The danger that we won't have such a status-quo-maintaining selection is three-fold: (1) Kagan, from her time at Harvard, is renowned for accommodating and incorporating conservative views, the kind of "post-ideological" attribute Obama finds so attractive; (2) for both political and substantive reasons, the Obama White House tends to avoid (with a few exceptions) any appointees to vital posts who are viewed as "liberal" or friendly to the Left; the temptation to avoid that kind of nominee heading into the 2010 midterm elections will be substantial (indeed, The New York Times' Peter Baker wrote last month of the candidates he said would be favored by the Left: "insiders doubt Mr. Obama would pick any of them now"); and (3) Kagan has already proven herself to be a steadfast Obama loyalist with her work as his Solicitor General, and the desire to have on the Court someone who has demonstrated fealty to Obama's broad claims of executive authority is likely to be great.
When Elena Kagan went before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February as President Obama’s nominee for solicitor general, Republicans were almost as effusive as the Democrats in their praise for her.
There was no daylight between Ms. Kagan, who was the dean of Harvard Law School, and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, as he led her through a six-minute colloquy about the president’s broad authority to detain enemy combatants. . . . Indeed, there was so much adulation in the air from Republicans that one Democrat, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, joked at the hearing that she understood how Ms. Kagan "managed to get a standing ovation" from the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.
In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).
Reading Greenwald doesn't count as reading Sunstein. That said, I don't like Sunstein as a SCOTUS judge as much as I like Kagan, Sullivan, or Karlan.
I'm not calling you a liar, delmoi. I like you, and I know you have good intentions. Come on! However, I think you've been mislead and are now misleading others.
I'm not getting who Glenn Greenwald would like to see on the Court. Abbie Hoffman? Mikhail Bakunin? Does he not know about the whole Senate confirmation thingy?
There won't be any questions about Kagan's qualifications, expertise or intellect -- she's exceptionally smart and knowledgeable -- and she largely holds positions on social issues, such as a solid pro-choice and pro-gay record, that will be pleasing to progressive constituencies. But the same is true for many outstanding candidates to replace Stevens, including Appellate Court Judge Diane Wood, former Yale Law School Dean and current State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, and Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan. And those choices, unlike Kagan (or Sunstein), would maintain the Court's fragile ideological balance rather than shifting it decisively to the Right for decades to come.
After hearing oral arguments, each justice retires to chambers to formulate a decision based upon his or her interpretation of the Constitution -- or, in the case of Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scaia's interpretation of the Constitution.
Using felt and yarn, make a hand puppet of Clarence Thomas. Ta-da! You're Antonin Scalia!
I think the issue is that empirical analysis eventually gets people to the truth.
Climategate may have skewed people against global warming, but in five years, people will still come to accept it as fact
During William Rehnquist's tenure as chief justice, a lawyer was arguing in the court for the first time. When asked a question by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the nervous lawyer started her response with, "Well, Judge—"
Chief Justice Rehnquist interrupted her. "That’s Justice Kennedy," he said.
Shaken, the lawyer continued. A few minutes later, she responded to Justice David Souter by saying, "Yes, Judge." Chief Justice Rehnquist corrected her again: "That’s Justice Souter." A couple of minutes later, she called Chief Justice Rehnquist himself a judge.
The chief justice leaned forward, his deep voice now at its sternest, to say, "Counsel is admonished that this court is composed of justices, not judges."
Before the lawyer could say anything, Justice Stevens interjected: "It’s O.K., Counsel. The Constitution makes the same mistake."
« Older Hevisaurus are a Finnish kid-friendly, all-dinosau... | A Tale of Two Films. Bertrand... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt