Confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan

The GOP may have found a spot to dig in its heels against Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Without entirely announcing their opposition to her, a pair of top Senate Republicans called a set of newly uncovered memos she wrote as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1988 “troubling.” By accusing her of expressing her personal opinion or political philosophy instead of coldly examining the issues in those memos, Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and Jeff Sessions of Alabama seem to be picking up the same line of objection the GOP used against Sonia Sotomayor. To Sessions, it merely reinforced the fact that, “Her background is heavily in political legal advocacy more than the meat-and-potatoes discipline of serious legal work.” But both said they will wait until the hearings begin on June 28 to decide how to vote.

Read it at THE HILL

Advertisements

27 Comments

Filed under U. S. Supreme Court

27 responses to “Confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan

  1. indypendent

    “But both said they will wait until the hearings begin on June 28 to decide how to vote”

    And if you believe this statement coming from those two, then I have a bridge to nowhere for sale real cheap – you betcha!

  2. tosmarttobegop

    BUT.. BUT …BUT SHE IS A WOMAN AND A SOFTBALL PLAYING LESBIAN!

    All you women out their who played softball and have not experienced Lesbian love hit those clubs!

    (ahh and take pictures and write a detailed account to share with all those hard breathing pervs too)

  3. We know any nomination made by President Obama will be the worst, nearly the end of the world bad, and will be opposed. We’re just unsure of what they will use (exactly) in their failed attempts. You can be sure some of them won’t be able to cover their bigotry well enough and it will be on display. They’ll be the ones who scream the loudest they aren’t against minority races, women, the LGBT community. “Thou doth protest too much.”

    • GMC70

      Are you saying, fnord, that all opposition to Kagan is rooted in “bigotry?” That objections to her lack of court experience (short of the brief stint as SG she has NONE whatsoever) are illegitimate, and are just cover for other rationales?

      Doesn’t it make more sense to attack the critics on the merits of their criticism rather than resort to the usual fall-back position: the old cry of “racism” (or whatever other ‘ism’ happens to serve at the moment?

      IMHO, Kagan may well be brilliant. She may be a very good lawyer. But that’s not the question. Is she ready for the SCOTUS? No. But then, the rookie in the White House wasn’t ready either.

      • WSClark

        Everyone that is elected to the Presidency is a “rookie.” No one that has been elected has ever been experienced with the exception of Grover Cleveland.

        You may hate our President, GMC, but he is “Our President” and therefore deserves respect.

      • indypendent

        We had a rookie in the White House in 2000 and I did not hear anyone complaining then about his fiscal irresponsbility of lowering taxes on the wealthy during war.

        I also did not hear one word of outrage over the trillions Bush spent on the Iraq War – was it due to him deciding NOT to put the war costs in his budget?

        But yet we spent trillions on a war that brought us what? – bankruptcy and a demoralized standing in the world?

        Some rookies learn – but what did we see in Bush’s second term? More of the same old, same old crap.

  4. It’s also a fact that winning the presidency brings with it the right to nominate to fill vacancies to the highest court. At this rate President Obama will be leaving a lasting legacy (one a year is good)! I’ve always considered SCOTUS appointments one of the best parts of winning the election to POTUS.

    As for your other assumptions about what I certainly did not say I have no comment or understanding of how you could read what wasn’t there.

    • GMC70

      WS – I do not hate our President; you’ll find no evidence of same. I disagree with him on many matters, and I find he is perhaps the least prepared President in the last century (and it shows). But I do not hate him.

      Hate is what the left attributes to disagreement – I consider it projection on much of the left’s part.

      And with all due respect, fnord, your post certainly implies, if not says, that much of the opposition to Kagan’s nomination is rooted in “bigotry” (To quote: “You can be sure some of them won’t be able to cover their bigotry well enough and it will be on display. They’ll be the ones who scream the loudest they aren’t against minority races, women, the LGBT community. “Thou doth protest too much.”).

      Like I always said, I call em as I see em. And that’s not hard to see.

      And yes, with winning the Presidency is the right to SCOTUS appointments. There is that “advise and consent” function, however, and nominees have been rejected before. While certainly presidents are entitled, and expected, to nominate persons of like mind, the Senate is in turn hardly expected to simply be a rubber stamp.

      The point, and one you appear to forget, is that persons of good will may disagree as to whether she is prepared for elevation to lifetime appointment on the high court. What you appear to be saying is that those who oppose her do so for reasons of “bigotry.” Can you not concede that persons of good will may simply disagree?

