mike, that was pathetic. seriously - i'm bored. Where's the wit? The panache?

232 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:46:07am

re: #204 jamesfirecat

Just for reference since I'm out of the loop on this particular crazy issue, what does this mean we can look forward to now that it has passed?

Well, in theory it opens the Fed to political pressure. Instead of managing the economy for long term considerations it opens up the possibility that they could be coerced into short term decisions to benefit the economy temporarily for the political benefit of congress. It also effects the independence of the fed which will likely result in higher inflation.

233 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:46:12am

re: #194 KingKenrod

It's possible Obama nominated Kagan because she has shown support for strong executive power, where she has worked as an advocate and a negotiator.

Obama's the pragmatist here; Kagan will probably wind up being the leftist Sam Alito.

Perhaps Alito. It seems as though they want a Scalia (which I can understand). You might find this article interesting.

Kagan Nomination Leaves Longing on the Left
By PETER BAKER
Published: May 10, 2010 (NY Times)

WASHINGTON — The selection of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the nation’s 112th justice extends a quarter-century pattern in which Republican presidents generally install strong conservatives on the Supreme Court while Democratic presidents pick candidates who often disappoint their liberal base.

Ms. Kagan is certainly too liberal for conservatives, who quickly criticized her nomination on Monday as a radical threat. But much like every other Democratic nominee since the 1960s, she does not fit the profile sought by the left, which hungers for a full-throated counterweight to the court’s conservative leader, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Continues

234 [deleted]  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:46:17am
235 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:46:17am

re: #203 jbarelli

You have good points. I believe that even if the Harvard is a "private" school because they accept public funds, those funds can be stopped for reason (military recruiter ban). So it goes to the borrower is slave to the lender theory. I agree a private institution should do as it pleases, until they accept tax payer dollars. Then they are open to obeying the rules as do public universities. Ultimately money was the reason they obeyed, not because of their beliefs.

236 Four More Tears  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:46:44am

re: #231 Aceofwhat?

Mike, that was pathetic. seriously - i'm bored. Where's the wit? The panache?

Only his second post. The boy needed to work on his game before going full flounce. Shame.

237 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:46:53am

re: #148 windsagio

You're being painfully blindly partisan.

Give it a break, and actually try to look at the situation and the woman.

You really do like to try to manage the debate, don't you?
Why not allow a little light into your closed mind instead?

238 Lidane  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:47:04am

re: #196 Killgore Trout

I'm not happy about this...

96-0: Fed Audit Passes Senate

Yeah, but that's the Sanders amendment. Luap Nor and his minions are currently slamming that audit as being watered down because it doesn't go as far as they'd like.

239 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:47:16am

Christ on a crutch, WUB is coming to get me NOW!

See you guys on Friday, I'm gonna enjoy a nice vacation :D

240 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:47:30am

re: #220 Obdicut

The difficulty is distinguishing between A) people who really are abstinent and/or continent B) people who say they are and C) people who are odd about sex and derive pleasure in ways unrelated to other people.

I personally just don't give a shit about the sex life of anyone other than myself, as long as everything's consensual and above-board.

FTFY. Consensual is all that matters to me. Saying you don't care but insisting on above-board is a contradiction in terms.

241 Nimed  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:47:33am

re: #186 Lidane

Which is just more proof that people didn't really pay attention to what he was saying during the election, or to who he actually was.

Except that's not really true in this case. Obama spoke frequently and harshly against the Bush Administration abuses in Executive power.

242 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:47:52am

I saw an op-ed for one of the worst ideas I can think of:

Cameras in the Supreme Court.

No. No, no, no.

Reporters yes, cameras no.

243 Kragar  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:48:06am

OH JUST LEAVE ALREADY

244 windsagio  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:48:08am

re: #237 Spare O'Lake

I'd brawl, but I have a private beach to go enjoy :D

peaces!

245 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:48:25am

re: #223 windsagio

ooh - good stuff - three lines in and i like it already.

i'll keep reading.

246 Randall Gross  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:48:27am

re: #196 Killgore Trout

I'm not happy about this...

96-0: Fed Audit Passes Senate

I would get upset, however it's going to be Dems appointing the auditors, so it won't get out of hand and next time the loons bring it up people can say "They did audit the fed..."

247 goddamnedfrank  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:48:34am

re: #181 Mad Al-Jaffee

I'm just wondering which SNL cast member will play Kagan if she stays in the spotlight in the next week or so.

If they want to be really brutal they'll pull Julia Sweeney out of retirement. Almost too good for it not to happen ... somebody should start a facebook campaign.

248 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:48:40am

re: #231 Aceofwhat?

Mike, that was pathetic. seriously - i'm bored. Where's the wit? The panache?

We just can't get a good flounce anymore.

The last two trolls were delicious, though.

249 Dynomite  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:48:44am

re: #237 Spare O'Lake

Pot, meet kettle.

250 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:48:59am

re: #219 SupremeCourtMike

Wow...what happened to this site? I don't check it for 6 months and suddenly it turns into the HuffPo. Well, it was fun while it lasted.

This is just bullshit.
Is it that hard being on a site that has a mix of conservatives, centrists and libs?
Does it really hurt your brain to read something you disagree with?

251 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:49:04am

re: #235 The 1SG

You have good points. I believe that even if the Harvard is a "private" school because they accept public funds, those funds can be stopped for reason (military recruiter ban). So it goes to the borrower is slave to the lender theory. I agree a private institution should do as it pleases, until they accept tax payer dollars. Then they are open to obeying the rules as do public universities. Ultimately money was the reason they obeyed, not because of their beliefs.

Dude she didn't ban military recruiters, how many times do I have to tell you this?

[Link: mediamatters.org...]

252 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:49:09am

re: #232 Killgore Trout

Well, in theory it opens the Fed to political pressure. Instead of managing the economy for long term considerations it opens up the possibility that they could be coerced into short term decisions to benefit the economy temporarily for the political benefit of congress. It also effects the independence of the fed which will likely result in higher inflation.

I should also add that it gives congress access to some very secret and sensitive financial and economic information about which banks, sectors or industries might be in financial trouble. Get ready for lots of insider trading and manipulation from members of congress.

253 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:49:14am

re: #240 Cato the Elder

Meh. By 'above-board' I just mean really fully consensual. Like, no fair raising a woman to believe her purpose is to be married off to some guy at the age of eighteen, chosen for her by her parents. That isn't really 'consensual' to me. I just meant to clarify consensual more fully, not add an extra term.

254 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:49:27am

re: #227 dugmartsch

Upding for banging.

in bed

255 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:49:34am

re: #215 Aceofwhat?

i have a limited understanding of the myriad interpretations of constitutional law, too.

so when 9 justices vote unanimously, yes, i take the position that i was wrong and they are right.

Freedom of Association? yikes.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Have no horse in this race but, everyone's human. And the supreme court has handed down some very bad, though unanimous or close to unanimous, decisions.

256 Killgore Trout  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:50:07am

re: #238 Lidane

Yeah, but that's the Sanders amendment. Luap Nor and his minions are currently slamming that audit as being watered down because it doesn't go as far as they'd like.

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I don't know if the bill has been neutered enough, it's all pretty technical stuff and well over my head.

257 Jack Burton  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:50:17am

re: #219 SupremeCourtMike

Really?!? You need to update the douchebag script. It's been "worse than teh HuffPo" according to idiots who can dish it but not take it, for over a year now.

258 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:50:37am

re: #252 Killgore Trout

And lots of political pressure on those corporations, since congress will know when they're vulnerable, and when a set of 'congressional investigations' would totally sink them.

It's a power-grab by congress. Guess they're jealous by all the power that the Executive has attained.

259 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:51:12am

re: #253 Obdicut

Meh. By 'above-board' I just mean really fully consensual. Like, no fair raising a woman to believe her purpose is to be married off to some guy at the age of eighteen, chosen for her by her parents. That isn't really 'consensual' to me. I just meant to clarify consensual more fully, not add an extra term.

In rhetoric, less is usually more.

260 Dynomite  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:51:17am

re: #221 Dynomite

Super Bowl commercial for Snickers. I'm still pissed there hasn't been the same upswell for Abe Vigoda.

OK, I'm not an upding whore... But come on.... ABE VIGODA!

261 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:51:17am

re: #164 Gus 802

William Rehnquist was never a judge.

Would anyone seriously maintain that lack of judicial experience is a huge obstacle for a newly appointed SCOTUS justice to overcome?
Rehnquist too!

262 Slap  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:51:29am

Jeebus....is there some sort of training camp out there that instructs these feeble-minded pudding-brained orvilles to begin their "special" posts with variations of "boy, what happened to this place'?

I can't decide if it's their idiocy or their lack of creativity that I find more annoying....

263 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:51:54am

re: #259 Cato the Elder

I tried to split the middle and wound up hitting a hair.

264 Jack Burton  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:52:39am

re: #239 windsagio

Christ on a crutch, WUB is coming to get me NOW!

See you guys on Friday, I'm gonna enjoy a nice vacation :D

This concept of "WUB" confuses and infuriates us!

265 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:53:01am

re: #219 SupremeCourtMike

Yum, Flouncer troll, just in time for lunch.

266 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:53:20am

re: #210 Cato the Elder

In our hypersexualized society, though, you're weird if you're not banging someone.

Yep it's true and if you're a woman you get especially dinged with the tag that something must seriously be wrong with you because it's easy for a woman to get laid. Men get that but not nearly as bad.

