Sunday, May 9, 2010

Obama Nominates Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court

President Obama has nominated former dean of the Harvard Law School and current U.S. Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, to fill the upcoming vacancy resulting from the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will nominate U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kaganto serve as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, NBC News’ Pete Williams reported late Sunday night.

Kagan, 50, served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009. Obama nominated her to serve in her current post as solicitor general early in 2009, and she won Senate confirmation by a vote of 61-31. She is the first woman to serve as solicitor general of the United States.

She was widely viewed as a front-runner when Obama was considering candidates for a Supreme Court opening last year, but the president ultimately chose Sonia Sotomayor for the job.

I have mixed feelings about this nomination, especially in the wake of AG Eric Holder's statements today indicating Miranda rights might become a thing of the past. Kagan is reputed to be one of those who has been encouraging Obama to forget about the many crimes committed by the Bush administration. She is very corporate-friendly, too.

Update - 7:00 a.m. Monday:


Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, Phil searched for some negative comments about Obama's pick, made up a couple of unbased 'talking points' of his own, echoed the Republican doubts thrown in Kagan's way, and wrapped things up by attempting to plant seeds of doubt about Obama's competence and Kagan's suitability.

Nice work, if you're trying to torpedo any move Obama makes, which we know is something the right seems able to convince Phil is a good idea.

Yes, but now let's look at a few of Kagan's bona fides that can be backed up with something more than supposition or ill-conceived preconceptions.

Kagan banned military recruiters from Harvard while Dean of Harvard Law. She did so because don't ask, don't tell was what she called " “a moral injustice of the first order.”

Why is the right making up it's narrative that she is an unknown quantity when Kagan has clearly staked out a position which makes conservatives heads explode ? Because they know the public agrees with Kagan on don't ask, don't tell.

Point for Kagan.

If Kagan's detractors really didn't think they knew how Kagan might affect the court, why do you think they'd go to the lengths they do to reject her ?

It's not because they don't know how she'd position herself, it's precisely because they do know how she'd likely rule. Against the 'family values' conservative ideologies. They'd lose that argument if it were played out on those terms, so they make up a scenario meant to plant fears in the public about Kagan being an 'unknown' when the record that is available disputes that meme of the unknown.

As is usual, when the right creates a false narrative, Phil is usually one of the first to embrace their narrative instead of reporting on the record what refutes the Republican talking points.

Phil might buy into every right wing deception that comes his way, but that's no reason for anyone else to make the same mistake.

When Phil repeats the arguments and talking points of Republicans John Boehner, Lamarr Alexander, or the conservative women's group, Concerned Women for America, and the right wing judicial advocate group Judicial Crisis, you've got to ask yourself what might be Phil's aim ?

Why would it be that he's picked up the Republican talking points and is echoing those talking points on a supposedly 'progressive site' ?


Anonymous said...

Phil doesn't represent the image he's created. Often as not, he's not pushing a progressive agenda, he's carrying water for the opposition.

Kagan clearly supported campaign finance reform while solicitor general for Clinton, again making the corporate right squirm. What's the narrative Phil creates ? She's 'corporate friendly'.

Really ? and what evidence does Phil offer ?


Despite the record not supporting his meme.

The right has for years cast aspersions on Kagan. Do you suppose they did that because they were afraid she was too much like them ? Because she was likely to support conservative issues ?

Patently ridiculous.

Kagan proved her progressive bona fides during the Clinton years, she's apt to become the progressive intellectual leader of the progressive side of the Supreme Court if confirmed.

What do you suppose Boehner, Alexander, the conservative echo machine and Phil are afraid of ?

What do you suppose is driving Phil to mount an attack on Kagan using the right's talking points ?

Where do you suppose Phil comes up with his own constructed memes that aren't supported by Kagan's record ?

We've watched over the last year or so as Phil has tried on every occasion to torpedo Obama's presidency.

What is it that the supposedly self-styled progressive Phil is afraid of ?

You have to wonder if he's not disappointed that McCain and Palin aren't steering the ship of state.

You have to wonder if he'd not prefer Supreme Court appointments were instead to be made by the likes of McCain and Palin.

Anonymous said...

Is Kagan able to be slotted as Phil attempts here to say she's 'reputed' to be one of those who is encouraging Obama to forget about war crimes ?

He offers no evidence of his claim.

But let's look at her record.

She signed a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy holding hearings on Gitmo legislation, criticizing an amendment to restrict the ability of courts to review practices at Guantanamo Bay, clearly representing more progressive views on executive authority than the specious image Phil would have you believe.

Read the quote from the letter and compare to Phil's false narrative:

""To put this most pointedly," the letter said, "were the Graham amendment to become law, a person suspected of being a member of al-Qaeda could be arrested, transferred to Guantanamo, detained indefinitely ... subjected to inhumane treatment, tried before a military commission and sentenced to death without any express authorization from Congress and without review by any independent federal court. The American form of government was established precisely to prevent this kind of unreviewable exercise of power over the lives of individuals.""

How about that ? Here's direct evidence that Phil's construction isn't supported by the record.


Anonymous said...

With so many examples of Phil attempting to parrot the right wing false memes and proposing false narratives, what should one conclude ?

Phil must be not anywhere near as 'progressive' as he hopes you might think he is.

Why else would he be constantly carrying the water of the opposition, repeating false memes, and creating false narratives if he didn't wish to torpedo progressive change ?

He's walking in lock step with the Republicans and the conservative echo machine.

Time to rename the blog, Phil, you're cover is wearing thin.