Elena Kagan?

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Elena Kagan?

Post by Sue U »

Elena F***ing Kagan??!?!?!

Nigga pleeze!

Oh well, so much for restoring a liberal wing to the Court.

ETA:

GAH!
GAH!

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by tyro »

Film at 11:00
A sufficiently copious dose of bombast drenched in verbose writing is lethal to the truth.

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Big RR »

Sue, stop sugar coating it; tell us your real feelings.

And on top of that, she's never been a judge at any level in federal or state court.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Sue U »

I can only hope Kagan's service with Abner Mikva and Thurgood Marshall will prove to have modeled her judicial temperament.

In Kagan's favor, her Free Speech Grand Unified Theory of Everything shows insight and interest with respect to the underpinnings of First Amendment jurisprudence.

However, I was hoping for a candidate with actual judicial experience at both the trial and appellate level. Theorizing is a whole different kettle of fish from actually deciding cases involving real people.
GAH!

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Guinevere »

I'm crossing my fingers that a lot of Marshall rubbed off on her. Lordy I hope so. Otherwise, she can just crib off of Ruthie's notes maybe?
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by BoSoxGal »

I was kind of hoping the Montana guy would get the nod. Ah, well . . .
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Gob »

Ok, soap opera? Sports star? Reality TV contestant?

Who is she?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Big RR »

Obama's nominee for the open US Supreme Court slot.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Gob »

Why is this always such a big thing in the US? No one gives a fuck over here who goes into the courts, it's left to the powers that be.


Composition and structure

Number of members :
The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 provides that the Court consists of a Chief Justice and such other judges as are appointed. There are currently 47 judges, including the Chief Justice.

Recruitment procedure and incompatibilities :
Judges of the Court are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Government of Australia. Judges are appointed from among judges of State and Territory courts or from among legal practitioners of at least 5 years standing.

A judge is appointed until he or she retires or attains the age of 70 years and under the Australian Constitution may not be removed except by the Governor-General on an address from both Houses of Parliament, in the same session, praying for the judge's removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Judges, other than the Chief Justice, may hold more than one judicial office at the one time. Judges may not however be involved in any business, professional or commercial activity or relationship that may threaten their independence or impartiality.

Many of the judges have other commissions and appointments to other courts or tribunals. These include positions as the President or a presidential member of various Commonwealth administrative tribunals such as the Administrative Appeal Tribunal, the National Native Title Tribunal, the Australian Competition Tribunal, the Copyright Tribunal and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by BoSoxGal »

Be that as it may, it is a big deal here.

We Americans can have our threads, too, can't we? You get those stupid cricket ones . . . ;)
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Gob »

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm fascinated by the way you (dis)organise things over there, and want to learn more...

So why was this person the wrong choice, who should have been picked and why?

And "nigga" wtf?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Sue U »

I think our Supreme Court plays a much greater role in government than does your Federal Court. Our legislative, executive and judiciary branches are independent and co-equal, each serving as a check on the others. Our Supreme Court is of critical importance in interpreting our constitution and ultimate questions of how our society wll function -- and particularly in defining the limits of state power.

Elena Kagan, for all her smarts, is known as a moderate consensus-builder rather than a policy torch-bearer. She has spent her career largely in administrative roles, and has never been a practitioner or a judge of any kind (although previously nominated for the Appellate Court seat that ultimately went to now-Chief Justice John Roberts).

Of the "short-list" candidates, I would have far and away preferred Diane Wood.

"Nigga pleeze" is an ironic urban expession of exasperation, roughly translated as "Give me a fuckin' break."

The liberals who put Obama in the White House in the hope of real policy change are getting hosed yet again.
GAH!

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Guinevere »

Yes we are!
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by tyro »

Our legislative, executive and judiciary branches are independent and co-equal, each serving as a check on the others. Our Supreme Court is of critical importance in interpreting our constitution and ultimate questions of how our society wll function -- and particularly in defining the limits of state power.

Just how well can the Supreme Court be independent, co-equal and act as a check if the members are appointed by the president?
A sufficiently copious dose of bombast drenched in verbose writing is lethal to the truth.

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11266
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Crackpot »

in short because they're lifetime appointments. and therefore not beholden to anyone to keep their jobs.

It was liberals that put Obama in the white house?

News to me. It seems to me that liberals are just pissed off that they were deluding themselves when they said to themselves:

"He's just saying those things to get elected."
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Sue U »

Although nominated by the President, the candidate must be confirmed by the Senate -- not always a foregone conclusion. (Harriet Miers? Robert Bork?)

And although Presidents come and go every four years, a Justice's appointment is for life. Which is why Supreme Court selection is so important and can shape American society for decades to come. And given that freedom and independence, more than a few Justices have turned out to be something other than the appointing president expected (e.g., David Souter).

Of course Presidents try to pick Supreme Court nominees whose public policy perspectives are consonant with their own. Elections have consequences, and one of the most important in American public life is the composition and philosophical leaning of the Supreme Court. Their decisions and permanence on the bench may drastically affect future administrations; much of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was being scuttled by the fossils still on the Court when he took office.