That it might because of a choice or that your just too busy doing your thing to really care one way or another doesn't seem to be an option for some people. I was single for a very long time. Had the occasional fling here and there but nothing serious and for a number of years I didn't do anything with anyone. It wasn't that the opportunity never came up it just didn't mesh with what I was doing with my life at the time. Some people just couldn't stand it and were worried and always trying to set me up. There was the closeted lesbian thing as well as people who actually suggested therapy to deal with my supposed 'you must have problems with a male relationship issues.'

Then when I did meet someone and married him within a couple of months these very same people had fits over how screwed up I must be to do something like that so fast.

Couldn't win no matter what I did. :)

267 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:54:32am

re: #261 Spare O'Lake

Would anyone seriously maintain that lack of judicial experience is a huge obstacle for a newly appointed SCOTUS justice to overcome?
Rehnquist too!

I would say that huge is overdoing it....maybe even calling it an obstacle is.
These are very, very smart people it is not like they can't figure things out.
Especially when they have actually worked for a SC Judge in the past.

268 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:54:55am

re: #138 Spare O'Lake

re: #85 windsagio

re: #86 jamesfirecat

re: #91 garhighway

How does one know whether she will be a good judge if she has no judicial experience or training? It seems like a bit of a crap shoot, but what the heck, who really cares about proven skill and competence...after all, the SCOTUS is more of a legislative body these days than a Court in any case.

Rehnquist managed...

269 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:56:18am

re: #248 Cato the Elder

We just can't get a good flounce anymore.

The last two trolls were delicious, though.

We had plenty of time to frenzy those trolls. The one on this thread is just a lame pseudo-flounce. Not much meat on its bones, just enough to serve as a small part of lunch.

270 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:57:07am

re: #145 Summer

I guess Rush can be a sexist jerk. He's a fucking asshole.

I wonder how right-wing pundits will take that comment. They went through such a strong feminist phase when Palin was running, but they seem to have got over it.

271 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:57:25am

re: #251 jamesfirecat

Slow your roll slick, just trying to cut down the whole thing to few words, ban as in referring to the office they were banned from using. Thats all.. sheez sorry. I realize I could a use more words to better describe the ban from the office and relegating them from the office to the student group. But hey, its America babe..

272 Political Atheist  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:57:49am

re: #208 reine.de.tout

You and the Roi may want top check out the article I put up in my LGF Pages. Trying to put out the fire may have sunk the rig. Instead of on leak at the surface we have 3 at 5000 feet.

273 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:58:25am

Huffpo, NOT! Exciting YES!

274 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:58:31am

re: #269 Dark_Falcon

We had plenty of time to frenzy those trolls. The one on this thread is just a lame pseudo-flounce. Not much meat on its bones, just enough to serve as a small part of lunch.

Maybe half a BLT...

/bacon, lettuce, and Troll

275 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:58:33am

re: #261 Spare O'Lake

Would anyone seriously maintain that lack of judicial experience is a huge obstacle for a newly appointed SCOTUS justice to overcome?
Rehnquist too!

Saying "Rehnquist too" is only an attempt to appear fair. The reality is that the lack of judicial experience criteria only applies with Kagan because of her perceived ideological stance. Rehnquist turned out to be a champion of the right and an advocate of so-con values in the SCOTUS.

276 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:58:49am

If people want to get all bent about experience or lack thereof, why don't they question the MBAs who come straight out of college and get to run trading screens at Goldmine Sacks where they can make millions or billions go "poof!" with the stroke of the wrong key?

Compared to them, anyone with Kagan's résumé is qualified to run the Supremes while juggling kittens.

277 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 10:58:50am

re: #266 Jadespring

I dated a law student who didn't do much of that kind of thing. She was in her mid 20's and had never had a boyfriend. She didn't have an all consuming passion to become a justice on the supreme court from an early age, either (not that there's anything wrong with that!). And to put it politely, she was a lot more dateable than Kagan seems to be. Besides the schoolboy crush that Antonin Scalia seems to have on her, anyway.

278 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:00:29am

re: #235 The 1SG

You have good points. I believe that even if the Harvard is a "private" school because they accept public funds, those funds can be stopped for reason (military recruiter ban). So it goes to the borrower is slave to the lender theory. I agree a private institution should do as it pleases, until they accept tax payer dollars. Then they are open to obeying the rules as do public universities. Ultimately money was the reason they obeyed, not because of their beliefs.

yep. we really, really believe in this...oops - it's going to cost us? ummm...

279 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:00:37am

re: #156 jamesfirecat

I've also hear rumors that Condi was secretly getting things on with President Bush as another way of explaining her age + no boyfriend, but that was probably more because of the sheer amount of loyalty she showed to him...

She did once refer to him as her husband. Odd moment.

280 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:00:48am

re: #271 The 1SG

What does it being America have to do with being inaccurate?

281 garhighway  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:00:52am

re: #268 SanFranciscoZionist

Rehnquist managed...

It's funny, really, but it is actually a lot harder being a trial court judge than it is being a Supreme. Trial judges have to know a lot (trial procedure and the rules of evidence) that they have to act on in real time. And they have to make a lot of their decisions fro the bench with no help at all.

The Supremes, on the other hand, have the process managed for them. And they get LOTS of help with the writing and analysis, if they want it, since they get the absolute pick of recent law school grads to come clerk for them. So in term of the mechanics of being on SCOTUS, judicial experience really isn't all that helpful. What matters is knowing the issues, being super smart, and being able to work to a consensus of at least five. (As Brennan once said, the single most important skill you have to have to be ion the Court is knowing how to count to five.)

282 Jaerik  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:01:18am

re: #157 windsagio

Man, am I missing sarcasm, or did you really never hear the 'gay Condi' stuff?

I didn't, actually. I thought the joke was always that she was married to George in her own head. That's what the parody shows always implied, anyway.

283 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:01:21am

re: #159 Spare O'Lake

Even if we accept your diluted analogy for argument's sake, would you want a neurosurgeon with those credentials drilling into YOUR brain?

Do you feel that previous justices without judicial experience were bad choices?

284 goddamnedfrank  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:01:24am

re: #261 Spare O'Lake

Would anyone seriously maintain that lack of judicial experience is a huge obstacle for a newly appointed SCOTUS justice to overcome?
Rehnquist too!

Yes, and you have no idea what you're talking about. There is a reason that judicial experience isn't a codified requirement for the high court, and technically neither is a law degree or bar admission. The framers didn't want an entirely insular, locked in clique accustomed to power and judging others to also be in charge of reviewing the entire judiciary. Therefore they placed at least the potential for external viewpoints in the high court's make up and composition.

285 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:01:47am

re: #160 Thanos

I'm an elections have consequences type of person, the president has the right, the power, and the duty to appoint, only in extremely rare cases of factual malfeasance should the congress fail to approve.

Basically.

286 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:01:51am

re: #247 goddamnedfrank

If they want to be really brutal they'll pull Julia Sweeney out of retirement. Almost too good for it not to happen ... somebody should start a facebook campaign.

i was thinking Rachael Dratch...

287 Renaissance_Man  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:02:21am

re: #270 SanFranciscoZionist

I wonder how right-wing pundits will take that comment. They went through such a strong feminist phase when Palin was running, but they seem to have got over it.

1. It's satire - just a clever riff on how the left behaves.

2. It's satire - the left and their infestation of political correctness has made people too sensitive.

3. It's typical of the left to cry sexism, like all reasonable objections to a woman have to be sexist.

4. Oh yeah? Well what about what the left did to Palin?

If you are a right wing pundit, your job involves repeating a certain narrative over and over. Deviate from this narrative, and you are no longer a right wing pundit. Fortunately, the narrative is a simple one - liberals are always evil, and the Conservative thought leader (Rush, for now) is always right.

288 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:02:26am

The Republicans now have no choice, Obama is a foreign born, sekrit Muslim, and socialist who is set on turning America over to the U.N. blue helmets. Therefore anything he does or anyone he appoints for office is automatically part of the larger cabalistic plot to "steal amerika" from the few remaining true patriotic citizens.

Kinda scary in that it follows the profile of how every other nationalistic/tribalistic backlash and later purge/genocide has occurred all throughout history. Republicans have become trapped by their own overinflated rhetoric and now have to continue and even expand upon it in order to keep their voting block behind them.

I'm still waiting for the party leadership (what is left of it) to find the balls to stand up and say "enough." If instead of pandering to these people non-stop they instead denounced the most radical statements as "nuts" and then proposed their own realistic counter legislation to counter Obama's they would gain the moderate and independent support back.

Why is this so damn difficult for supposedly adult and intelligent people to see?

289 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:02:30am

re: #275 Gus 802

Saying "Rehnquist too" is only an attempt to appear fair. The reality is that the lack of judicial experience criteria only applies with Kagan because of her perceived ideological stance. Rehnquist turned out to be a champion of the right and an advocate of so-con values in the SCOTUS.

I also sewed little H.M.S. Pinafore admiral's stripes on his robe, which was just weird.

290 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:02:36am

re: #279 SanFranciscoZionist

She did once refer to him as her husband. Odd moment.

Man that was so weird.

291 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:02:40am

re: #279 SanFranciscoZionist

She did once refer to him as her husband. Odd moment.

That was hilarious. I remember reading about that and at first thinking, 'what?' then I just started laughing at it. Made me like her more because it was so bizarre and quirky.

