After watching the reaction to the President's nomination of Kagan for SCOTUS ,it is clear that unless there is some smoking gun reason ;the Republicans will not be able to mount a serious opposition to her selection.

However ,her lack of a "paper trail" ,and judicial record has the left more nervous about the pick than I thought they would be .Her selection has been compared to the GW Bush Harriet Miers selection .Even though her resume appears to be more extensive.

Groups like Moveon.org have been luke warm in their support and have asked Democrat Senators to quizz her during the hearings to pin her down on specifics. Andrew Sullivan has called her an "empty vessel" They have complained about her hiring practices as Dean of Harvard;her positions on executive authority during the war against jihadistan ,and they aren't clear about her position on corporate speech. In other words ,they are not sure she will be the liberal lion that Justice Stevens was.
I don't have any such illusions... the President would not have picked her unless she was a mirror image of him.
I don't believe for one minute that the President would make the same mistake the GHW Bush did when he selected "conservative " David Souter .

But ,there is an easy remedy for this . Since Robert Bork was "borked " SCOTUS nominees have generally kept their views close to the vest and have divulged as little as possible to the Senate Judiciary Committee during questioning . They should make it clear to Kagan that they will asked pointed direct questions about her judicial philosophy and they will follow up with even more pointed quizzing if she tries to skate.

Only then will we have a real picture of who is likely to serve on the bench for perhaps the next 30 years.

With her comment about speech sounds like another czar that is twisting to the path of taking our constitution to the next level of non existent.

Hi Sapph !

For those unfamiliar . Sapph is referring to Kagan's 1996 University of Chicago Law Review article on corporate free speech where she suggests that it is OK to restrict it .
http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/111thCongressExecutiveNominations/upload/KaganSG-Question13A-Part15.pdf

It isn't due to lack of conviction that she lost the Citizens United Case against McCain Feingold. The charge is that she was ill-prepared to represent the government in the case.
She suggests in the essay that she has a tolerance for censorship when it is appropriately disguised by euphemisms.Does that mean she would support hate speech legislation ? Both sides should be concerned .

They are trying to mold this country into socialism or something. I don't like it.
The American flag is Offensive but on the other hand we are suppose to be tolerant of everything what a double standard.

ACLJ : Some Schools Need Lesson in the 1st Amendment (http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?ID=952)
They have a recording of May 13ths
Program about the kid in Tx that took down the Mexican flag that was above the American and got suspended.

Check my Facebook I have a lot of politic friends that link all kind of stuff. You can add me if you have FB and want to. I can hook you up with some great patriots.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000167157584&ref=profile

There was a time when Obama was insistent that stealth nominees required extreme scrutiny (http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-flashback-a-supreme-court-nominee-with-no-judicial-experience-requires-extreme-scrutiny/). Sullivan actually said with Kagan, "we have reached a new level of utter blankness."

His standards sure have relaxed, but I guess if you're nominating yourself (http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/11/obama-nominates-himself) you already know what you need to know.

Michael Barone : Obama and Kagan Whisper in the Faculty Lounge - Townhall.com (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2010/05/13/obama_and_kagan_whisper_in_the_faculty_lounge)




Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991; Kagan in 1986. Kagan joined the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School in 1991 and became a full professor there in 1995. Obama taught constitutional law there, though he was not formally a professor, from 1992 to 2004.

They have other things in common. Unusually for top law students who go on to teach law, they have published little: Kagan has written just five law review articles; Obama none.



Amazing!

Those who can't do - teach - is that the saying?

Can you imagine a surgeon of a large teaching hospital having performed none or maybe 5 surgeries, picked to be chief? Would you want this individual performing your surgery?

Hey POTUS, I watch Judge Joe Brown, slept at a Holiday Inn, and unlike your nominees will state where I stand on the issues,. why am I not a better qualified candidate than Kagan? Oh, I have no law degree, just a doctoral degree, I figure I could learn on the job ---- just like you are doing.



G&P

I don't have any such illusions ...the President would not have picked her unless she was a mirror image of him.Hello tom:

I agree. He's a proponent, like Bush, of increasing executive power, and she's a mirror image of him.

excon

Hello again, righty's:

I seem to remember a time when I decried the amassing of executive power by Bush. You poo pooed me. Dudes.

Additionally, I remember suggesting, that if you don't defeat the power grab by Bush, the next guy that grabs for power, you might not like so much..

Wingers, the future is here.

excon

Stealth nominee, and a dull fashion sense according to WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052101670.html?hpid=topnews), "frumpy" even. And gasp, she doesn't cross her legs when she sits.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2010/05/21/PH2010052103298.jpg
Most women, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, cross
their legs when sitting, but not Kagan

Who'll be the first to raise the issue at her confirmation hearings?

Stealth nominee, and a dull fashion sense according to WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052101670.html?hpid=topnews), "frumpy" even. And gasp, she doesn't cross her legs when she sits.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2010/05/21/PH2010052103298.jpg
Most women, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, cross
their legs when sitting, but not Kagan

Who'll be the first to raise the issue at her confirmation hearings?

Maybe she's really not a she :)

No ,that would be Lady Gaga .

no ,that would be Lady Gaga .

And Chastity Bono...

Hello again,

If she IS gay, we need one of them on the court too. Of course, you righty's LOVE to smear Democratic Supreme Court Nominees.

excon

Hello again,

If she IS gay, we need one of them on the court too. Of course, you righty's LOVE to smear Democratic Supreme Court Nominees.

excon

I never said she was gay and I haven't smeared her at all, so what's your beef?

Smear as in the Robert Bork hearings ,or the smears that Clarence Thomas endured and has endured since his nomination and confirmation?
I don't believe the issue of her sexual persuasion was mentioned by us "rightys".

I never said she was gay and I haven't smeared her at all, so what's your beef?
I don't believe the issue of her sexual persuasion was mentioned by us "rightys".Hello righty's:

Well, I'm not as sophisticated as you guys are at innuendo. You know the CODE words, and how to infer stuff WITHOUT actually saying it... Me?? I just SAY what I mean...

But, I pick up on things... I suppose the referral to Chastity Bono, a well known lesbo, didn't mean what I thought it meant...

Nahhhh. You guys don't fool me.

excon

Hello righty's:

Well, I'm not as sophisticated as you guys are at innuendo. You know the CODE words, and how to infer stuff WITHOUT actually saying it... Me??? I just SAY what I mean....

But, I pick up on things.... I suppose the referral to Chastity Bono, a well known lesbo, didn't mean what I thought it meant....

Nahhhh. You guys don't fool me.

No, you do a fair enough job at making yourself look like a fool without my help. If you'd follow the trail you'd see this this all started with a WaPo piece dissing her fashion sense and commenting on her not crossing her legs when she sits.

Someone else provided the innuendo, tom provided the joke and I furnished a real life example.Take it up with WaPo if you don't appreciate the humor that inevitably follows such a ridiculous piece. And by the way, Chaz Bono isn't a lesbo, he/she is legally a man.

P.S. It was Andrew Sullivan, noted gay 'conservative' and "Trig truther," that first raised her orientation as an issue (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/so-is-she-gay.html), an issue I have purposely avoided. So instead of being such a grump you might swallow your pride and give us a little credit here.

Hey, I'm a libertarian and I don't care what her sexual orientation is. You can't see up her skirt anyway.

For the record (I hate explaining jokes because that means I didn't say them good enough )

The specific line I was commenting on was Maybe she's really not a she .

My reply about Lady Gaga (who I think is a world class talented entertainer) referred to the constant internet rumors that she carries a male package.

We are not the masters of the code . When someone mentioned Kagan played softball I thought that they were talking about the game my sisters played and I coached . Perhaps it is me who has to brush up on code and urban dictionary definitions . I had no idea what a "tea bagger" was until it was brought up on these boards.

This "woman" would be a disaster if she ever gets onto the Supreme Court. If she does, then look for most, if not all, of your rights be taken away. She's let it be known that her agenda is anti-American rights. It is peculiar that Bammy likes to surround himself with homos and lesbos. I find that most interesting. Also, this woman is a Jew and would definitely follow a pro-Israeli agenda.

T She's let it be known that her agenda is anti-American rights. Ok, show us where you found that info and show us what anti-american rights are.