Despite Presidential appointment, our Supreme Court has historically been extremely independent and robust in its role, ever since its successful early power-grab in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Its own institutional traditions and culture have been an effective defense over the centuries, and I expect they will continue to be so.
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Big RR »

Sue, I like your description of her as a moderate consensus builder, I think that's exactly hwat she is. Indeed, I don't think she has many strong opinions, she seems more than willing to jettison them to curry favor with her superiors and others (look at her positions on Gitmo and treatment of the inmates--she co-authored the letter to Congress decrying the policy of holding for extended periods without charge and then trying before military tribunals without appeal) and then contrast how she has become one of the chief apologists for Obama et al. in keeping the W policies going. Does she think sheis just representing her client? In such case, i would think she needs ot realize (as the authors fo the torture memos have to) hat she is solicitor general, not white house counsel, and her "client" is the people, not the president.

She really does make me nervous, but on the plus side she appears to be intelligent and may well develop a philosophy (and a consicience) like Blackmun did, during her tenure on the court. But Obama nominating her shows how little he cares about those who helped put him where he is, and this attitude may well lead to a republican president in 2012.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Gob »

Ok, so what would Obama supporters have liked to see?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Sue U »

Gob wrote:Ok, so what would Obama supporters have liked to see?
Image
Diane Pamela Wood (born July 4, 1950) is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and a Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

Wood was born in Plainfield, New Jersey. When she was young, she moved with her family to Texas, where her mother still lives. Wood graduated with a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin's Plan II Honors program in 1971. She earned her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1975, where she was an editor of the Texas Law Review, graduated with high honors and Order of the Coif, and was among the first women at the University of Texas admitted as a member of the Friar Society. Wood then clerked for Judge Irving Goldberg of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from 1975 to 1976 and for Associate Justice Harry Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1976 to 1977. She was among the first women to clerk at the Supreme Court.

After working in private practice and the Executive Branch, Wood became the third woman ever hired as a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Wood was nominated to the Seventh Circuit by President Bill Clinton on March 31, 1995. She is considered a liberal intellectual counterweight to the Seventh Circuit's conservative heavyweights, Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook.

Recently, many commentators have called Wood a leading candidate for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama. She was a candidate to replace Justice David Souter when he left the bench in 2009, though that seat went to Sonia Sotomayor. In 2010, she was on the short list of potential nominees to take retiring Justice John Paul Stevens' seat, but that nomination instead went to U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
More, including important decisions.
GAH!

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Elena Kagan?

Post by Guinevere »

Sue, I think this commenter would have concluded that Wood was a better 5th vote, than a 4th. Interesting analysis here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence- ... 71742.html

Excerpt here:
Liberals are angry that the president has let them down -- again. They believe they are entitled to a 21st Century Brennan, or Warren, or Justice Thurgood Marshall. They believe their work electing this man of "hope" justifies a new justice who would give the progressives hope. And they've been whipped up into believing that his nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is not that 21st Century liberal icon.

I find myself torn by this debate. I have not hidden my own disappointment about the limits in this presidency. Obama promised to "change the way Washington works," by which he meant (as he explained again and again), change the power of special interests to block or divert reform. Yet the last year has shown nothing except reform blocked or diverted by special interests, and the president has yet to even acknowledge that this is a problem that he intends to solve. He has executed the presidency Hillary Clinton promised -- maybe better, maybe worse, but no doubt different from the change he said we could believe in.

But neither do I share the fear of progressives about the judgment or values of Elena Kagan. I've known her longer and better than those who question her. I think the suggestion that she's a Bush-Cheney monster is just disqualifying hyperbole.

Yet of course, my attestations are not evidence, and as I've said before, I don't believe they should suffice to eliminate anyone's questions. But I do think these questions are obscuring a more fundamental point about this nomination which I do believe this president was absolutely right to recognize.

Barack Obama is appointing the 4th justice to the non-right-wing wing of the Supreme Court, not the 5th. If the appointment is successful, it will produce decisions with at least 5 votes that are closer to Obama's view of the Constitution than to Bush's.

So what kind of 4th Justice is likely to produce that 5th vote?

To hear the liberals talk about it, it sounds like they think we need a Thomas or Scalia of the Left. A bold, if sometimes bullying, extremist that marks off clearly the difference between the Left and the Right. Someone we could rally around. A new hero for an ideology too often too afraid to assert itself.

But nobody who understands the actual dynamics of the Supreme Court could actually believe that such a strategy would produce 5 votes. No doubt it would produce brilliant dissents. No doubt it would give the Keith Olbermann's of the world great copy. But it would fail to achieve the single thing we ought to be focusing on: How to build "coalitions," as Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall put it to NPR yesterday, of five. Not compromises, not triangulations, but opinions that work hard to cobble from this diverse court a rule of principle that our side could be proud of.

The kind of justice who could do this well is not the justice who goes in with guns blazing. The lesson of Scalia's tenure is one of alienating his most likely friends, not forging strong alliances. Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor all came to avoid following Scalia's lead by default. He set the extreme. They were not interested in extremes.

Instead, the kind of justice who could do this well is one who was practiced in "listening, before disagreeing," as the President put it yesterday. One who could disarm, through trust and respect, so as to get the other side to at least listen.

Whatever uncertainty there is in Kagan's past, there is no uncertainty about this quality in her. There is no doubt that she can do this well. That doesn't mean she's going to flip the other side on each case. It just means that she has the chance. And when one imagines the career that this 50 year old justice could have, it means she has the chance to profoundly change the direction of the actual decisions of this Court -- through the hard work of persuasion, not the self-righteous work of outraged dissents.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

Post Reply