292 avanti  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:03:02am

re: #250 webevintage

This is just bullshit.
Is it that hard being on a site that has a mix of conservatives, centrists and libs?
Does it really hurt your brain to read something you disagree with?

On that subject, here's how this POTUS is viewed buy all sides.

Approval :
Overall: 51%
Dems 82%
Independents : 47%
Republicans : 14%

Gallup.

293 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:03:07am

re: #266 Jadespring

except that you won!

294 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:03:16am

re: #141 Obdicut


What is 'interesting' is that Obama has chosen someone who is far more centrist than the progressive wing of the Democrats would have liked. Obama's relentless centrism is still amusingly surprising to most.

Except for the far right, who refuse to notice that it exists.

295 Renaissance_Man  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:04:13am

re: #266 Jadespring

Couldn't win no matter what I did. :)

Sounds like you won anyway.

296 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:04:38am

re: #289 Cato the Elder

I also sewed little H.M.S. Pinafore admiral's stripes on his robe, which was just weird.

I mean "he sewed"...

I never got near the man or his robes, I swear it!

297 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:04:50am

re: #178 Cato the Elder

People questioned Condie a lot about that.

Not to her face, though. She would have eaten them for a snack.

I know both men and women who would have volunteered to be eaten as a snack by Condi Rice.

298 recusancy  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:05:12am

re: #138 Spare O'Lake

re: #85 windsagio

re: #86 jamesfirecat

re: #91 garhighway

How does one know whether she will be a good judge if she has no judicial experience or training? It seems like a bit of a crap shoot, but what the heck, who really cares about proven skill and competence...after all, the SCOTUS is more of a legislative body these days than a Court in any case.

You obviously have no historical knowledge of the supreme court.
[Link: mediamatters.org...]

[Link: www.csmonitor.com...]

299 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:05:19am

re: #180 HappyWarrior

Oh you know that's "different." I love how they're making her to be this crazy anti military zealot too. She has a legitimate beef with Don't Ask and furthermore, I read a story about how one Harvard law graduate when he got promoted to captain in the national guard not just invited Kagan to the ceremony but had her put the captain bars on him. Doesn't seem like the mark of an anti military person. What I've liked about Kagan so far is that she seems to be a really smart lady. Seems to have a good sense of humor too which is a nice bonus.

She needs a different shade of lipstick.

300 DaddyG  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:05:26am

Thieves Steal Mojave Desert Memorial Cross in Nighttime Heist

Metal scavangers or protest of Supreme Court decision to let cross stand?

48 hours should do the trick.

301 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:05:28am

re: #296 Cato the Elder

I mean "he sewed"...

I never got near the man or his robes, I swear it!

I was wondering about that.

302 Randall Gross  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:06:17am

Iris

Image: Iris.jpg

303 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:06:20am

re: #276 Cato the Elder

If people want to get all bent about experience or lack thereof, why don't they question the MBAs who come straight out of college and get to run trading screens at Goldmine Sacks where they can make millions or billions go "poof!" with the stroke of the wrong key?

Compared to them, anyone with Kagan's résumé is qualified to run the Supremes while juggling kittens.

Silly Cato. MBAs are regarded as Republican Donation Givers. Thus they are exempt from right-wing attacks when possible. Even Rush knows not to bite the hand that feeds him.

304 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:06:25am

re: #276 Cato the Elder

If people want to get all bent about experience or lack thereof, why don't they question the MBAs who come straight out of college and get to run trading screens at Goldmine Sacks where they can make millions or billions go "poof!" with the stroke of the wrong key?

Compared to them, anyone with Kagan's résumé is qualified to run the Supremes while juggling kittens.

Que?

Besides the fact that they don't make the laws?

Interesting comparison.

305 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:06:26am

re: #138 Spare O'Lake

re: #85 windsagio

re: #86 jamesfirecat

re: #91 garhighway

How does one know whether she will be a good judge if she has no judicial experience or training? It seems like a bit of a crap shoot, but what the heck, who really cares about proven skill and competence...after all, the SCOTUS is more of a legislative body these days than a Court in any case.

Mister Point. Mister Talking Point, I presume.

306 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:06:36am

re: #299 SanFranciscoZionist

She needs Stacy and Clinton. That would be an adorable episode.

307 Jack Burton  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:06:44am

re: #160 Thanos

I'm an elections have consequences type of person, the president has the right, the power, and the duty to appoint, only in extremely rare cases of factual malfeasance should the congress fail to approve.

For the most part I was screaming this from the mountaintop during the whole Bush administration, and I will continue to do so during Obama's.

I still opposed Harriet Miers though (and not for any bullshit partisan reasons that should be irrelevant in such an appointment) and felt it was a case where if she did not withdraw, the Senate should have taken it's 'advise and consent' role seriously and denied her a seat on the court.

308 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:06:45am

re: #192 Walter L. Newton

Including the progressives who didn't pay attention.

They 'built him a soul' as the expression goes.

Of course, it's easier on the wingnuts. They just see what they expected, no matter what he does. No disappointments there.

309 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:06:50am

re: #275 Gus 802

Saying "Rehnquist too" is only an attempt to appear fair. The reality is that the lack of judicial experience criteria only applies with Kagan because of her perceived ideological stance. Rehnquist turned out to be a champion of the right and an advocate of so-con values in the SCOTUS.

Pardon me for trying to be fair.

310 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:06:52am

re: #286 Aceofwhat?

i was thinking Rachael Dratch...

Rachel has played a couple of memorable characters... Harry Potter being one. The other was a little girl that came back to Barney and Friends with Double D cups.

I laughed my ass off both times.

I heart Rachel.

311 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:07:17am

re: #293 Aceofwhat?

re: #295 Renaissance_Man

So true! :D

I'm continuing my victory lap as well. It was predicted that it would end up being a big fat fail within a year or so. Nope. Things just keep getting better. Sorry gossipy folks, you know nadda. LOL

312 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:07:29am

re: #289 Cato the Elder

I also sewed little H.M.S. Pinafore admiral's stripes on his robe, which was just weird.

For he is the evil Pirate captain Mel!

And a really evil pirate too!

You're very very kind, I'm an evil master mind and I'll do cruel things to you!

We're very very kind, he's an evil master mind he'll do cruel things to you!

I'll kick you in the knee, poke your eyes so you can't see, and hit you with my sword. Though I'm be a pirate swine... I have to draw the line... so I will not push you overboard!

What never?

No never!

What never?

Hardly ever!

(Splash)

Youtube Video
313 avanti  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:07:59am

re: #300 DaddyG

Thieves Steal Mojave Desert Memorial Cross in Nighttime Heist

Metal scavangers or protest of Supreme Court decision to let cross stand?

48 hours should do the trick.

No, Glenn Beck did it for ratings Fox./

314 SpaceJesus  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:08:16am

I think Obama needs to see how badass my constitutional rights final exam was before he settles for this Kagan lady.

315 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:08:53am

re: #304 Aceofwhat?

Que?

Besides the fact that they don't make the laws?

Interesting comparison.

Effectively, MBAs and their tame mathematicians do make laws, or at least figure out how to get around them.

Finance is now so arcane and computerized that the SEC has about twenty years' worth of catching up to do before it understands what's going on today.

By which time they'll be another twenty years behind the eight-ball.

316 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:09:43am

re: #314 SpaceJesus

You can't be a judge. Separation of church and state definitely applies.

317 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:09:56am

re: #300 DaddyG

Thieves Steal Mojave Desert Memorial Cross in Nighttime Heist

Metal scavangers or protest of Supreme Court decision to let cross stand?

48 hours should do the trick.

I love Wonkette's take:
Devil Cuts Down Jesus Cross In Mojave National Preserve

Read more at Wonkette: [Link: wonkette.com...]

318 Lidane  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:10:29am

re: #270 SanFranciscoZionist

They went through such a strong feminist phase when Palin was running, but they seem to have got over it.

Pfft. They only went through that feminist phase because Palin was running. Once McCain lost and Caribou Barbie quit her job, all bets were off.

319 wrenchwench  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:10:38am

re: #314 SpaceJesus

Chutzpah upding.

320 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:10:46am

re: #283 SanFranciscoZionist

Do you feel that previous justices without judicial experience were bad choices?

William Rehnquist?

321 Nimed  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:11:43am

It's funny Kagan is considered a moderate. This is only the case when you used the simplistic heuristic "she is criticized from the left and the right".

There once was a time when someone who supported altering our checks and balances in favor of the branch of our government that most worried our Founding Fathers (and rightly so) would be considered a radical.

322 SpaceJesus  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:12:44am

re: #316 Obdicut

You can't be a judge. Separation of church and state definitely applies.

hmmmm i'll have to go look at article 3

323 webevintage  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:13:18am

BTW, Kagan and her lack of openess about her so obvious gayness is driving Sully crazy.
Kinda like his weird obsession with Palin's baby.

324 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:13:31am

re: #315 Cato the Elder

Effectively, MBAs and their tame mathematicians do make laws, or at least figure out how to get around them.

Finance is now so arcane and computerized that the SEC has about twenty years' worth of catching up to do before it understands what's going on today.

By which time they'll be another twenty years behind the eight-ball.

is it arcane or tame? are the MBA's smart or dumb? you're confusing me.

if it's arcane, then some MBA's are whipsmart and it's their ethics you truly question, not their efficacy.

if they're tame, then this can't be very arcane, at which point i wonder why it would take anyone 20 years to catch up?