      WS – can one disagree with, and politically oppose, the President without “hating” him?

      Of course. Why has so much of the left forgotten that?

      • indypendent

        Why has the left forgotten that? Maybe because we hear the constant drumbeat of hate, hate, hate 24/7 on the Conservative talk radio – which is 99.9% Republican.

        Or is it the outright boasting of Jim DeMint saying that the Republicans can Waterloo Obama on health care?

        Or maybe when Rush and many other GOP leaders stated – more than once – they wanted Obama to fail.

        Or simply by all Republicans lockstepping in everything anti-Obama.

        And maybe because several prominent Republican leaders STILL insist Obama was not born in America?

        And these are just a few reasons why I think the left might just be suspect when the Right so self-righteously say they ‘don’t hate the president’.

  5. You call em as you see em, and you comment frequently on what others opinions are after you’ve decided what they are.

    Mine aren’t what you see! And my words aren’t what your words say they are!

    Here at PPPs we are a cordial bunch who always express our own opinions, welcome all opinions, and do not ever tolerate any blogger deciding what someone else is saying or criticizing something they didn’t even say but was only your incorrect assumption.

    If you have differing opinions, state them like everyone else does. We’re all smart enough to figure out what opinions are different than the ones we hold.

    • GMC70

      Fair enough. I’ll state mine (and I have). However, I will also criticize the thinking of others, when I think it is deserving. Opinions are one’s own, but they are also worthy of examination and challenge at times (including mine!). And I think I’ve fairly summarized what you wrote (which, true enough, may not be a full expression of what you think).

      It’s not personal. And at the end of the day, I have no problem agreeing to disagee and sharing a beer (or a Coke, as the case may be) in good cheer with those I disagree with.

      If this blog cannot “tolerate” that, then it appears my initial impressions of the place are indeed correct. A blog that cannot tolerate a little critical intellectual give-and-take is indeed little more than a “kum-ba-yah” party. And a yawner.

      • indypendent

        haven’t we heard this before from those peeking over the fence?

      • A place where adults don’t even attempt to assume what another says. A place where bloggers speak for themselves. If what’s posted isn’t clear, honest questions are asked and clarifications given, but no one puts words in the mouth of another blogger! We have around a dozen or so adults capable of doing just that, and we continue to grow. Different strokes for different folks, huh. Seems to be what tolerance actually is.

  6. When the Confirmation hearings begin later this month we’ll all know the facts, including whether or not some show any bigotry. If none is shown, you may come back and tell me how wrong my opinion was. Until then, it is still my opinion that some of them won’t be able to cover their bigotry well enough and it will be on display.

    Not once did I mention that much of the opposition to Kagan’s nomination is rooted in “bigotry.” Let alone your first assumption when you asked, “Are you saying, fnord, that all opposition to Kagan is rooted in “bigotry?”

    Do you see the differences between the words some, all, much?

    In fact, I stated, We know any nomination made by President Obama will be the worst, nearly the end of the world bad, and will be opposed. We’re just unsure of what they will use (exactly) in their failed attempts. What that means is in my opinion their opposition will fail and Elena Kagan will be confirmed.

    The words were there. They weren’t what you assumed them to be.

  7. It’s very boring when the same words must be repeated so you can see what they were. It’s very wrong for you to post words and attribute them to me. It’s rude, it’s arrogant and goes beyond disagreeing.

    • indypendent

      If fence peekers don’t like what they see, then why keep peeking? After all, they must like the great divide we see in politics today. They sure don’t help the situation by being cheerleaders of Just Say NO.

      I suspect they are just envious because the Democrat in the White House is actually accomplishing things without them and making their side look like the tantrum-throwing crybabies they are.

      • indypendent

        Maybe the whole problem with Republicans not liking Kagan lies in one issue – she is a woman. And to make it worse – a smart woman.

        Women don’t seem to hold much influence in the Republican Party – except to do their fancy pageant walking and winking alot.

      • We shall see what oppositions they hold. Confirmation hearings begin June 28!

  8. tosmarttobegop

    Well I guess it is time for me to get serious, being a SCOTUS judge is a serious matter to me and it should be. The final say in some very important issues and it is important that a judge understands not just that fact but what they are to base their decisions on.

    That does not mean they have to be a judge or even a lawyer a head of time.
    Just have judgment and the ability to understand the Constitution and its intent.
    Really it is the intent that is the most important factor in it.

