While not perfect, the choice of Elena Kagan is an improvement, a step back from the deterioration that occurred over the many years of right wing domination. We have a way to go. As Richard Clarke told us on GPS Sunday, after 911, “Some things we did destroyed our own value system.”

Ruth,are you out of your mind? Have you temporarily taken leave of your senses? Kagan is not an improvement, she’s a catastrophe. She will take the court even further to the right. Go research her opinions on expanding presidential power and the theory of the Unitary Executive.

The very best thing that could happen to this nomination is for progressives (real ones, out in the hinterlands and in the hallowed halls of major law schools) to rise up in such an unstoppable wave of outrage and indignation that she was either defeated or had to withdraw. This would send Obama a message and maybe we’d get somebody half-decent as a replacement nominee.

You Got to Dance with Them What Brung You.

Yet again the leg-pisser-in-chief has chosen to avoid any confrontation, stab the base in the back, and cater to the right. I’m not even moderately surprised anymore. This nomination removes the last reason I may have even considered voting for him in ’12.

Ms. Kagan should fit in nicely with Scalito and company.

When it comes to Obama, one is simply glad he didn’t pick a slavering, mouth-foaming neocon.

This would send Obama a message and maybe we’d get somebody half-decent as a replacement nominee.

The Corporate Stoogie One isn’t taking messages from plebs.

Only well-connected, über-plutocrats have his ear.

Crap.

…rise up in such an unstoppable wave of outrage and indignation that she was either defeated or had to withdraw. This would send Obama a message and maybe we’d get somebody half-decent as a replacement nominee.

I think that is spot on.

She has almost no written record….she is a blank slate. Her hiring record at Harvard is abysmal. Read Glennzilla:

The case against Elena Kagan

and
Larry Lessigs “case for Kagan” is the opposite

and
The latest on Elena Kagan

and follow all of his links in these thorough pieces, and then tell us again how “not perfect but an improvement” Kagan is.

Good morning, pups. It’s Monday so we’re stuck with The Pasty Little Putz, and Prof. Krugman. The Pasty Little Putz has tied himself into a knot today. In “Red Family, Blue Family” he says when it comes to marriage and teen pregnancy rates, there’s more than one America. He then proceeds to draw, as is his wont, a completely wrong conclusion from the facts he himself presents. And he’s paid to do this. Prof. Krugman, in “Sex, Drugs & the Spill,” has a question: Why weren’t federal regulators working to prevent the BP oil spill?

Here they are.

The coffee and tea are ready, and the biscuits are out of the oven. I’ve got stuff I’ve got to take care of this morning before work, so I’ll take my leave. Have a great day.

She certainly has the Kagan double chin.

Good morning all.

Why weren’t federal regulators working to prevent the BP oil spill?

I just luvs the rhetorical Qs that keep appearing in liberal writing & blogs.

Perhaps President Rahm or his sidekick Barry will explain to the citizens why we are not worthy of an actual qualified judge with some experience considering constitutional issues to sit on our highest court. How does Kagan differ in any significant way from Miers?

Every day, in every way, Obama-Rahm strives mightily to be more exactly like Cheney-Bush, intent upon the enshrinement of the Imperial Decidership and catering to the whims of the bloated corporatists and banksters. Using a SCOTUS appointment for short-term political point-scoring may be “politically savvy” (ugh) but from the worm’s-eye view it looks irresponsible at best, and downright malicious when we consider the long-term effects to our democracy. It is apparent that Obama-Rahm are not interested in the impact to the “little people”, but are acting solely on the basis of what they think will bring them “campaign contributions” and political power for the next couple of years.

obama hope, nope, hope, nope, hope, nope… a pattern is emerging.

Whoever picked him got what they wanted.

Among the potential picks, Elena Kagan is better than several, no worse than most;
‘Of the nine current short listers, four are non-Ivy Leaguers — Judge Wood, Judge Sidney Thomas, Judge Ann Claire Williams, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The others — Elena Kagan, Merrick Garland, Jennifer Granholm, Justice Leah Ward Sears and Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow — all have Ivy League backgrounds. ‘
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Supreme_Court/president-obama-starts-discussions-potential-supreme-court-picks/story?id=10440091&page=2

No doubt, she will be found to be a commie terraist by the right wing, in any case.

Who cares about “Ivy League” besides Ivy Leaguers like the Bushes? It’s a badge of wealth and priveledge, not a guarantee of quality by any means.

Every day, in every way, Obama-Rahm strives mightily to be more exactly like Cheney-Bush, intent upon the enshrinement of the Imperial Decidership and catering to the whims of the bloated corporatists and banksters

You may have the imperial presidency right but I don’t think she’s a corporatist. From what I read, she’s against giving corps the same rights as people.

Who is issuing this Kagan is Miers talking point. It’s getting boring. Kagan clerked for Thurgood Marshall. Who did Miers clerk for.

“Why weren’t federal regulators working to prevent the BP oil spill?”

Too busy snorting meth and messing with prostitutes?

On BP’s dime, no doubt.

That the Bushies were Ivy Leaguers says enough.

This spill has the potential of bankrupting this company. Are they too big to fail ? Will they get a government bail-out ?

Kagan may be a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, but she’s definitely no Miers. And commie terraist will be one of the nicest things they say about her.

I would pick another hill to die on. But I’ve been saying that my entire lifetime. And things could be worse, I guess. Imagine the pick of president Palin.

Since when did Glenzilla become the oracle of the left. He supports corporate personhood, he supports drug liberalization, he is very focused on executive powers. Good for him (except for the corporate thing). There are vast areas of the law that the Court sees beyond that.

Pasty Little Putz almost sounds pro choice today.

“president Palin”

Please stop ,you’re scaring me !

“I would pick another hill to die on.”

True enough. But she’s got a lot more going for her than I had feared could happen, and we have much to lose by dying for the next best rather than getting her in there to balance the Scalito coathanger bunch.

He supports corporate personhood

Really? Link?

Until, of course, he reaches the end and draws his wrong conclusions.

Neither one has experience as a judge. Clerking for a judge makes Kagan an experienced clerk. My daughter works as a clerk for a law firm; does that make her qualified to do the work of a trial lawyer?

Attaturk’s Official Palin Portrait won the intertubes Saturday. Mad M$Paint skillz.

According to what I read, BP’s liability tops out at $75 million.

yup, we wenot over that on another thread

as far as kagan, every single bush judge brought the court further to the right, it sems obama is going to bring it again to the right, not likley he’s going to find a stevens is it

What the Supreme Court got right.

Yes, if she’s clerking for a good judge, at the district or appeals court level. Clerking for a Scotus Justice like Marshall is relevant.

after which the tax -payer is on the hook yes?

Kagan is no Miers. But she will be no Brandeis either.

Beware how you take away hope from another human being.

This is President Change We Can Believe In – is anyone really surprised anymore? Sitting ’12 out – I can’t imagine pulling the lever next to his name for President.

Yep, reading about her, it is clear that Barack Hoover-Bush Obama has struck again.

You are so screwed!

Greenwald argued that the decision in THAT case was correct, even though he disliked it, so it’s a stretch to say he supports corporate personhood. He is someone whose opinion I respect on this stuff because he is so incredibly thorough — pedantic, even. And if you follow all of the links in his articles cited above, you get a pretty thorough picture. Kagen has no record, no published articles, and if you read about her hiring at Harvard (only 5 women, only ONE minority) it paints an unappealing picture.

Now, I gotta get dressed and off to work. Have a good day, pups.

There’s supposed to be some pool of funds created by collection from oil corps, but like most dedicated tax revenues in D.C., it’s probably a fiction. I don’t even remember how big it’s supposed to be.

thanks for the links ,I don’t know much about Ms Kagan .At least now though, I know what the progressives think of her. Still don’t have an opinion of my own ,guess i’ll have to do some more reading.

Really, regardless of who Kagan is, the fix was already in with the Supreme Court. The previous loading with Scalia, and Alito has already pushed it to the right of Attila the Hun. The Supreme Court, like the USA, is beyond saving.

Should be known as the “Poison Ivy League.”

That’s a keeper.

(unsigned int) MrAngreePee (void) and (unsigned int) LilMissApplausePee (void) are calling. Be of good cheer, folks. Things could be worse:

Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog
Is finally getting enough cheese;
And reflect that whatever fortunes may be your lot,
It could only be worse in Sioux City.

So, is this the Ray Harryhausen version of the Kagan or the new 3-D version?

I agree. I don’t know where I stand, yet. I’m just sorry that I have no idea where she stands on a woman’s right to choose.

As far as I know, there’s no such thing as a correct opinion. What’s really misunderstood about that decision is what it does to shield individuals in a corporation from liability.

Quoting Glenn:

Critics emphasize that the Court’s ruling will produce very bad outcomes: primarily that it will severely exacerbate the problem of corporate influence in our democracy. Even if this is true, it’s not really relevant. Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn’t. In general, a law that violates the Constitution can’t be upheld because the law produces good outcomes (or because its invalidation would produce bad outcomes).

Now I really AM outta here.

Recall that Larry Summers pushed to keep financial derivatives unregulated — the very thing that enabled Goldman and other shadow banks to blow up the economy. And now we hear that Larry Summers was responsible for appointing Elena Kagan dean of Harvard Law School. This is reason enough, IMO, to oppose Kagan’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Which Still makes me wonder why Obama hired a bankster enabler to be his chief economic adviser. All I can figure is that Obama either has very poor judgment or he’s married to the mob. Either way, none of this speaks well of Obama’s ability to lead our country.

Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn’t.

I don’t know how far out of context I am taking this, if glen was quoting someone else or making a greater point

however it’s not either or, corporations are not entitled to constitutional protection, the court saying they are takes the discussion to a third level that should have never existed

the constitution carves an exclusion, people have rights, cars do not have rights, corporations are cars they are not people, I am not sure glenn understands this principle if that’s his quote

And as Glenn said on Saturday,

If the choice is Kagan, you’ll have huge numbers of Democrats and progressives running around saying, in essence: “I have no idea what Kagan thinks or believes about virtually anything, and it’s quite possible she’ll move the Court to the Right, but I support her nomination and think Obama made a great choice.” In other words, according to Chemerinksy and Yglesias, progressives will view Obama’s choice as a good one by virtue of the fact that it’s Obama choice. Isn’t that a pure embodiment of mindless tribalism and authoritarianism?

And his prognostication has already been realized.

Thank you. I have been thinking the same thing for a while.

I can’t agree alank of course there are correct opinions.

the fact that it’s an opinion doesn’t exclude that opinion from factual evaluation

And anyone who truly wants to understand the issues at hand regarding the Kagan nomination needs to read Glenn’s blog this morning: Obama’s natural choice of Kagan.

Even if this is true, it’s not really relevant.

Fine theory, for a strict constructionist. So corporations can sponsor political candidates with unlimited amounts of money, just like they sell sneakers. How is that not relevant. Were the framers familiar with billion dollar advertising campaigns. Guess it’ll help the commercial mainstream media though.

now that i”ve read glen I have to say, I can not once find a referance to the fact that corporations are not people, nor him rendering an opinion otherwise

he combats other arguments against the ruling nicely and I agree with him on those arguments but they have nothing to do with what makes the ruling wrong and unconstitutional

corporations are not people and there can be no ruling on constutiionality of a write that does not exist, cars don’t have rights nor do corporations and glen does not address that argument in his writing or his updates

in addition, comments are closed so i cannot challenge him to defend agaist that point

But the front page of Salon appears to disagree with Glenn.

Does she maybe have any ideas about capping blown out oil wells in deep water?

Perris said,

the constitution carves an exclusion, people have rights, cars do not have rights, corporations are cars they are not people, I am not sure Glenn understands this principle if that’s his quote

The problem is not the constitution, it’s the first amendment thereto which specifically says,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn’t address “protection” at all. It says Congress shall make no law. That was the basis for the ruling.

Yes, and that makes his point, doesn’t it?

These criticisms are, at the very least, dramatically overstated. A review of Kagan’s professional record and writings suggests that she would fit comfortably on the left-hand side of the judicial spectrum.

I don’t follow. How does it make his point.

Swim is up…

So while there may be no Protestants left on the SCOTUS, we will finally get a paid member of the Research Advisory Council of Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute to represent the real power in future court decisions. With so many less than optimal choices that Team Obama could make they stepped up to the plate and hit a homer for the preference of corporate over individual rights. Those donations from Goldman Sachs have just shown an investment paid in full.

Aoyama,

You’re attack on Glenn’s position on the corporate free speech has no relevance on Glenn pointing out the total incompetence and lack of record of Kagan.

Secondly, it also nicely highlights the danger of populism applied in the supreme court. As Glenn pointed out, and as you failed to pick up, the ruling was more a highlight of judicial activism than a bad ruling if one’s abiding by the letter of the constitution. In that, there is a cognitive disonance.

All that doesn’t change the fact that Kagan is a horrible candidate and the SCOTUS will now be solidly right of center 4-5 and will start nibbling away at the constitution for the next decades. Miranda rights is just the start, the dilluting of the constitution has begun….

consider my bold

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

you have taken a paragraph and used it out of context, it is intended for people as the consituiton is intended for people

there is no restrictions on congress to pass unconstitutional law against your car, your house, or a cancer spewing spigot

that paragraph is for people, clear as day

there is nothing in the constitution that pertains to anything but people

have you ever seen a car read meranda rights?, brought to trial before being impounded?

it does not matter one bit what the constition says, it does not apply to anything but people

With so many less than optimal choices that Team Obama could make they stepped up to the plate and hit a homer for the preference of corporate over individual rights.

But Kagan argued against corporate personhood, unlike Glenn.

Time to start the process of finding a primary candidate for the Democrats for the 2012 Presidential election- that is assuming there are any real progressives left in any sort of leadership position at the state or federal level.

it also nicely highlights the danger of populism applied in the supreme court.

That’s not how I would characterize the decision in Citizens United in favor of corporate personhood. American corporations spend $150 billion (not million) dollars every year on advertising. Shudder to think of all that money now free to be spent on political candidates. And we’re supposed to call that free speech?