325 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:13:57am

re: #276 Cato the Elder

If people want to get all bent about experience or lack thereof, why don't they question the MBAs who come straight out of college and get to run trading screens at Goldmine Sacks where they can make millions or billions go "poof!" with the stroke of the wrong key?

Compared to them, anyone with Kagan's résumé is qualified to run the Supremes while juggling kittens.


She'd look cute juggling kittens. But the ASPCA would probably not like it.

326 prairiefire  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:14:32am

re: #299 SanFranciscoZionist

She needs a different shade of lipstick.

She has to be careful because she has that dark auburn hair, brownish eyes look. Would you describe her skin tone as slightly olive-ish?

Bless her, I could tell she just got a fresh hair dye job for the announcement.

327 jamesfirecat  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:14:55am

re: #325 SanFranciscoZionist

She'd look cute juggling kittens. But the ASPCA would probably not like it.

Don't think the kittens would like it much either, remember five of their six ends are pointy...

328 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:15:04am

re: #324 Aceofwhat?

Tame mathematicians. Pay attention.

329 Dynomite  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:15:23am

re: #321 Nimed

It's funny Kagan is considered a moderate. This is only the case when you used the simplistic heuristic "she is criticized from the left and the right".

There once was a time when someone who supported altering our checks and balances in favor of the branch of our government that most worried our Founding Fathers (and rightly so) would be considered a radical.

You're just not gonna let this go, are you? Obama is a left-of-center guy. If you're looking for a hard-left liberal, they only exist (presidentially speaking) in Republican Fairy Tale books now.

He's not appointing an idealogue. That's both a strenght & weakness of the Democratic Party right now. It's why they can put in Scalia. It's why they can get a Rush or a Beck on the air - they believe in ideological purity. Dems simply aren't that cohesive - a left-wing ideologue just doesn't get the attention of the party.

330 Lidane  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:15:59am

re: #315 Cato the Elder

Finance is now so arcane and computerized that the SEC has about twenty years' worth of catching up to do before it understands what's going on today.

God yes. I just took an International Finance course last fall and it was some of the densest stuff I'd ever seen, what with all the currency exchanges, derivatives, and aribtrage that goes on at any given moment. The transactions I spent months learning how to do happen in seconds in real time. There's simply no way to keep up with the current market, at least if you're a government regulator at the SEC.

331 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:16:49am

Obama will have another chance to replace a SCOTUS judge.

Enough with the chicks already!
/

332 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:17:01am

re: #307 ArchangelMichael

For the most part I was screaming this from the mountaintop during the whole Bush administration, and I will continue to do so during Obama's.

I still opposed Harriet Miers though (and not for any bullshit partisan reasons that should be irrelevant in such an appointment) and felt it was a case where if she did not withdraw, the Senate should have taken it's 'advise and consent' role seriously and denied her a seat on the court.

I agree with that. Though I find it amazingly disingenuous when Presidents attempt to enact legislation on which they didn't bother to campaign since it would have, presumably, hurt their chances of winning.

That's certainly not the case with Obama, everything he's campaigned on, he's attempted to enact into law. There hasn't been a single surprise. The only slight surprise was that there was enough political will to pass a slightly more liberal health reform bill than the one he proposed in his campaign (individual mandate). But I'd bet that a majority of his supporters were to the left of him on this issue and he himself said he was to the left of himself on the issue, but was constrained by the politics in the congress.

333 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:17:01am

re: #321 Nimed

It's funny Kagan is considered a moderate. This is only the case when you used the simplistic heuristic "she is criticized from the left and the right".

There once was a time when someone who supported altering our checks and balances in favor of the branch of our government that most worried our Founding Fathers (and rightly so) would be considered a radical.

America will eventually get an Emperor to go with our Empire. Like Augustus, he will not call himself Emperor, but something like "First Citizen".

It will not be Obama, and he will almost certainly not be of the left.

Exciting times ahead.

334 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:19:07am

re: #323 webevintage

BTW, Kagan and her lack of openess about her so obvious gayness is driving Sully crazy.
Kinda like his weird obsession with Palin's baby.

I'll start worrying seriously if he suggests that Kagan is Bristol's real mother.

335 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:19:43am

re: #328 Cato the Elder

Tame mathematicians. Pay attention.

Oh, i see where i went wrong.

So they're smart enough to keep mathematicians on leashes?

I agree. Smart folks there.

336 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:21:03am

re: #310 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Rachel has played a couple of memorable characters... Harry Potter being one. The other was a little girl that came back to Barney and Friends with Double D cups.

I laughed my ass off both times.

I heart Rachel.

She was really good on the first season of 30 Rock (cameo roles.) Her Barbara Walters and Elizabeth Taylor were hilarious.

337 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:23:22am

re: #329 Dynomite

He's not appointing an idealogue. That's both a strenght & weakness of the Democratic Party right now. It's why they can put in Scalia..

an appointee from 1986 is your example of what currently can happen?

338 Cato the Elder  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:23:35am

re: #335 Aceofwhat?

Oh, i see where i went wrong.

So they're smart enough to keep mathematicians on leashes?

I agree. Smart folks there.

Indeed. I use the word "tame" in the sense that, say, the government has tame psychiatrists and the Mafia has tame judges.

They do what you want, for a price, even if it's illegal.

339 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:23:40am

re: #280 Obdicut

Freedom, of speech. :)

340 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:24:26am

re: #283 SanFranciscoZionist

Do you feel that previous justices without judicial experience were bad choices?

I think lack of judicial experience is definitely a minus. I have not said that it cannot be overcome, although the usual gang around here obviously jumped to that conclusion. Rehnquist is an example of the exception which proves the rule.

341 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:24:56am

re: #332 dugmartsch

I agree with that. Though I find it amazingly disingenuous when Presidents attempt to enact legislation on which they didn't bother to campaign since it would have, presumably, hurt their chances of winning.

That's certainly not the case with Obama, everything he's campaigned on, he's attempted to enact into law. There hasn't been a single surprise. The only slight surprise was that there was enough political will to pass a slightly more liberal health reform bill than the one he proposed in his campaign (individual mandate). But I'd bet that a majority of his supporters were to the left of him on this issue and he himself said he was to the left of himself on the issue, but was constrained by the politics in the congress.

what about the whole "ZOMG too much executive power!" complaint?

i don't begrudge any candidate a little room for hyperbole during a campaign. i begrudge attempts to whitewash it after the fact, though...

342 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:25:04am

re: #339 The 1SG

Freedom, of speech. :)

Which has what to do with James correcting your repeated inaccuracy?

James isn't the government. He's not trying to stop you from typing things that are inaccurate. He's pointing out that you're doing so.

If you want to be thought of as a person who doesn't convey inaccurate information, you shouldn't convey inaccurate information. If you're fine with that perception, then continue, by all means.

343 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:25:57am

re: #323 webevintage

BTW, Kagan and her lack of openess about her so obvious gayness is driving Sully crazy.
Kinda like his weird obsession with Palin's baby.

is there any creepy line in the sand that guy won't cross??

344 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:26:27am

re: #340 Spare O'Lake

You don't actually know much about the US Supreme Court. Rhenquist was hardly the only one who didn't have judicial experience.

[Link: supreme.lp.findlaw.com...]

Forty justices.

345 Nimed  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:27:10am

re: #329 Dynomite

You're just not gonna let this go, are you? Obama is a left-of-center guy. If you're looking for a hard-left liberal, they only exist (presidentially speaking) in Republican Fairy Tale books now.

He's not appointing an idealogue. That's both a strenght & weakness of the Democratic Party right now. It's why they can put in Scalia. It's why they can get a Rush or a Beck on the air - they believe in ideological purity. Dems simply aren't that cohesive - a left-wing ideologue just doesn't get the attention of the party.

Maintaining our checks and balances should be, if anything, a conservative idea. It's silly to look at this issue as some sort of ideological battle. This is why a libertarian think-tank normally affiliated with the right like the Cato Institute would also have preferred the most "left-wing" Diane Wood.

346 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:30:26am

re: #323 webevintage

BTW, Kagan and her lack of openess about her so obvious gayness is driving Sully crazy.
Kinda like his weird obsession with Palin's baby.

I can imagine it would have been pretty frustrating for a civil rights organizer in the 60's if quite a large percentage of your supporters could wear a paper bag on their heads and pretend not to be black.

That said, it's Kagan's life, and she has her own plan for it.

347 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:31:17am

re: #342 Obdicut

Ok, were they banned from using the Office? Yes, were the banned from campus all together, no.....anything else.

348 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:33:59am

re: #347 The 1SG

Ok, were they banned from using the Office? Yes, were the banned from campus all together, no...anything else.

What? Dude, referring to her 'military recruiter ban' when she never banned military recruiters from access to students is simply inaccurate. It obviously conveys the meaning that, well, she had a ban on military recruiters, when that isn't true.

Your 'shortening' had the effect of completely misrepresenting what happened, and it was perfectly right for James to call you on it.

349 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:36:09am

re: #340 Spare O'Lake

I think lack of judicial experience is definitely a minus. I have not said that it cannot be overcome, although the usual gang around here obviously jumped to that conclusion. Rehnquist is an example of the exception which proves the rule.

Hardly, there have been rather a lot of them, haven't there?

350 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:37:08am

re: #344 Obdicut

You don't actually know much about the US Supreme Court. Rhenquist was hardly the only one who didn't have judicial experience.

[Link: supreme.lp.findlaw.com...]