    A document written in a different time with different understanding of the country and the world.
    And written so it is open to differing situations with the similar circumstances.
    What is the concept of freedom?
    How much power should the court and for that matter society have?

    The lack of preexisting evidence to what a judge would see as the answers makes the job of approving them harder. I hate the thought of Politics coming into the issue, a judge should not be looking at the issue through the glasses of Right or Left.

    And neither should they be picked to counterweight someone else’s choice and with intent to undermine existing laws and conclusions. That is without rock solid corrections not simply the immediate whim of the day. It needs to be reasoned otherwise no law will be followed or held to.

  9. tosmarttobegop

    Fence lookers…. In a sense we all are and should be.
    Else then there would really be no point in more then one posting here or anywhere.
    I came here because I was invited and believed that if my opinion differed then I would be heard out and not simply dismissed. As being just a man, just a Republican or just ignorant.

    Now there is a duty in that expectation, that my opinion be an honest one and not based on the simple facts of being a man, a Republican and try not to be ignorant.

    Now there is the question, just what do we want this blog to be?
    A fortress of solitude, of reaffirming of what we already believe and think?
    There are already many out there, I was banned from Red State for being a Dr. Paul supporter.
    I had not came and posted there any attacks or unreasoned support simply because I pointed out something that was posted I knew was wrong.

    I know there are some here that want it to be such, that no one who is not a Progressive, a Liberal or registered Democratic be allow to breath one word here. They would sooner listen to Rap then to read or see someone’s words or name posting here.

    Now there are few and perhaps as I have seen only one.
    That does concern me, as both are good people and thinkers too.
    I would not want either to be driven away or feel as if they are not welcome to express their opinions or ideas.

    I will use some points above, did Fnord have a valid point? Yes, in the partisan game it is more often then not simply an objection to be objecting even if that objection is ground-less or even based on a preconceived notions. Inspired by the idea that to allow the opponent to have a win is a loss for us.
    And in the blind partisan game even if that loss means it is bad for the country.

    GMC ‘s point about the criticism is valid too, not ever criticism or concern is base-less or based on sexism, racism or homophobia. Like the cop said when the driver accused him of only stopping him because he is Black. No I only stopped you because you ran the red light and had a expired tag!

    One fact does not have anything to do with the other and all criticism can not be dismissed solely on those grounds. And yes some will use legitimate criticisms and concerns in a disingenuous way.
    But the legitimate needs to be addressed none the less.

    If I state something I am sure of it and welcome it being questioned to improve and strengthen what I believe and say.

  10. I appreciate your input, tstb.

    You stated: “GMC ‘s point about the criticism is valid too, not ever criticism or concern is base-less or based on sexism, racism or homophobia.”

    And the only blogger who said that was GMC! I will not allow any person to post words of their choosing and attribute them to me. Now if you can’t clearly see the exaggerations in GMC’s posts, the useless criticisms of what I didn’t say, then someone does need to leave.

    I know for sure that blogging isn’t worth putting up with rude arrogant exaggerations. It certainly isn’t what this blog is about. If you can’t see that GMC was attacking me, read your post above mine and ask yourself why my post was the one he chose to exaggerate.

    If anyone leaves it will be me!

    I can go to any number of blogs and drop a comment here and there, ignore the insults, have nothing invested and be totally impersonal while shouldering no responsibilities. Is PPPs different than other blogs?

  11. This is a moderated blog with rules! Here is the rule GMC broke:

    “are posted with the explicit or implicit (we can tell when it is implicit, even if you can’t) intention of provoking other commenters or staff at Prairie Populists and Progressives.net”

    Either PPPs stands for what we’ve always stood for or it becomes just like the gazillion other blogs where the topic of conversation is bloggers, repeating overandover — well YOU did this, NO, YOU did that, well YOU did it first and most and …

    GMC-70 posted words of his own that he said were mine! He did it repeatedly! He even modified his first “ALL” to read “MUCH,” neither of which is what I posted! I certainly never mentioned that any part of the opposition to Elena Kagan’s confirmation would be based on bigotry. I did say, and am still of the opinion that, “some of them won’t be able to cover their bigotry well enough and it will be on display.”

    GMC asked a question: “Are you saying, fnord, that all opposition to Kagan is rooted in “bigotry?” That objections to her lack of court experience (short of the brief stint as SG she has NONE whatsoever) are illegitimate, and are just cover for other rationales?”

    Which I answered: “As for your other assumptions about what I certainly did not say I have no comment or understanding of how you could read what wasn’t there.”

