Al Giordano: Progressive for Kagan

[impik]

Just read the whole damn thing, really.


http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3948/progressive-kagan

[NJmaverick]

1. Good stuff, thanks for posting

[Cha]

2. I just posted this in the BOG..

<snip>

"As a court reporter and civil libertarian journalist during many of my years in the United States – prior to ducking under the border thirteen years ago – I probably followed US Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decisions more closely than any reporter I knew for whom the Court itself wasn’t his or her beat (Cynthia Cotts, who later covered the Court for Bloomberg, being an important exception). And the dynamics of the Court in 2010 and in the years to come ain’t rocket science. There are nine justices: four arch reactionaries, four reliable liberals (including the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, whom Kagan will replace), and one swing vote in Justice Anthony Kennedy. And if I were in President Obama’s shoes, I would look for a justice who could wow Judge Kennedy on the merits of law toward the left and civil libertarian side of the dial. I’d seek one who has the people skills and persuasive abilities to do just that.

According to Lessig, that is Kagan’s strong card: “it is this quality that distinguishes Kagan most strongly. For the core of Kagan's experience over the past two decades has been all about moving people of different beliefs to the position she believes is correct. Not by compromise, or caving, but by insight and strength. I've seen her flip the other side.”

That skill set is what we call community organizing. And the Supreme Court is a very small community of nine residents – four on the right, four on the left, and one that needs to be organized to win any vote there – that needs an organizer, like any other.

Now, it has been entirely predictable that the board members of Poutrage, Inc. – those self-proclaimed “progressive” pundits who have never been community organizers and resent Obama and all the rest of us that have actually done that work and won political battles because they keep failing at it – are caught up in their cyclical careerist protagonism over the Kagan nomination. I won’t mention any names, but of course Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher are up to their Johnny-one-note tricks of getting their faces on the cable talk shows and in the media by proclaiming themselves “progressives against an Obama proposal” on any particular policy. They are as predictable as they are unconvincing, and although they always lose, they never change their bumbling tactics, I conclude that they are not interested in winning the issues they claim to care about. They are only interested in their own careers and egos and in fooling the gullible to send donations to their projects of self-enrichment.*** The issues are merely the means to try to make themselves relevant to the national discourse."

<end snip>

<much more>
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield /

***Hmm..that's what I've concluded from observing their actions regarding anything President Obama.

[zipplewrath]

4. Tuff job

It's gotta be a tough job to be a progressive pundit. The centrists ignore you, and everyone else argues with you about whether you are progressive enough, or too progressive. God forbid you stick to a consistent set of positions, you're guilty of "poutage". But if you constantly switch positions you held during the campaign, you're "pragmatist".

[Cha]

5. Al Giordano has it exactly right..

"Thus, those who claim that the Kagan nomination “moves the court to the right” reveal only their gross ignorance about the dynamics of the US Supreme Court in the present day. And the unflappable head-coach-in-chief is absolutely correct to ignore the cat-calls from the armchair quarterbacks in the bleachers who have never won a game, and thus have no idea how it is really done."

[zipplewrath]

13. Tad simplistic

And slightly leaning towards a strawman. It is a subtle but important difference between "moving" the court to the right, and not pulling it left. I see the primary concern that she will be a "centrist" which will only serve to allow the court to continue to drift right.

[Cha]

15. Elena Kagan will be just what we

need now on the court..and it's not simple at all.

[zipplewrath]

16. I'm not so sure

There is precious little to go on (which is becoming common these days for appointees). The scant information available suggests she's a centrist, which will merely contribute to the continuing drift of the court to the right.

[Jennicut]

17. The court is going to not drift much until Scalia or even Kennedy retire.

They are the next oldest conservatives on the court. Ginsburg is actually the next to go and I think will do so before Nov. 2012 so Obama can get a justice in before he faces re-election.
The truth is, it does not matter right now if Obama picks a centrist or a liberal. What matters is perhaps getting someone who can get in there and reach Kennedy with their arguments. He is about it as far as a swing vote goes, though he has said he doesn't really see himself that way. Kagan at the very least has brought some diverse and tough groups together while as a Harvard Law School Dean. I am pretty interested in the fact that she was never a judge and how that would effect her rulings on the Supreme Court. Going against Scalia is not really going to make a difference but going after Kennedy might. Other then that, I doubt the court changes until a conservative is gone. And then you need hope a Rethug President is not in office.