Forty justices.

So, about thirty-five percent of the total.

351 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:38:17am

re: #350 SanFranciscoZionist

Yeah. One would have to have next-to-no knowledge of the Supreme Court to think it was exceptional. I'm not sure why anyone is trying that meme; it's a non-starter.

You'd think they'd have learned their lesson with the 'executive experience' bust they had with Obama.

352 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:39:37am

re: #344 Obdicut

You don't actually know much about the US Supreme Court. Rhenquist was hardly the only one who didn't have judicial experience.

[Link: supreme.lp.findlaw.com...]

Forty justices.

Of course I never said he was.
He is just the best example I know of a SCOTUS appointee who overcame his lack of judicial experience to become a great judge and Chief Justice.

353 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:41:53am

re: #65 SanFranciscoZionist

Ah, the infamous 'Ninth Circus'.

Heh. Speaking of which, the 9th received another 9-0 spanking last week, in Hui v. Castaneda. I wasn't really that interested in the case itself...it's a little dry...but the 9th really does have an insatiable appetite for fail...

354 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:42:08am

re: #352 Spare O'Lake

So when you said he was an exception that proves the rule, what was the exception and what was the rule?

Or you could just put the shovel down.

355 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:42:59am

re: #351 Obdicut

Yeah. One would have to have next-to-no knowledge of the Supreme Court to think it was exceptional. I'm not sure why anyone is trying that meme; it's a non-starter.

You'd think they'd have learned their lesson with the 'executive experience' bust they had with Obama.

Your own obvious partisan slip is showing.

356 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:43:57am

re: #355 Spare O'Lake

Your own obvious partisan slip is showing.

Can you explain how?

357 goddamnedfrank  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:44:20am

re: #344 Obdicut

You don't actually know much about the US Supreme Court. Rhenquist was hardly the only one who didn't have judicial experience.

[Link: supreme.lp.findlaw.com...]

Forty justices.

Elenais41.com?

Goldman Sachs Gets Justice – Justice Kagan – A White, Lesbian, Obama

The classics never die.

358 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:44:32am

re: #353 Aceofwhat?

Heh. Speaking of which, the 9th received another 9-0 spanking last week, in Hui v. Castaneda. I wasn't really that interested in the case itself...it's a little dry...but the 9th really does have an insatiable appetite for fail...

They don't care. The 9th's leftism draws them to the Stupid like moths to a flame. Even Justice Ginsburg doesn't take them seriously at this point.

359 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:47:15am

re: #351 Obdicut

So lack of judicial experience is not a minus for a SC Judge.
And lack of executive experience is not a minus for a POTUS.
You betcha!

360 justaminute  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:47:21am

I personally don't have a problem with Kagan keeping the ban going on military recruiting on the campus of Harvard. I would like to see a ban on recruitment at high schools too. Why do we think they can make a wise choice about going into the military but not alcohol? 21 to drink and 21 to go to war.

The reason I also have a problem is a recruiter was allowed to take my 17 year old daughter off campus all because he wanted to date her. My kid was a stupid because she thought he was cute and the school is stupid that they let her go and miss class and also no notification.

361 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:49:17am

re: #359 Spare O'Lake

So lack of judicial experience is not a minus for a SC Judge.
And lack of executive experience is not a minus for a POTUS.
You betcha!

I'm sorry, can you try answering the question?

You said Rehnquist was the exception that proved the rule. In what way was he an exception, and to what rule?

Thirty-five percent of Supreme Court justices have had no judicial experience, so clearly that's not the rule. And those that lacked judicial experience are not seen as having been less competent justices, so that's not the rule.

So what rule was Rehnquist an exception to?

362 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:49:48am

re: #341 Aceofwhat?

what about the whole "ZOMG too much executive power!" complaint?

i don't begrudge any candidate a little room for hyperbole during a campaign. i begrudge attempts to whitewash it after the fact, though...

I think there's a weird imbalance of executive power at the moment. Lots of foreign power (basically unlimited) not much domestic power.

I'd prefer to see that dynamic change considerably. As the only way you can really right any long term fiscal imbalance is with a strong executive who's willing to make painful, though necessary, cuts. Eventually you'd get a two-termer who'd step up and have a serious conversation with the public along the lines of: low taxes, entitlements, military power, pick two.

Adding that the only way you can slow the march towards empire is by tying the costs to the adventures as tightly as possible. You want a war? OK. Here's your big fat tax increase until the kids come home. Sadly the 300 extra bucks a year in taxes would likely be a more effective punch bowl remover than the thought of thousands of dead American's on foreign soil.

363 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:50:02am

re: #360 justaminute

Okay, that last bit is just creepy and illegal and doesn't have to do with the larger issue of military recruitment. I hope you reported that.

364 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:50:48am

re: #356 Obdicut

Can you explain how?

See #359.
Do you actually believe that Obama's lack of executive experience makes him a better President in the same way that Kagan's lack of judicial experience will make her a better SCOTUS appointee?
Your partisanship is breathtaking.

365 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:52:44am

re: #348 Obdicut

What? Dude, referring to her 'military recruiter ban' when she banned military recruiters from access to students is simply accurate. It obviously conveys the meaning that, well, she had a ban on military recruiters.

Your 'shortening' had the effect of representing what happened.

I think this is how your opponent is reading the things you're writing.

366 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:53:22am

re: #364 Spare O'Lake

See #359.
Do you actually believe that Obama's lack of executive experience makes him a better President in the same way that Kagan's lack of judicial experience will make her a better SCOTUS appointee?
Your partisanship is breathtaking.

Why are you playing in the straw? Does it smell good or something? This isn't even close to what Obidicut has made as an argument.

367 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:53:46am

re: #361 Obdicut

Most SCOTUS Judges have had previous judicial experience, and anyone but the most partisan hack would acknowledge that such experience is a valuable asset.

368 justaminute  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:55:14am

re: #363 Obdicut

Okay, that last bit is just creepy and illegal and doesn't have to do with the larger issue of military recruitment. I hope you reported that.

I did but the high school said that they cannot stop that because the requirement it in No Child Left Behind. Recruiters are allowed on campus and they are allowed to take student off campus during school hour. The Recruiting station said they won't allow recruiters to go out one on one anymore but that lasted a short time.

369 dugmartsch  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:56:36am

re: #367 Spare O'Lake

Most SCOTUS Judges have had previous judicial experience, and anyone but the most partisan hack would acknowledge that such experience is a valuable asset.

40 out of 111. Barely most and certainly not a small enough minority to raise anything but a partisan eyebrow.

370 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:57:15am

re: #367 Spare O'Lake

Most SCOTUS Judges have had previous judicial experience, and anyone but the most partisan hack would acknowledge that such experience is a valuable asset.

I disagree, and i'm no leftie. It's an asset in helping the rest of us to determine how a person might rule on important items of the day.

A sharp legal mind and an ability to divorce one's personal politics from constitutional questions are the valuable assets. Judicial experience is a window, not a prerequisite. This isn't NASCAR. You either know your shizniggity or you don't.

371 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:58:18am

re: #366 Jadespring

Have a look at the last sentence of #351 and then get back to me about who is the partisan.

372 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:58:30am

re: #367 Spare O'Lake

Most SCOTUS Judges have had previous judicial experience, and anyone but the most partisan hack would acknowledge that such experience is a valuable asset.

Where has anyone suggested that it's NOT an asset.
Many things are assets for the this sort of job.

All people are suggesting is that since a third of SCOTUS judges have not had this particular asset is that it isn't necessarily an 'asset' the defines whether a person gets the position or not.

It's important yes, but historically not the be and and end all defining assets.

Only the most hacky of hacks would not at least acknowledge facts and history.

373 freetoken  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:59:29am

re: #371 Spare O'Lake

Have a look at the last sentence of #351 and then get back to me about who is the partisan.


That would be you.

374 Jadespring  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:59:47am

re: #371 Spare O'Lake

Have a look at the last sentence of #351 and then get back to me about who is the partisan.

I did look. You're interpreting his point wrong.

375 ShaunP  Tue, May 11, 2010 11:59:50am

re: #367 Spare O'Lake

Most SCOTUS Judges have had previous judicial experience, and anyone but the most partisan hack would acknowledge that such experience is a valuable asset.

This wording is much softer than your original comments with regards to "brain surgeons" and "no experience." I'd almost say you were backtracking, but I wouldn't want to be called a partisan hack.

In any case, I agree that judicial experience is an asset, but far from a prerequisite. And far from the issue that you seemed to be raising a couple of hundred posts up...

376 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:05:48pm

re: #368 justaminute

I did but the high school said that they cannot stop that because the requirement it in No Child Left Behind. Recruiters are allowed on campus and they are allowed to take student off campus during school hour. The Recruiting station said they won't allow recruiters to go out one on one anymore but that lasted a short time.

IIRC, they are allowed to but your child is allowed not to. No one can make your child spend time with a recruiter.

377 Dark_Falcon  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:06:23pm

re: #360 justaminute

21 to drink and 21 to go to war.

Cannot agree. We need troops too much. If that means contradictions and problems at times, then it does.

378 tradewind  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:06:24pm

re: #367 Spare O'Lake
People who point to the fact that long ago many SCOTUS justices did not have prior judicial experience are wading into apple-y-orange-y territory, because today, most of SCOTUS business comes down to revisiting case law..... miles and miles of it..... to interpret and test it for constitutionality .... or at least that's the job description. Some real-time familiarity with how this case law has been applied and interpreted in lower courts seems almost a must for the present day SC.