Also, this woman is a Jew and would definitely follow a pro-Israeli agenda.Hello again, twink:

So, do we have to worry about Scalia following a pro-Italian agenda? Besides, I thought you wingers WERE pro Israel.

excon

Besides, I thought you wingers WERE pro Israel.

Which makes me wonder why Dems get the Jewish vote. Anyway, CBS has confirmed Kagan is a liberal (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20006769-504564.html). I think they were pretty worried she wasn't.

CBS has confirmed Kagan is a liberalHello again, Steve:

Whewee!

excon

Yeah, you were pretty worried, too, eh?

Yeah, you were pretty worried, too, eh?Hello again, Steve:

Sure. Why not? You got your Scalia's, and Alito's. You got your Robertson's, and your Thomas's. The rest are in the middle. Why shouldn't the left have one?

excon

The rest are in the middle. Why shouldn't the left have one?

I haven't been critical yet have I? Have you seen me throwing a fit yet? Nope, I've been pretty quiet. I don't figure it will change much with her replacing Stevens. But where exactly is your middle?

But where exactly is your middle?Hello again, Steve:

Let me see, without doing a lot of research, the middle was making its presence felt when it sided with the right by approving, NSA wire tapping, rendition, unlimited detention, military tribunals, and the Bush grab for executive power, just to name a few.

excon

CBS has confirmed Kagan is a liberal.

I'm shocked !

My bet is that when questioned she will say that she was working on behalf of Marshall and was writing briefs that reflected his judicial philosophy .

What is more interesting to me is Kagan papers in the Clintoon library. I keep on hearing conflicting reports that the President wants to invoke executive privilige on these .

No doubt some of them could conceivably implicate Bubba in something tawdry... and for that reason the President would invoke it as a courtesy to the Clintonoids (some of them working in the White House today ). But with a dirth of available material otherwise available to determine her philosophy ;unless there was something they don't want revealed about Kagan; they should be proud to release the documents.

mWibqh0De50

"The Bork hearings were the best thing that ever happened to Constitutional Democracy.”

What??

What????Hello Steve:

Surprise, surprise - she's believes in the checks and balances the founders envisioned.

excon

So now the "politics of personal destruction " and the demonization so despised by the Dems is "checks and balances". No doubt Kagan will not object to similar treatment during her hearings.

so now the "politics of personal destruction " and the demonization...You mean like on Fox News? Everyday?

[QUOTE=NeedKarma;2404992]You mean like on Fox News? Everyday?/QUOTE]

Bet you've never watched MSNBC have you?

You mean like on Fox News? Everyday?
Not really . The press role is pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

What I meant was the smear campaign by the Senators charged by our Constitution with the advise and consent role .Wat I meant was the diatribe that Sen Swimmer did when the Bork nomination was announced ;and the continued slanders and character assassination the Senator and his cronies pursued throughout the nomination process.

What we have had since is gun-shy nominees being less than candid about their judicial philosophy ,afraid to subject themselves to similar abuse .And that undermines the process the Founders envisioned .

Actually the Bork hearings weren't the worse . The Senate Dems went to new lows that I doubt will ever be matched when Clarence Thomas was nominated.

But that's just the way your politics works in your country - there is really no examples of civil politics is there?

so now the "politics of personal destruction " and the demonization so despised by the Dems is "checks and balances".Hello again, tom:

Uhhhh, I ain't a dem.

excon

But that's just the way your politics works in your country - there is really no examples of civil politics is there?

I do not recall a similar smear campaign of a SCOTUS nominee prior to the Bork hearings. The only thing close to that I can recall was the Abe Fortes fillibuster when Johnson wanted to elevate him from associate justice to Chief Justice . But that was a civil process and the determining factor was neither his judicial philosophy ,nor a concocted smear. The issue was that as a sitting justice to SCOTUS he regularly attended Johnson staff meetings . He also was double dipping ,getting a stipend for teaching summer college courses at American University .

There have been plenty of examples where the Senate denied a nomination ;or the President withdrew them under pressure . But the Bork hearing was the turning point when the politics of nomination became personal.

Lindsey Graham said 'elections have consequences' when he voted with the majority to move the Kagan nomination out of committee.

I wonder if the people of South Carolina got what they voted for when he voted for a liberal SCOTUS appointee. I bet they think they didn't .