[zipplewrath]

19. Thinking of the future

As you suggest, the impact will not be immediate. But ultimately the court will change. I think Kennedy is getting pretty hardened in his positions. However, to your point, I do like seeing a few "nonjudges" on the court. A few judges aren't bad, but overall I think we can always use some folks from the various branches of government. The responsibility of a Supreme Court Judge isn't so much connected to running trials, as it is interpreting the constitution.

[Jennicut]

21. We really need a non judge who comes from the real world.

Of course, conservatives say she comes for the Ivy League world only and is an "elitist". I guess you can't please everyone...

[zipplewrath]

22. Unless it's Renquist

I think we can use SOME judges from outside the judiciary appeals courts.

[HughMoran]

23. lmao

there's a dark answer to every post :rofl:

[Cha]

24. It's so DARK in

here..I can't see anything..no wonder!:)

[ClarkUSA]

3. I love Al's take on the 'members of Poutrage, Inc. - those self-proclaimed "progressive" pundits'

Now, it has been entirely predictable that the board members of Poutrage, Inc. – those self-proclaimed “progressive” pundits who have never been community organizers and resent Obama and all the rest of us that have actually done that work and won political battles because they keep failing at it – are caught up in their cyclical careerist protagonism over the Kagan nomination. I won’t mention any names, but of course Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher are up to their Johnny-one-note tricks of getting their faces on the cable talk shows and in the media by proclaiming themselves “progressives against an Obama proposal” on any particular policy. They are as predictable as they are unconvincing, and although they always lose, they never change their bumbling tactics, I conclude that they are not interested in winning the issues they claim to care about. They are only interested in their own careers and egos and in fooling the gullible to send donations to their projects of self-enrichment. The issues are merely the means to try to make themselves relevant to the national discourse.

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Al's take is vintage Rush Limbaugh if you ask me

All attack and no substance at all. If he has anything substantial to say, let's see it. As far as the passage above, it is nothing more than mindless mudslinging. Why doesn't Al try to mount a factual rebuttal to the critics of the Kagan nomination? Where is his substantitive rebuttal on the concerns of Greenwald, Turley, Doty and others?

What I see above is merely wordy bullshit and righteous indignation that anyone would attempt to offer a view counter to the President on this appointment. IS that really all you folks have to sell Kagan?

[ClarkUSA]

7. No, that would be Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher, both of whom are professional shit-stirrers.

<<IS that really all you folks have to sell Kagan?>>

lol! Facts do count, which is why only an idiot would believe Glenn Greenwald's lies about Elena Kagan. And Elena Kagan never allied herself with the RNC, Grover Norquist and teabaggers in opposition to President Obama, as Jane Hamsher did when she tried and failed to "Kill the Bill". Oh, and she also wanted Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders lose his seat for voting for HCR. What a PUMA nutjob she is!

Speaking of facts, SCOTUSBlog refutes Glenn Greenwald's false criticism of Elena Kagan view on executive power:

SCOTUSBlog, in their 9,750 word profile of Kagan:

"Some have criticized Elena Kagan for supposedly favoring a strong view of executive power. They equate her views with support for the Bush Administration’s policies related to the “war on terror.” Generally speaking, these critics very significantly misunderstand what Kagan has written.
Kagan’s only significant discussion of the issue of executive power comes in her article Presidential Administration, published in 2001 in the Harvard Law Review. The article has nothing to do with the questions of executive power that are implicated by the Bush policies – for example, power in times of war and in foreign affairs. It is instead concerned with the President’s power in the administrative context – i.e., the President’s ability to control executive branch and independent agencies. That kind of power is concerned with, for example, who controls the vast collection of federal agencies as they respond to the Gulf oil spill and the economic crisis."

Glenn Greenwald is clueless. This is not the first time he's been erred in his legal understanding and judgment, either:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=291738&mesg_id=291738

His accusation that she's a "stealth candidate" who may not be a progressive only shows he's a lazy journalist. There's plenty of evidence pointing to the left side of the political spectrum:

1. Noted lefty lawyer and progressive activist Lawrence Lessig has endorsed her:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x293084

2. She wrote her senior thesis on 1930's socialism: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x293502

3. Furthermore, Kagan wrote that she likes "real Democrats -- not closet Republicans...committed to liberal principles..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x293096

4. Biden's aide vouches for her progressive creds, as she worked for Biden on the Senate Judiciary Committee:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x293865

5. Conservatives hate Elena Kagen for being pro-gay, pro-choice and a lesbian:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=292804&mesg_id=292804

As for her thoughts on the unitary executive, here's her 2005 letter to Senator Leahy on executive power, where she opposed the expansion of it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x293888

ThinkProgress also rejects Glenn Greenwald's lies and sets record straight on Kagan:

"Glenn also notes an exchange between Senator Lindsay Graham and General Kagan (R-SC) regarding her views on indefinite detention. In that exchange, Kagan acknowledged that America may indefinitely detain a known terrorist, yet she was also very clear that such a detention could only occur after the detainee received “substantial due process” from an “independent judiciary” in a “transparent” process. In other words, Kagan embraces Justice Stevens’ view of detainee rights, as Stevens has consistently voted to resist Bush’s theory of detention-without-due-process.

