If the Senate confirms Ms. Kagan, who is Jewish, the Supreme Court for the first time will have no Protestant members. In that case, the court would be composed of six justices who are Catholic and three who are Jewish. It also would mean that every member of the court had studied law at Harvard or Yale. – Obama to Nominate Kagan as Justice
Remarks from Elena Kagan, who will mark a
rightward shift away from what Justice Stevens
has represented.
Maybe it began in earnest when Justice Rehnquist politicized the Office of the Independent Counsel in order to prepare for the hunt of Pres. Clinton, so that the presidents who came afterward would make sure their presidency was protected. Perhaps it was Dick Cheney’s remembrance of the Nixon era, so that when he came in with George W. Bush he made sure that his president had a wall in front of his power so no lowly senator or congressperson would impede their judgments, including concocting a case for war. Couple all of this with 9/11 and you’ve got a toxic political cocktail that makes one branch of government all of a sudden take precedence over the others, with the legislative and judicial now simply meant to serve whoever is president. Congressional challenges to the executive branch has been replaced by rubber stamping. Whatever it was that launched this era, it continues with Pres. Obama’s pick of Elena Kagan.
Elections have consequences or at least they’re supposed to, even if what follows isn’t what was promised or expected by some. Ms. Kagan is undoubtedly smart, a member of the privileged class, which today also means she supports the power structure above her. She doesn’t so much buck trends in order for progress to manifest as much as she supports the hierarchy that helped her rise. And so it goes.
We have a political Supreme Court today, unlike what happened in earlier times. Pres. Obama made it clear that he thought the great courts of the ’60s and ’70s proceeded on the road of judicial activism. However, what really seems to irk Mr. Obama is that the Court back then returned and restored rights to we the people. That’s not exactly what presidents in the last two decades have supported when our right to know is pitted against executive privilege, which now has become what the Supreme Court of the United States is to protect. (Interestingly, when the Tower Commission was appointed to investigate Iran Contra, Pres. Reagan refused to invoke executive privilege.)
We no longer have a Congress of which to speak. Republicans or Democrats in Congress exist only to support the executive today. The concentrated power of the big two political parties doesn’t allow independence, which will be greeted with a cutting off of support and money. So, Democrats will simply shrug at more power being represented through Ms. Kagan’s appointment, as the politicians in Congress have no stomach for standing up for pesky things like people’s rights any longer, including those simply suspected of crimes, even if we are protected while investigations ensue. As for Republicans, most will stomp and squeal, but not in any honest manner beyond hyper partisanship, making a mockery of dissent.
…and Pres. Obama gets an executive branch supporter, which will likely aid other presidents in years to come, further solidifying the hyper executive branch that lords itself over Congress, who is now an mostly impotent branch of political rubes, few of whom have any principles on which they will stand to fight.
The Kagan’s, Obama’s and Holder’s of this world with their penchant to bestow consolidated power on this group or on that power center don’t happen in a vaccuum. Everything has a cause and effect. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Under bush the CIA broke down doors in those far away Islamic countries and arrested people. The CIA then interrogated these folks using less than honorable methods like waterboarding. Obama came to power and told the CIA that their unlawful methods were creating more “terrorists” so they should stop and find an other way to operate. Enter the unmanned drone equipped with Hellfire missiles. In the first 4 months of this year there have been 33 attacks using these drones which have killed scores of people. Some of them civilians. People like Shahzad find the use of these drones not only to be barbaric and offensive, but to be illegal as well. Is the use of unmanned drones legal inside a country that Congress hasn’t declared war on legal? Can the president do ‘whatever’ he or she likes, ‘whenever’ he or she likes, ‘wherever’ he or she likes, using any military weapon that is available? Will this issue come before the US Supreme Court at some point? Or the International Court at the Hague? Actions have consequences and people must be put into place to clean up the messes that their bosses make. Peace
Taylor, I agree with you I don’t think Ms. Kagan is a good fit to replace Justice Stevens. And to be perfectly, honest my first thought after hearing that she had been chosen was “She will most likely be filibustered by Repubs an some Dems.” For some odd reason, I find this whole thing laughable Obama chose Ms. Kagan.
Obama is letting Repubicans an Fox News as well as other cable media dictate how to run the White House. It’s become more and more obvious over time that this White House is taking its cues from TV Pundits. I be would more terrified over this sudden realization if not for the fact…I find Republicans leader seem to be just as stupid as Dems. So, with no where to go I sit and watch this administration ruin its self on national TV.
Jonathan Turley was the first I know of today to say Kagan is in no way whatsoever continuing the Stevens role on SCOTUS or will be the negotiator between ideoligical opinions on the way to getting a larger concensus.
It’s rightward ho we go.
Your right Taylor, I think she will not be continuing Stevens great role on SCOTUS…However, I feel she will do alright on the court as far as women issues are concerned…that’s my gut reaction talking. Since there is no real paper trail of having been a judge no one really knows much about Ms. Kagan.
Side note: She gives me Harriet Miers vibes…I really don’t think she will make it through confirmation. One other thing if she was so right leaning…Why did Orrin Hatch block her confirmation to be a judge when Clinton was in office…The right should have loved her more then the left…
I do wonder though if McCain/Palin ticket had won would they have picked a Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan type. Most likely, McCain would have chosen anyone Karl Rove/Rush Limbaugh requested…after all they forced McCain to take Palin for V.P. when he really wanted someone else. There is some comfort in knowing it could have been far worse pickets had McCain been President…I guess
Picks not pickets..lol
Obam never fails to disappoint and to betray progressives. I don’t think he likes the left and he is rubbing our noses in it.
Honestly, I think Obama is a closet Republican and his style of governing reminds me of Nixon era politics. I don’t think he goes out of his way to piss off the left. I just believe he doesn’t give a damn anymore…Obama is just happy serving one term as President…I keep telling people this man doesn’t act like he really wants to be reelected…So, hello President Palin in 2012..?
*sigh* It’s just bad news ALL the time.
Well, I still think Elizabeth Warren would have been fantastic. The other thing about Warren I like in addition to the fact that she would have provided some balance to a Court that is waaaaaay to pro-corporation, is that she didn’t go to Harvard or Yale. Sure, she teaches at Harvard now but she came from a more modest background than most SCOTUS justices.
I think Kagan is a stealth nominee of sorts – because of her rather thin paper trail in terms of evidence of judicial philosophy Obama thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes and claim that she is the logical successor to John Paul Stevens. Frankly, as a fan of the Warren Court, I find such a claim to be insulting.
Granted, we don’t always know exactly how someone is going to rule from the Bench but just the fact that Obama picked her makes me suspicious and I have to say, this time last year I don’t think I would have said that- I was willing to give Obama a bit of the benefit of the doubt.
I oppose appointing to the Supreme Court people who have no judicial experience; I consider it cynical politics in the extreme. Some progressives are appalled at the Kagan choice, and I hope they denounce it as vigorously as the Right Wing denounced the nomination of Harriet Miers. However, I’m not hopeful. The Left always seems to lack the courage of its convictions, not to mention the inevitable disagreements.
I don’t believe that not being a judge automatically equals [constitutional] inexperience or that it should disqualify someone from being a nominee. I think that many constitutional scholars would make excellent justices. It’s the people that don’t know that much about the Constitution that you have to worry about.
I don’t think that Miers and Kagan are similar at all when you look at their histories. There’s a pretty big difference between being Solicitor General of the U.S. compared to being a political supporter who is placed in the White House counsels office. Miers was largely regarded as being in over head and I have yet to hear a single person say that of Kagan, irrespective of whether they agree with her appointment or not.
Thus far, based on what I have seen, I am not keen on Kagan but I personally think she is qualified to be on the SCOTUS.
good points. jane hamsher is on politico saying kagan is harriet meyers. i think your points are valid. i think the harriet stuff is over the top here.
Even though I am not thrilled with this selection, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to claim she’s another Harriet Miers. There have been quite a few justices over the years who came from federal agencies or politics.
I do believe that her record does make it difficult to know what she believes about judicial interpretation and she should be asked very hard questions- just as any SCOTUS nominee should be- about exactly what her judicial philosophy is on issues like Executive power, the rights of terrorism suspects (for example the authority Obama has claimed to be able to assassinate American citizens believed to have ties to terrorism- although I know they would never ask that), substantive due process, federalism, etc.
I have been hearing and reading that some or a good portion on the left are not happy about Kagan. I personally think there were more people that could have been better picked than Kagan, but it is what it is, and its disapointing. I guess we will have to see what she does.
“and its disapointing.”
Pretty much sums up the Obama administration dudnit!
I read somewhere that the w.h. is happy she is being criticized from left. They think it ups her/their credibility.
Of course, it’s always the right he plays to.
Pilgrim – I heard the same this morning on NPR.
Yup, the WH loves criticism from what they’ve called “the left of the left”… push come to shove, the Obama team knows progressives will fall in line, so in the meantime whatever antagonistic noise generated on the left makes it that much easier for the WH to blow off criticism without actually addressing it (‘Obama is getting blowback from the left and the right ergo Kagan must be a splendiferous pick’).
Coventional wisdom from the establishment the MSM does the same stupid reasoning. If having both the left and the right upset is a good thing why are people leaving the two parties in droves?
Logic will break the beltway’s heart.
on front page huffpo, from npr comes a letter, written in 05 from kagan to senate against the graha amendment (graham wanted mil tribunals fully executive, no oversight etc). here is the links . very interesting. why didnt wh send this out to lib grps to keep down their fire? bc they want leftie fire. lefties are ignored by msm etc. so wh wants us to keep yelling.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2010/05/if-kagan-doesnt-really-worship-state.html
Here is the GOP strategy for using the Kagan nomination fight to further obstruct whatever agenda Obama thinks he has (that’s my editorializing):
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/top-strategist-advises-gop-to-prolong-scotus-fight-to-block-obama-agenda.php?ref=fpb
As per usual, TM being anti pbho has a twit of a column. You speak of earlier times when the court was not a p olitical entity. When was the court EVER not a political entity? From the onset did you overlook John Jay? SCOTUS has ALWAYS been a political group, i.e. Chisholm v. Georgia, Georgia vs. Brailsford.
Kagan detractors point out the lack of judicial experience, but never don’t recall Rehnquist or
Lewis F. Powell Jr. In fact “…All told, over 40 Justices in the history of the Court have served without prior judicial experience, including Earl Warren, Byron White, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis, and the Justice synonymous with establishing the pre-eminence of the Court, John Marshall. In addition, at least 5 Chief Justices of the Court presided without the credentials of state or federal court experience. All, of course, were men….”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/yaki/detail??blogid=68&entry_id=63210#ixzz0nZyl2ciU
Did you somehow forget the Imperial Presidency, you DO recall Richard Nixon, do you not?
I quote you, “…elections have consequences…” and PBHO naming of justices is one such consequence.
Clarita: A lot of the people on the list who were not judges had long careers as litigators, which put them in courtrooms quite often. Kagan was neither a judge nor a litigator. Honestly, I do not believe that makes her unqualified. Instead, I am just responding to this list.
As for the people who believe that Obama is happy that the Left is unhappy: I think that is probably true!