379 justaminute  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:08:47pm

re: #376 Aceofwhat?

IIRC, they are allowed to but your child is allowed not to. No one can make your child spend time with a recruiter.

That's the problem that was a choice by a kid. I said she was stupid and he was young and cute but it is still wrong.

380 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:08:49pm

re: #370 Aceofwhat?

Upding for shizniggity.
Being a judge is a skill and an art, perfected by experience.
It is also true that judicial experience has been a universal credential over the past 38 years...until now.

381 jbarelli  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:11:27pm

re: #215 Aceofwhat?

i have a limited understanding of the myriad interpretations of constitutional law, too.

so when 9 justices vote unanimously, yes, i take the position that i was wrong and they are right.

Freedom of Association? yikes.

Well, I will agree that when all nine Justices agree, (or even when four out of five agree, for that matter) it is the law, and unless they change their minds, the end of the matter. My agreement with their decision is not required, simply my compliance if that matter ever passes my direction.

But I'm not going to hold it against a potential Justice that she disagrees with them, as long as she complied with the law. Especially if I agree with her.

And why, exactly, would "Freedom of Association" be such a stretch? (Yeah, that Third Amendment bit would have been rather "out there".) A private organization tells a government organization that the private organization only allows on-campus recruiting by outfits that do not discriminate against gays.

Do I have the right to tell a military recruiter that he or she may not come on my property? I like the military. I'd better, because I spent over 20 years active duty in the Navy, and am still a part of the Retired Reserve.

Since I take a retirement check, does that mean I must let military recruiters into my home? My son is of the age where he's getting letters from recruiters, but I would seriously object to finding one waiting in my living room for him to get home from school.

Mind you, I think banning the recruiters was a bad idea. (And I'm hoping my son considers a tour in the military.) I just don't consider it to be an unconstitutional idea.

382 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:11:37pm

re: #378 tradewind

People who point to the fact that long ago many SCOTUS justices did not have prior judicial experience are wading into apple-y-orange-y territory, because today, most of SCOTUS business comes down to revisiting case law... miles and miles of it... to interpret and test it for constitutionality ... or at least that's the job description. Some real-time familiarity with how this case law has been applied and interpreted in lower courts seems almost a must for the present day SC.

Absolutely correct.
None since 1972.
I rest my case.

383 jbarelli  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:13:00pm

(oops. "four out of five" should be "five out of nine". Brain cells, engage now please.

384 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:14:53pm

re: #381 jbarelli

And why, exactly, would "Freedom of Association" be such a stretch? (Yeah, that Third Amendment bit would have been rather "out there".) A private organization tells a government organization that the private organization only allows on-campus recruiting by outfits that do not discriminate against gays.

First, let me clarify that i know you agree that it is the law...hope i didn't seem to imply otherwise.

As to the central point above, a university which accepts federal funds as per the Solomon Amendment is no longer "private" as i believe you're using the word.

Nor are federal funds which flow to a university akin to your retirement check. One is compensation for work, the other is not.

That's why i think you were quite wide of the mark. Did that help?

385 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:17:11pm

re: #379 justaminute

That's the problem that was a choice by a kid. I said she was stupid and he was young and cute but it is still wrong.

As a parent, i have utmost respect for your protectiveness. I'd be just as upset if it were my daughter. I want to make that clear.

Hopefully, you also know that you can opt out of having your daughter's name and address passed along to the military.

And i agree with you that i wish we were permitted, as parents, to opt out of any contact whatsoever until our child is 18yo. That seems like a precious right to keep, doesn't it;)

386 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:19:04pm

re: #382 Spare O'Lake

Absolutely correct.
None since 1972.
I rest my case.

reversed and remanded/

387 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:21:40pm

None appointed without judicial experience since 1972.
Nada.
[Link: mediamatters.org...]
[Link: supreme.lp.findlaw.com...]

388 justaminute  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:23:03pm

re: #385 Aceofwhat?

As a parent, i have utmost respect for your protectiveness. I'd be just as upset if it were my daughter. I want to make that clear.

Hopefully, you also know that you can opt out of having your daughter's name and address passed along to the military.

And i agree with you that i wish we were permitted, as parents, to opt out of any contact whatsoever until our child is 18yo. That seems like a precious right to keep, doesn't it;)

That was 2 years ago, but I consider it a safety issue. My son is a Navy officer and I know from this experience that a lot of recruiters are young themselves and they are there a short time. When I talked to the recruiter in charge he was scared I was going to take this further so I know it was wrong.

389 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:26:00pm

re: #388 justaminute

That was 2 years ago, but I consider it a safety issue. My son is a Navy officer and I know from this experience that a lot of recruiters are young themselves and they are there a short time. When I talked to the recruiter in charge he was scared I was going to take this further so I know it was wrong.

I appreciate your son's service, by the way.

390 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:29:25pm

re: #364 Spare O'Lake

See #359.
Do you actually believe that Obama's lack of executive experience makes him a better President in the same way that Kagan's lack of judicial experience will make her a better SCOTUS appointee?
Your partisanship is breathtaking.

You're completely dodging the question, probably because you thought that it was actually unusual for a Supreme Court justice to lack judicial experience.

You tend to be wrong about things in US politics a lot-- maybe if you want to comment on them, you should actually learn more about them that you know now.

391 Spare O'Lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:32:05pm

re: #390 Obdicut

None since 1972 - until now.
Eat it.

392 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:35:52pm

re: #391 Spare O'Lake

None since 1972 - until now.
Eat it.

Eat what? I reject the idea that the role of the Supreme Court has changed significantly since 1972, because it's a really, really stupid and desperate thing to say.

And since Rehnquist was put on the bench during the same year as another person without any judicial experience, your original claim that he was an exception that proved a rule is even more risible. If you had claimed that Rehnquist was the last of a long line, that'd have made sense-- but you didn't. you said he was an exception that proved a rule. You were entirely wrong.

393 jbarelli  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:49:22pm

re: #384 Aceofwhat?

Nor are federal funds which flow to a university akin to your retirement check. One is compensation for work, the other is not.

Actually the two things are more akin than you might think. Theoretically, that retirement check is payment for ongoing services. I'm on call for the rest of my life. If the military decides that they need me back, I get to shave my beard and stuff myself back into my khakis. (I'd better lose some weight first, or I'll strongly resemble a sausage.)

Even if I hit 100, if they decide that they need me to roll out my wheelchair and test the road for land mines, they can do it. I'm on call and still subject to the UCMJ.

(Of course, another thought just crossed my mind. Actually, I can be ordered to allow a military member into my home. There are a bunch of regulations that protect me there, but no law. It would never happen, but there is no law protecting me from it.)

Most of the federal funds going to universities is for ongoing work as well. Payment for teaching students (federal loans and scholarships), payment for research, etc...

Colleges and universities have been put into a position where they have to rely on federal funds in order to operate. Harvard is a wonderful example. One of the most famous universities on the planet must change its otherwise lawful policies to comply with the military.

Because there is no law forbidding Harvard from insisting that only organizations that do not discriminate against gays may recruit on campus. "Freedom of Association" is definitely in play for every other private company. If IBM decides to discriminate, Harvard can use that argument when banning their recruiters.

(Yes, IBM can then decide not to do business with Harvard. But IBM doesn't have the ability to put Harvard out of the education business. The federal government does.)

From a practical perspective, the argument is moot, and getting a bit silly. Banning the recruiters may have been a bad idea, but the point that Harvard was trying to make was made. It wasn't so much about the military as about the discrimination.

There are other decisions where I also find myself in disagreement with the court, and whether the decision was 5-4 or 9-0 really doesn't make any difference from a legal perspective. So the fact that a potential Justice also doesn't agree with a particular decision doesn't bother me.

394 garhighway  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:51:15pm

re: #309 Spare O'Lake

Pardon me for trying to appear to be fair.

FTFY

395 jbarelli  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:52:52pm

re: #387 Spare O'Lake

None appointed without judicial experience since 1972.
Nada.
[Link: mediamatters.org...]
[Link: supreme.lp.findlaw.com...]

Perhaps the fact that I remember 1972 makes this seem much less important to me than it seems to be for others.

396 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 12:57:40pm

As predicted the "but that's different" clause regarding judicial experience has come into play.

397 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:00:26pm

Flashback: McConnell And DeMint Praised Harriet Miers’ ‘Wealth’ Of ‘Great Experience’

Soon after President Obama announced that he had nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell (KY) and Jim DeMint (SC) attacked his choice because Kagan has never served as a judge:

MCCONNELL: “She’s the least qualified in terms of judicial experience in 38 years. Now some would argue that maybe we need to have people who don’t have judicial experience. I saw a survey indicating that about 70 percent of the American people think that judicial experience is a good idea for somebody who is going to be on the Supreme Court.”

DEMINT: “I’m concerned that she has no judicial experience to give Americans confidence that she will be impartial in her decisions.”

Yet back in 2005, both DeMint and McConnell praised Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court before she withdrew. Like Kagan, Miers had no previous judicial experience, yet both GOP senators expressed admiration for Miers, specifically citing her “experience”:

MCCONNELL: “Ms. Miers has an exemplary record of service to our country. She will bring to the Court a lifetime of experience in various levels of government, and at the highest levels of the legal profession. She is a woman of tremendous ability and very sound judgment. … Ms. Miers has great experience in government as well, at the local, state, and federal levels. …She is well qualified to join the nation’s highest court. … She will make a fine addition to the Supreme Court, and I look forward to her confirmation.”