A vaguely-related issue is Kagan’s view of the White House’s role within the Executive Branch. In her seminal article on “Presidential Administration,” General Kagan touts the Clinton White House’s supervision of executive branch agencies to ensure that those agencies achieved the “progressive goals” President Clinton was elected to achieve. There is a healthy debate in the progressive legal community regarding how aggressive a president should be in supervising the agencies, but it is also important to note what Kagan’s article is not about. Kagan’s article is about which part of the Executive Branch–the White House or the agencies–should take the lead in setting policy. It does not call for the kind of presidential seizure of power from the legislative and judicial branches that was so common under George W. Bush.

Kagan is also likely to be a much-needed voice against Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito’s crusade to immunize wealthy corporations from accountability under the law. As an adviser to President Bill Clinton, Kagan spearheaded bipartisan legislation to prevent tobacco companies from marketing their products to children — only to watch the court’s conservatives apply an implausible reading of the law and hold tobacco companies immune from such regulation. So Kagan knows what it is like to see years of effort to protect the American people’s heath and safety destroyed by a Supreme Court more concerned with protecting corporations than with upholding the law. Kagan spent much of her career crafting laws intended to protect ordinary Americans–so she understands the terrible consequences of ignoring the law to suit a narrow interest group’s agenda."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/10/kagan-nomination/

What have you got besides "wordy bullshit and righteous indignation"?? Hmm?

[damonm]

9. #1 Nobody did. #2. You didn't read the article, did you?

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. Thanks for posting impik. (nt)

[bananas]

10. Thanks - Joe Romm also had good things to say about her

I haven't been following this, those are two people who's opinions I have a lot of respect for, so I'm glad to know they both support her.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/10/a-supreme-court-nominee-for-the-global-warming-century-elena-kagan/

[saltpoint]

11. Thanks for putting this up for us, impik.

[Number23]

12. Is Al spoken for?

I mean, sure I'm married and 17 oceans away but the way this man BREAKS IT DOWN... whew! :loveya:

"With all due respect, Solomon at least is a kind of authority on the “political graveyard” because that’s where he and others of the liberal intelligentsia put us for various decades of the Apartheid Left in the United States: they were so obsessed with looking above and waging critiques of those in power that they ignored the necessary multi-racial grassroots organizing from below that is the only thing that ever wins any meaningful political battle. They became “leftish personalities” in the media world and constructed a mostly white and college-educated ghetto that largely defined what “progressive” or “liberal” meant, particularly during the 1990s and the Bush II era. In doing so, they alienated the working class and poor that are necessary to any progressive majority."

Truly, this must be love that I'm feeling... :) Kicked and rec'd

[MH1]

25. I'm not

and I've thought similarly on multiple occasions when I read his writing :loveya:

:toast:

[Cowpunk]

14. Well that was a waste of time.

I should have known by the "just read it" line. Most idiotic thing I've read all day.

"The only thing right now that will move the court right or left will be Justice Kennedy’s vote and whether the left side can pull him or not."

Good god. Really? What if Obama nominates someone to the "left side" who isn't really progressive? Could that possibly move the court to the right?

Like every other Kagan defender, he makes absolutely no case at all that she actually has progressive opinions.
Once again, we're just asked to trust her good buddy Larry Lessig.

[Rebubula]

18. Well...

...now I just need to know Dirk Pitt's take on all of this.

[grantcart]

20. From the original article

Breyer's weakness points to a general weakness in appointing law professors to high courts. We law professors -- especially at places like Harvard or Yale -- spend too much of our time worrying about abstract right, not practical right. We're skilled in working out the very best theory. We're not very good at figuring out how to engineer an argument to the best result


Its the kind of subtle but substantive argument that cannot be discussed at DU. Either somebody fits a checklist or they don't. How they effect the reality from an organic point of view is irrelevent. Many people would be happier having a firebrand writing for history in minority opinions than getting somebody that can engineer majority opinions by turning arguments.

[Cowpunk]

26. "Its the kind of subtle but substantive argument that cannot be discussed at DU"

Aren't you doing that?