When it comes to cultural diversity on our SCOTUS apparently WASPs have become insignificant.

There are White Anglo Saxons on the Court. So you must mean Protestants. Is being religious important to the Court. Gallup says Catholics are more pro-choice than Protestants.

Is it true she tanked (did poorly) the arguments in Citzens United (fake People)?

Seems to get to SCOTUS its:
- Corps
- Strong Prez (or sometimes a “states rights” person)
- allows some latitude for issues to confuse peons (fluff stuff like flag burning, DODT – now some of this “fluff” is critical, but it does not get in the way of the dollar).

If so that must have been her final test, that last coat of paint on some removal of Miranda this weekend.

May as well put Larry Summers in there and get it over with.
What an unqualified pick/prick

Ignoring her anti-civil-rights record, the Republicans, teabaggers, the right and the MainstreamMedia (one and all) will label Kagan a flaming bleeding heart liberal based solely on the fact that she is a lesbian.

Last month, why did Rhambama create that ridiculous “not a lesbian” faux pas?

In accordance with Obama’s handbook on negotiating with bullies who drink your milkshake, the Cass Sunstein Nudge Principle indicates that:

Kagan may get the vaudeville hook in order to facilitate the nomination of someone more extremely fascist.

Because she is a lesbian, Kagan is the fake liberal talisman to appease, distract (and please) the “liberal base”. When she gets the hook, a real super right android (like Roberts) will emerge and get confirmed.

-The Nudge Principle

That pretty much sums it up.

Please don’t sit it out. Vote for a write-in candidate, but please vote. I’m really hoping that as disenchantment grows going into 2012, there may at least be a write-in candidate a large group of the disaffected can agree to vote for.

So you don’t believe in the concept of freedom of the press? You believe that businesses can be raided without search warrants?

Bingo. It’s never just an “either/or” proposition. There are plenty of other people to choose from.

That’s probably right. They’ll kabuki some fight for her nomination, whilst torpedoing it from all sides simultaneously, then comes the smack down.

Reagan wasn’t this good. This ‘stealth Republican’ in the WH is an absolute master of the dark arts.

What’s he got planned for you next?! It seems absolutely anything is possible!!

I do believe in the concept of freedom of the press and there is a specific exclusion in the constitution for it

one does not mean the other spanish in question

Initially, I absolutely agree with your “shudder” response. I mean, the sheer number of ads these oligarchs can now buy…

I must also comment, however: Look at what this says about the level of awareness of the “average” voter in this country. That someone can be so easily manipulated and swayed by a thirty second “commercial”…with a high probability that something in that “commercial” is distorted, exaggerated, or outright untrue…? Simply because it’s repeated over and over again…?

Perhaps we’re reaching a point where we’ve gotta address this problem. Because guess what? If voters finally learned how they’re mind-controlled (and that’s exactly what it is) and learned how to shake it off…then it wouldn’t matter how many millions or billions these puppeteers threw into the mix. Because they wouldn’t work anymore.

I realize this may sound unresolvable, but…really…the manipulation of the public and the results of that manipulation…rarely discussed. Or addressed. Just assumed…it’ll always be.

Result: (Propaganda) ads will continue to work their magic. And bottom line: They’ve got more money.

Progressive?? I’d be happy at this point with Ron Paul. Its no wonder he’s in a dead heat with Obama. The Repubs will have to put up a complete tool like Palin to lose in 2012. We’re swiftly coming to a point where we “elect” a king. The Prez. can order the assassination of a citizen, no trial, no miranda, no nothing. That’s the reason for Kagan. So when it finally goes to trial the court can rubber stamp the supreme executives power and we can finally drop all the pretenses.
I thought we would have to wait for an ‘R’ to get to see some of those new powers used on the peace and environmental groups but I think Obama plans to squeeze 2 or 3 administrations into one.

Food for thought. Thanks.

I will love to see your reaction 4 or 5 years from now, when Justice Kagan votes against the Scalia/Alito block 70%+ of the time.
Of course, that assumes you’ll be paying attention.

[Edited by Moderator: Insulting other commenters is not allowed on this site.]

oldhippie tmginnova

“Beware how you take away hope from another human being.”

Beautiful quote. One we should all pay more attention to on a daily basis. Including President Obama.

Moderator — It’s OK to insult the President, a progressive Democrat, as old hippiejean did, but not to call out a commenter on that?
I now see the double standard applied, as many of the comments here insult Obama, often in juvenile ways, but one can’t respond to that. It still reminds me of tea party nonsense, which was the essence of the comment you removed (I’m sure you’ll strike this too, to keep the one-sided perspective).

I heard she worked as consultant for Goldman Sachs but she did not hold any judicial positions so that her opinions can be looked for reference on her impartiality.

How can we be sure she will not be impartial on corporate vs public issues which is the most common but important issue supreme court handles on a daily basis.