Elena Kagan supported barring military recruiters at Harvard Law School because of DADT.

[ClarkUSA]

The subsequent Solomon Amendment litigation was the result. Isn't she just a terrible choice for SCOTUS?

:sarcasm:

[Raven]

1. I guess she's not pure enough. n/t

[WeDidIt]

3. The right teabags their candidates for anything

I guess the left will Greenwald theirs.

[RandomThoughts]

2. I don't have a clue, on that.

Havn't thought much about it, figure elected officials should be able to handle that. Thats why they are elected, isn't it?

[ClarkUSA]

5. Yes, it is but some believe they know better than President Obama on just about every issue.

Of course, most of the perpetually outraged from both sides of the aisle are the same folks who never liked or supported Candidate Obama in the first place.

[druidity33]

6. I supported Obama...

and i think there are MUCH better choices. Please read Glenn Greenwald for a better description of what she lacks than i can offer.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/


:shrug:

[msongs]

8. no u must never criticize or u will be accused lol nt

[Drunken Irishman]

9. lol

lol lol loooooool

It isn't about criticizing. lol

It's about saying, "I won't tolerate this and that and if he does this or that I am done..." lol

That's the problem. lol

Isn't that something to truly LAUGH OUT LOUD at? The complete moronic empty threats of a few intolerable message board whiners. lol

[ClarkUSA]

10. I disagree. Liberal legal icon and noted political activist Lawrence Lessig has endorsed Kagan.

Lessig knows both Diane Wood and Elena Kagan well, having been friends with both of them for over 20 years. Though he has high praise for Diane Wood, he says Kagan is not only a progressive but she also possesses a quality not found in others on the short list:

I believe there's an aspect to Kagan's experience that sets her apart from others on the short list. Kagan has had practical strategic experience. Her most important work over the past two decades has been in contexts where she has had to move people to see things as she did. And through that experience, she has developed a sixth sense for the strategy of an argument. She matches that insight with a toughness that can get what she wants done. That doesn't mean triangulating. It doesn't mean "compromise." It means finding a way to move others to the answer you believe is right.

This is the single feature the liberal side of this conservative court lacks most. Even Justice Stevens was too quick to run off to a corner to write his universally brilliant dissents from insane majorities. Breyer too too often seems content in his law professor way to write an opinion that sounds good when read aloud to himself, but in light of the evolving jurisprudence of the Court, is tone deaf to the view of others. Too many of our progressive colleagues swing for the bleachers of history, rather than victories now. Too many are content with simply knowing that their liberal law professor friends are busy praising their opinions in constitutional law classes rather than fighting to find a way to split the ideologues on the right with their own principles and rhetoric.

Again, I'm not talking about triangulating. The point is not that we need someone who knows how best to compromise. The point instead is that we need a justice with the energy and strength to use the legal materials provided by the other side to advance the right answer... In a line: She marries the brilliance and strength of the very best Justices, a practical skill not of compromise but argument, and deep experience inside the executive branch. It is a broad base of experience, producing an understanding of what is possible, and skill to produce what is right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-case-for-kagan_b_551511.html

Lessig's lengthy and erudite piece is worth reading in full. For example, he addresses many of the "concerns" some have in a legally-informed manner.

[impik]

14. Thanks for the link. Very interesting read

From this it sound like someone Obama would pick.

[druidity33]

15. she WILL push the court to the right.

She has a PITIFUL amount of experience compared to the other candidates.

THERE ARE BETTER CHOICES.

Lessigs article is full of platitudes, no direct facts.

It's bullshit, plain and simple. Obama wants Kagan because she will back him up on any Executive Powers issue that could pop up. And there will be a lot of them popping up in the future...


:shrug:


edited to add direct link to Greenwalds disembowelment of Lessig's article:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/27/lessig/index.html

[CTLawGuy]

18. Obama is EEEEEEVIL!

NT

[jefferson_dem]

20. Good Lord...

Are you really saying that Obama will select Kagan for the sole purpose that he will then have an advocate for his future abuses of executive authority? :shrug:

If so, that's wrong on so many levels - - there's really no point in trying to reasonably discuss the topic.

[druidity33]

22. i'm saying

he will have an advocate for the policies that this administration has continued from when GWB was Pres. These involve a whole host of current positions that hinge directly on not restricting Executive Powers.

If it's wrong on so many levels, won't you please detail some of them?

:shrug:

edited for sentence structure...

[ClarkUSA]

23. How do you know that? Give concrete examples supporting your claim.

Greenwald's op-ed isn't a disbowelment so much as it is pure speculation. Greenwald has nothing on her. There are zero facts to support your laughably wild claims about Kagan, too.

[jefferson_dem]

11. Greenwald's choice for SCOTUS is...

Greenwald.

[druidity33]

16. actually no, his choice is Dianne Wood.

Though i think he really wants Harold Koh, but knows the Rethugs would throw a Shitfit.

Got a problem with Glenn? Because his is the best most compelling legal issues blog on the internet, bar none. (of course Emptywheel at FDL, and Legal Schnauzer deserve props too) Maybe you just have a problem with him being right so often.

:shrug:

[jefferson_dem]

17. Actually, I don't have a problem with Greenwald...

other than the fact that I often disagree with his loaded polemics and he comes across as an arrogant prick. That's ok. I still read him and appreciate his provocative writing style.

As for intelligent legal issue blogs, you can't top http://www.scotusblog.com/ in my opinion.

[druidity33]

19. please then

go to scotusblog and read this:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/9750-words-on-elena-kagan/#more-19827

and compare it to the other potential nominee's records. It is paltry by comparison.

She may be able to play nice with conservatives (why is this a prerequisite again?), and she may have an astute legal mind, but for crying out loud, she is just NOT THE BEST CANDIDATE!

Why should that make people think i have a problem with Pres. Obama?



This pick could potentially be on the court for 30 years! It's called due diligence... we should be insisting on it.

[jefferson_dem]

21. Hey, I hear you.

I've read that piece and also posted here several times that Kagan is not my first choice. I would much rather see Wood, Patrick, or Koh. Kagan's advantages are that she is left-moderate, seems to have a strong legal mind, she's young, she's a woman, and she could be persuasive with other jurists. Yes, that's important. Check out bios of CJ Warren and Woodward's "The Brethren" for details on how Supreme Court politicking works. The current Court is fairly well-balanced, relatively speaking, with Kennedy swinging. So many 5-4 decisions. If we can make those 5-4 in our favor, that's good enough for me.

[Go2Peace]

12. I see more "outrage" and nastiness pouring mostly from these threads.

Why would you expect people not to strongly argue for their opinions on a doggone "F_O_R_U_M"????


I see comparisons to "tea baggers", but the ones doing the most broad brushing and manifesting anger is the ones here who are claiming everyone else is being difficult. If anything describes what "Tea Baggers" like to do it is stuff like that. Broad brush categorize people who have different ideas or opinions and make it seem like they are extreme or out of step.

I haven't focused on this because I am ok with Kagan, but it is hard to ignore these threads. From what I have seen they are complaining about a choice of public figure, but not insulting other members here (for the most). But in these threads I see a lot of people insulting and calling out others.

[NJmaverick]

4. K&R

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. Kick

:kick:

[impik]

13. So what? She is no "PROGRESSIVE" and "LIBERAL"!!!

Pathetic, i tell you.