DEMINT: “Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience to the Supreme Court. I expect she will show that she has the intelligence, fairness, and open-mindedness needed to serve on the Court.”

398 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:02:42pm

re: #348 Obdicut

Sorry been away fixing a broken water heater.

As I referred earlier, I was trying to short hand type the issue ( my apologies) I should have included "military recruiter ban from office". Seriously whatever, as I look over other short hand posts in this stream.

I think Kagan throwing them (recruiters) out of the office so quickly (it appears) after the 3rd District ruling was an indication of her view of some sort of punishment of the military for a policy that was the POTUS's choice to put in place as a comprise. Seriously why kick someone out of an office when you don't have to? And for people who have no control of the policies implemented by the POTUS, Joint Chiefs, Congress (take your pick).

Then the Supreme court over ruled the 3rd District and Kagan disagrees with them openly. Seriously I think most would say oops my bad in the context of the SCOTUS. My point being that someone aspiring to be in the SCOTUS (perhaps from an earlier career path) might not disagree so openly when the ruling is 9-0. Which I pointed as being a rare event for any District court to receive. I should say a rare event for the other courts than the 9th (given the latest 9th decision). I haven' looked at many more. I have heard people say the 2nd and 3rd as well, but that is anecdotal.

One has to ponder the impact of your decision making when the SCOTUS says resoundedly: "bad decision justice" in the form of a 9-0 ruling.

399 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:05:41pm

re: #398 The 1SG

Man, you're just determined to push this, aren't you? Okay, have fun with it.

In the future, please don't employ 'shorthand' that is obviously completely inaccurate, or nobody will take what you have to say seriously.

400 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:07:01pm

re: #393 jbarelli

I thought the requirement for said compulsory service (with retired reserves) ends at age 62 or 65 when your full benefits kick in? And although we (I am in the same canoe with you, albeit wearing boots instead of flippers) still can be called to serve I had thought that ended after hitting that retirement age number. Huh?

Sheez Marion jumping jack rabbits. I had better invest in some armor plating for my walker then. Lol

401 spare o'lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:08:07pm

re: #392 Obdicut

Yes my partisan friend, it has indeed been 38 long years since that great intellectual Richard Millhouse Nixon nominated folks to the SCOTUS with no judicial experience.
And no POTUS since Nixon, until now that is, has found it expedient to disregard the obvious desireability of judicial experience in a SCOTUS nominee.

402 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:09:28pm

re: #401 spare o'lake

That's nice. Can you explain, yet, what rule Rhenquist was an exception to, and how he was an exception?

403 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:09:50pm

re: #401 spare o'lake

Yes my partisan friend, it has indeed been 38 long years since that great intellectual Richard Millhouse Nixon nominated folks to the SCOTUS with no judicial experience.
And no POTUS since Nixon, until now that is, has found it expedient to disregard the obvious desireability of judicial experience in a SCOTUS nominee.

You forgot about Harriet Miers again.

But I'm sure "that's different."

404 The 1SG  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:10:25pm

re: #399 Obdicut

Point taken, we'll do. I was detained from responding and just posted. I agree timing is everything. Its cool.

405 palomino  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:11:34pm

re: #397 Gus 802

The problem with Miers wasn't really her lack of experience as a judge. After all, she was to replace Rehnquist, who also hadn't been a judge.

Problem was her zero experience with constitutional law, compounded by her poor performances in interviews with Senators on the Judiciary Committee. Even Republicans Coburn and Specter told her she was in trouble.

She was also opposed by the right because, with no paper trail, they couldn't be assured of reliable votes on abortion and other social issues.

406 spare o'lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:12:28pm

re: #395 jbarelli

Perhaps the fact that I remember 1972 makes this seem much less important to me than it seems to be for others.

Ah yes, then you might remember how Tricky Dick Nixon was criticized for nominating that great defender of executive privilege...Rehnquist!

407 spare o'lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:13:44pm

re: #403 Gus 802

Her appointment was rightfully scuttled.

408 jbarelli  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:16:05pm

re: #400 The 1SG

It gets harder, under a whole bunch of rules and regs, but not impossible. Camouflage walkers! Khaki Depends!

We're still the "Retired Reserve". If they want us, they've got us.

409 spare o'lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:16:21pm

re: #402 Obdicut

Previously answered, my pedantic partisan.

410 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:17:59pm

re: #409 spare o'lake

Previously answered, my pedantic partisan.

No, you've simply dodged the question. Given that he was one of the last of a long line, he can't be an exception, nor was it a rule when he was appointed.

Sticking by your guns when you're obviously wrong isn't actually a virtue. It just makes you look foolish.

411 Gus  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:18:13pm

re: #405 palomino

The problem with Miers wasn't really her lack of experience as a judge. After all, she was to replace Rehnquist, who also hadn't been a judge.

Problem was her zero experience with constitutional law, compounded by her poor performances in interviews with Senators on the Judiciary Committee. Even Republicans Coburn and Specter told her she was in trouble.

She was also opposed by the right because, with no paper trail, they couldn't be assured of reliable votes on abortion and other social issues.

I realize that but there are some that want to focus on Kagan's lack of judicial experience alone without considering her overall experience. Kagan has an extensive range of experience but no judicial experience. Miers had neither. As long as the "she has no judicial experience" hecklers want to bring it up I will point out that there has also been one SCOTUS nominee that had no judicial experience.

If you add the previous judges without this experience I believe that claiming that the lack of judicial experience alone is adequate enough to withdraw a nomination is not based on the history of the SCOTUS. There is no law that states a SCOTUS justice has to have judicial experience so it also holds no legal ground. Overall it is a baseless argument.

412 palomino  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:22:33pm

I don't think the Rehnquist comparison has much substance, regardless of who's trying to employ it. In the case of Kagan v. Rehnquist, she comes out on top, not even close.

KAGAN:
1986-87: Clerk for Judge Abner Mikva, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
1987-88: Clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court
1989-91: Associate in Private Practice, Williams & Connolly
1991-97: Assistant Professor and Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1991-94 as assistant professor)
1995-96: Associate White House Counsel
1997-99: Deputy Assistant to the President, Domestic Policy Council
1999-01: Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
2001-03: Professor, Harvard Law School
2003-09: Dean of Harvard Law School
2009-10: Solicitor General of the United States

REHNQUIST:
1952-1953: Clerk For Justice Robert Jackson
1953-1969: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1969-1971: Assistant USAG, Office of Legal Counsel

413 palomino  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:24:48pm

re: #410 Obdicut

No, you've simply dodged the question. Given that he was one of the last of a long line, he can't be an exception, nor was it a rule when he was appointed.

Sticking by your guns when you're obviously wrong isn't actually a virtue. It just makes you look foolish.

Some partisans pick their battles judiciously, and some just fight on every single issue, regardless of the merits. I think we see the latter here.

414 spare o'lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:27:32pm

re: #411 Gus 802

I realize that but there are some that want to focus on Kagan's lack of judicial experience alone without considering her overall experience. Kagan has an extensive range of experience but no judicial experience. Miers had neither. As long as the "she has no judicial experience" hecklers want to bring it up I will point out that there has also been one SCOTUS nominee that had no judicial experience.

If you add the previous judges without this experience I believe that claiming that the lack of judicial experience alone is adequate enough to withdraw a nomination is not based on the history of the SCOTUS. There is no law that states a SCOTUS justice has to have judicial experience so it also holds no legal ground. Overall it is a baseless argument.

Very true, Gus, but for one little problem: I have never maintained that "the lack of judicial experience alone is adequate enough to withdraw a nomination". I have pointed out that judicial experience is extremely important and that none have been appointed without any since Tricky Dick in 1972.

415 spare o'lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:28:44pm

re: #413 palomino

Some partisans pick their battles judiciously, and some just fight on every single issue, regardless of the merits. I think we see the latter here.

Giddyap, horsie.

416 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:30:36pm

re: #414 spare o'lake

Have you managed to figure out what rule Rehnquist was an exception to?

417 palomino  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:32:00pm

re: #415 spare o'lake

Giddyap, horsie.


The horse you're on is already dead.

418 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:32:28pm

re: #412 palomino

being a professor is no bonus to one's judicial qualifications...

419 spare o'lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:32:36pm

re: #416 Obdicut

Have you managed to figure out what rule Rehnquist was an exception to?

I have. Have you?

420 palomino  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:35:08pm

re: #418 Aceofwhat?

being a professor is no bonus to one's judicial qualifications...

It indicates expertise on constitutional law, the area in which she'll be deciding cases as a SC justice.

Even without the years as a prof, both Rehnquist and Miers' resumes pale in comparison.

421 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:37:45pm

re: #419 spare o'lake

I have. Have you?

No, because you haven't actually explained it in any coherent manner.

Why not give it a shot?

422 Aceofwhat?  Tue, May 11, 2010 1:54:51pm

re: #420 palomino

It indicates expertise on constitutional law, the area in which she'll be deciding cases as a SC justice.

Even without the years as a prof, both Rehnquist and Miers' resumes pale in comparison.

you should read some con law professorial tripe. it gets loopy on occasion.

but i agree that her CV is more than adequate in the historical sense. so i'm with you there-

423 spare o'lake  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:10:30pm

re: #420 palomino

It indicates expertise on constitutional law, the area in which she'll be deciding cases as a SC justice.