    After I had answered he persevered. For what reasons?

    We here have always been a group who decides together. If I am over reacting, tell me. You’ve always been a trustworthy bunch and I will accept your decisions. He did provoke me and it is quite possible I’m not seeing clearly so need your input.

    Normally I would want to drop this, but it is personal to me. I was provoked and criticized for words I never said. I’ve put enough into this blog that I’ll take a stand.

    So far, tstb sees nothing wrong with what GMC posted. What input do the rest of you have to share?

    • WSClark

      I stand with you Fnord – a measured debate is one thing, but twisting another’s words is quite another.

      I often make a comment such as “failing Debate 101.”

      By that, I man that basic rules of debate are pretty simple. You can’t draw a conclusion without foundation, you can’t prove a negative, you can’t make an ASSUMPTION, etc.

      Here I Pop Blog, I think we do a pretty good job of sticking with “Debate 101.”

  12. tosmarttobegop

    Kind of the other side of the coin is that the cop did stop the car because the driver is Black.
    I will be the first to admit that a good number of times the opposing of the Right is disingenuous and baseless. Selling their soul for a Political win or stance.

    And dismissed by the base as simply Politics and the way it is done.
    I wonder how many who heard Beck saying that the President’s mother was a radical and his grandparent were Communists will actually check the available evidence to see if it is true.
    Or will simply repeat it as the Gospel.

    Sadly many will not as seeing it is not important enough to waste the time to check facts.
    There is a lot of standard dismissal on both sides as a counter to a claim or accusation.
    A case in point was being accused of being against Palin because she is a woman.
    I countered with no it is because she is a cartoon character at best.

    A standard dismissal of a legitimate observation of Palin’s candidate and as a Political figure head.

    Such standard dismissal often works too, without a basis for the dismissal.

  13. tosmarttobegop

    “You can be sure some of them won’t be able to cover their bigotry well enough and it will be on display. They’ll be the ones who scream the loudest they aren’t against minority races, women, the LGBT community. “Thou doth protest too much.””

    Fnord

    “Are you saying, fnord, that all opposition to Kagan is rooted in “bigotry?” That objections to her lack of court experience (short of the brief stint as SG she has NONE whatsoever) are illegitimate, and are just cover for other rationales?”
    GMC

    The “some if them” separated the following from a blanket dismissal you were not dismissing every opposition. Which is what GMC was asking in his post, he did go on to either point out the plus or minus of the lack of experience of the President when he took office. It was open to the reader putting on their own implication.

    Because it was GMC and he is a Conservative which implication would be taken as his?
    Likewise with the question as to the dismissal of the criticism of Kangan.
    He took it because it was on a Liberal leaning blog and from you that the implication was that all criticism is being dismissed as being “bigotry”.

    Here is different from the TBTSNBN, there it is a place where the standard party associated dismissal is the norm. Here is for the reasoned and analytical implications, away from the mindless dismissal though we are all subject to it for time to time.

    GMC though his added either plus of lack of experience in that often being established is not the best thing to be when the whole system needs changed. Or a swipe at lack of establishment when the country is in dire straits. Did ask the valid question about merits of dismissing the criticism.

    Again you did separate criticism based on pointed concerns and those simply based on bigotry.

    I did not take it as a blanket indictment of all criticism.

  14. GMC70

    I can go to any number of blogs and drop a comment here and there, ignore the insults, have nothing invested and be totally impersonal while shouldering no responsibilities. Is PPPs different than other blogs? – fnord

    Insults? What insults? I made none.

    What I did was dared to take fnord at her word, and disagree. And am chastised for doing so.

    What fnord is really saying is, “don’t expect me to think. I’ll just spout. And if you disagree with me, well, you’re ‘intolerant,’ and I’ll leave.”

    Tolerance isn’t just just spouting opinions. It’s having enought respect for others to critically think about those positions, and discuss them like adults.

    Or not. THAT’s “Debate 101.”

    I stand by my position. fnord’s offered precious little to rebut same.

    • WSClark

      “Insults? What insults? I made none.”

      The comment made was not directed at you, GMC, if you care to reread it.

      The comment was in reference to the fact that Fnord works very hard at this blog, and she can’t just “drop in and make a comment” and then leave.

      Fnord can answer for herself, but I just spoke to her on the phone and I know that she is out running an errand.

      I am sure that she’ll be back to address your comment later.

      But, I do have to ask you, GMC, if you don’t like our humble little blog and our set of rules, why do you bother to visit?