Even without the years as a prof, both Rehnquist and Miers' resumes pale in comparison.

Interesting. You know, Rehnquist, unlike Kagan, had a completely non-partisan resume.

424 bratwurst  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:21:22pm

re: #423 spare o'lake

Interesting. You know, Rehnquist, unlike Kagan, had a completely non-partisan resume.

Oh really? A 30 second visit to Wikipedia shows:

Rehnquist moved to Phoenix, Arizona, where he was in private law practice from 1953 to 1969. During these years, he was active in the Republican Party and served as a legal advisor to Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign.

Got anything else you'd care to pull out of your ass this afternoon?

425 garhighway  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:24:26pm

re: #424 bratwurst

Got anything else you'd care to pull out of your ass this afternoon?

He said his RESUME was non-partisan, not that Rhenquist was non-partisan.

Please don't obsess over substance.

426 bratwurst  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:25:27pm

re: #423 spare o'lake

Rehnquist's path to the U.S. Supreme Court began in Arizona REPUBLICAN PARTY politics of the 1950s. Under the leadership of U.S. Senator BARRY M. GOLDWATER, the party became the dominant force in Arizona government, espousing a political view that was more rigid and doctrinaire than that of the national Republican party. Rehnquist became active in the party and made the acquaintance of RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST, an attorney who chaired the state Republican Party and who was a close adviser to Goldwater. Kleindienst served as Rehnquist's political mentor and involved him in the 1964 presidential election that Goldwater lost to President LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

In 1968, Kleindienst worked on RICHARD M. NIXON's presidential campaign. After Nixon was elected, he appointed Kleindienst to be deputy attorney general. Kleindienst in turn recommended Rehnquist for the position of assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. Attorney General JOHN N. MITCHELL was initially reluctant to hire Rehnquist, but, after interviewing him, Mitchell became convinced that Rehnquist was the right person for the job.

As head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Rehnquist supplied legal advice to all of the departments of the federal government. He also became one of the most stalwart defenders of the Nixon administration's policies.

[Link: law.jrank.org...]

427 Obdicut  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:29:18pm

re: #424 bratwurst

Got anything else you'd care to pull out of your ass this afternoon?

Spare O'Lake likes commenting on US politics, not, you know, understanding them.

re: #425 garhighway

His resume wasn't the least bit non-partisan.

428 garhighway  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:31:10pm

re: #425 garhighway

His resume wasn't the least bit non-partisan.

The short version was.

It wasn't terribly complete, but it was non-partisan, in a laundered sort of way.

429 bratwurst  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:33:48pm

re: #428 garhighway

The short version was.

It wasn't terribly complete, but it was non-partisan, in a laundered sort of way.

It was printed on paper produced in a non-union shop as well.

430 Cineaste  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:38:34pm

re: #17 lawhawk

The left doesn't think she's far enough to the left. The right thinks she's to far to the left. Frankly, I'm not sure how anyone can figure out what her judicial philosophy is because there's no judicial rulings on which to figure out her philosophy. You can't go by what she's said as Solicitor General because her job is to advise and counsel her client - to advocate her client's position, which happens to be the US government. That means potentially engaging in pretzel logic to advocate for her client's position.

Now, her choices while as dean at Harvard law may be enlightening or informing on her position, but did she attempt to suss out nexus determinations or whether Quill is still appropriate? State taxation of Internet sales? Terrorism related cases? How about free speech? 2d amendment? Abortion rights? Criminal procedure?

No one knows. We have even less to go on with a paper record than Sotomayor, Alito, Breyer, or some of those that critics contended were stealth candidates because there were so few cases on which they ruled.

In fact, I've seen some comparing her to Miers. I don't think that's wholly warranted - but she's going to have to convince the Senators that she's capable of providing a coherent judicial philosophy and that will make her confirmation hearings all the more interesting.

I think there is a body of work to look at. See the following:

[Link: volokh.com...]
[Link: volokh.com...]
[Link: volokh.com...]

Comparing her to Miers verges on the absurd. This is an extremely well known scholar who has published significant work and acted not as just Presidential counsel but as the actual Solicitor General, advocating for the government in front of the Supreme Court, a job I think Harriet Miers would have been woefully unprepared for. Miers' background was largely as attorney for one client, Bush, when he was Governor and then President.

Kagan, to me, seems to be a strong intellect and I like the evidence that she takes viewpoints from both sides seriously and will engage intellectually, not ideologically, with opposing views.

431 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:38:45pm

re: #351 Obdicut

Yeah. One would have to have next-to-no knowledge of the Supreme Court to think it was exceptional. I'm not sure why anyone is trying that meme; it's a non-starter.

You'd think they'd have learned their lesson with the 'executive experience' bust they had with Obama.

The executive experience thing was more compelling before Palin arrived on the scene. Then it just got stupid.

432 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:43:48pm

re: #401 spare o'lake

Yes my partisan friend, it has indeed been 38 long years since that great intellectual Richard Millhouse Nixon nominated folks to the SCOTUS with no judicial experience.
And no POTUS since Nixon, until now that is, has found it expedient to disregard the obvious desireability of judicial experience in a SCOTUS nominee.

OH, COME ON.

433 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:45:17pm

re: #406 spare o'lake

Ah yes, then you might remember how Tricky Dick Nixon was criticized for nominating that great defender of executive privilege...Rehnquist!

What precisely does criticism of Rehnquist's judicial policy have to do with this?

434 Lidane  Tue, May 11, 2010 2:49:00pm

re: #431 SanFranciscoZionist

The executive experience thing was more compelling before Palin arrived on the scene. Then it just got stupid.

Yep. Once they tried to make the case that Caribou Barbie was more qualified to run things, I gave up trying to understand the experience meme and just sat back and laughed at the GOP.

It would have been far more effective with a real female VP choice, and not the desperate bit of stunt casting that McCain did. If he'd gone with, say, Hutchison, the experience meme would have been much more effective. Trying to pass Bible Spice off as Presidential material was just a joke.

435 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, May 11, 2010 3:13:31pm

Once again, we have a talented, brilliant woman who has spent her adult life developing her talents in order to serve America. She has the best sort of education and a deeply impressive list of accomplishments, coupled with great respect for her work from the legal community. We have someone with a record of being a brilliant analyst and a pragmatist. She is not polarized in any particular way and has a reputation for hearing the merits of both sides of an argument before carefully making judgements. In short, she is exactly the sort of person whom you would want on the high court.

Once again, the GOP has one and only one real complaint about her. She was nominated by Obama. Of course, that is not sufficient so they have to smear her. She is of course painted as a radical. She isn't. The old trope of women being flighty and emotional and therefore incapable of holding this position comes out. She is apparently a lesbian now (and the undertone of "lesbians are evil" comes out). I have no idea if she is or she isn't, but I really don't see how that could possibly matter. Perhaps the inference is that she might actually recognize that combining the notion of separation between church and state coupled with the notion of equal protection under the law for all citizens means that you can't discriminate against gay people. And we know that the GOP can't have that.

But back to Rush's comments on women... You know, the lesser sex, that flighty, less bright, irrational half of the species hurr hurr hurr. How can any woman hear that condescending fat pig disparage women like that in such an open and classless way?

How can any self respecting woman hear this crap twice in a row, about Justice Sotomayor first and now Kagan - who in reality is more centrist - and still be a part of the GOP? The data is starting to force me to believe that maybe GOP women are less bright than men, flighty, stupid and irrational. It certainly looks that way from the evidence given the company they keep, the fact that Palin is their icon and the fact that they don't tell Rush to go to hell. Intelligent and sane people do not cling to those who degrade them.

So OK, I suppose, grudgingly that I have to admit that Rush was unintentionally half correct about something. GOP women really are fools who support a party that openly hates them.

436 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, May 11, 2010 5:11:06pm

re: #434 Lidane

Yep. Once they tried to make the case that Caribou Barbie was more qualified to run things, I gave up trying to understand the experience meme and just sat back and laughed at the GOP.

It would have been far more effective with a real female VP choice, and not the desperate bit of stunt casting that McCain did. If he'd gone with, say, Hutchison, the experience meme would have been much more effective. Trying to pass Bible Spice off as Presidential material was just a joke.

If he'd gone with Hutchison, I mighta voted for him. I don't know how happy I'd be about that now, but I mighta.

437 Dr. Shalit  Tue, May 11, 2010 6:10:28pm

It ALL Does Not Matter -

"SG" - Elena Kagan is the choice of an Elected President of the US to be the Next Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court.
Would She be My Choice - NO - In Fact, HELL NO - and what is the Real Reason for that - POLITICS of Course. I would have picked Judge Janice Rogers-Brown. More Experienced, YES - a former Justice of the California Supreme Court, just for Starters.
AND - Elena Kagan - Clerked for Judge Abner Mikva and Justice Thurgood Marshall - That Means, for those unfamiliar with courts, clerks and Judges, that Elena Kagan was the #1 Researcher and GHOSTWRITER for BOTH of THEM while SHE worked for them. For that time, effectively, SHE WAS them.
It is "said" that Elena Kagan might be a "Gay Woman" - SO WHAT? Even in the "Day" of Queen Victoria, Female Homosexuality Was No Crime, only Male.
Elena Kagan, so far as one can see has no "Essental Scandal" attached to her. Elections HAVE CONSEQUENCES - SCOTUS Nominations are among them. Get With The Program.

-S-


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 74 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
5 days ago
Views: 174 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1