SCOTUS fight: Boxing Elena
Scroll for updates…Obama announcement peddles Elena the Populist/Lover of Everyday People narrative…
Monday opens with a SCOTUS bang. NBC News reports tonight that Harvard Law School dean turned solicitor general Elena Kagan will be the White House SCOTUS nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. It was widely rumored she would be the pick leading into the weekend. The announcement is expected at 11 a.m. Eastern:
President Barack Obama will nominate U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan to 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.
The Beltway conventional wisdom has already cast her as a “mooooderate” and a “pragmatist.” Ed Whelan at Bench Memos has the appropriate retort to that narrative.
And here’s a reminder from my blog almost exactly a year ago when Kagan was on the short list for the SCOTUS slot that ultimately went to Sonia Sotomayor:
“Dean Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be concerning given her complete lack of judicial or appellate experience. She has never been a judge or even argued a case in a court of appeals. It is difficult to see how her experience fundraising for Harvard Law School qualifies her for a seat on the Nation’s high court.
-Dean Kagan has taken positions that are disturbingly out of the mainstream. For example, driven by her view that the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy adopted by a Democrat Congress and President Clinton is “a profound wrong–a moral injustice of the first order,” she argued that it violates the First Amendment for the United States to withhold funds from colleges that ban the military from recruiting on campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this view.
-It is also unclear that a Justice Kagan would be an adequately independent check on executive excesses. She has argued in favor of greatly enhanced presidential control over the bureaucracy, which is concerning in light of President Obama’s unprecedented centralization of power in the White House.
-Dean Kagan has argued that nominees to the Supreme Court should undergo a searching inquiry into the nominee’s substantive views of the law, and should comment particular issues. If nominated, it will be interesting to see whether Dean Kagan remains faithful to this prescription in answering the Committee’s questions.”
The nutroots aren’t happy with Kagan’s clubby academic ties or her work for Goldman Sachs. HuffPo:
While the work [Elena] Kagan did for Goldman remains largely brief or unknown, the Huffington Post was passed along two reports that the advisory council completed in 2005 and 2008. … The findings touch on the broad risks that the world economy faced and contain the type of insight expected from a largely formal panel. In terms of content, they came up a bit short, failing to mention credit bubbles in major economies (such as the U.S. housing market) as a looming problem.
Considering how many actual economists missed the housing bubble in real time, it would be difficult to hold Kagan to a higher standard — though Goldman was already betting against the housing market by the time the latter report was published.
The issue for progressives, however, isn’t her lack of long-term market salience. But rather the ties — however small — to a firm that is now a black mark on Wall Street and a pariah in Congress. … “I just don’t understand why the Administration would want to makes themselves and their nominee vulnerable to the opposition at a time when American skepticism of Wall Street is at an all time high,” said a prominent progressive strategist speaking on the condition of anonymity. “This is like handing the Republicans the mantle of populism just for trying to oppose Kagan’s confirmation.” …
Yeah. It’s going to make it a little more difficult to pull off the “compelling personal story”/SCOTUS nominee in touch with the people schtick that smoothed the path for Sotomayor.
Heckuva job, Obama optics experts…
***
Amen to what Sen. Jeff Sessions wrote in the Washington Post on Friday:
As government continues its rapid expansion, Americans are looking for judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts, not Justice John Paul Stevens. They are looking for judges who will stay true to our Founders’ vision instead of imposing their own. They are looking for judges who recognize the limits on government power; who restrain themselves to the text of the Constitution; and who will defend the rights of all citizens without bias, without prejudice and without hesitation.
***
File under Curious Timing: The late Friday night resignation of top White House lawyer Daniel Meltzer, who shepherded Sotomayor through her SCOTUS nomination last year, is interesting, isn’t it?
Daniel J. Meltzer, a top White House lawyer who has played a critical behind-the-scenes role in the administration legal team, is resigning next month and will return to his tenured position as a Harvard law school professor, the White House said on Friday.
Mr. Meltzer’s last day as the principal deputy counsel to President Obama will be June 1. Since the administration took office, he has worked on nearly every major legal issue the White House has handled, a sprawling portfolio that ranged from domestic policies to national security matters.
…Among other things, Mr. Meltzer played a leading role in the administration’s efforts to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and related policies affecting terrorism detainees.
…In addition, Mr. Meltzer, who teaches courses on the federal courts at Harvard, helped prepare Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her confirmation hearings – a role he may reprise in his final weeks by working with Mr. Obama’s forthcoming Supreme Court nominee, which the president is expected to announce as soon as Monday.
Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog weighs in on where we go from here, process-wise:
Note the relationship between Monday’s announcement and the Senate calendar. There are seven weeks between Monday and June 28. Six to seven weeks is traditionally regarded as the minimum amount of time between a nomination announcement and hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. June 28 marks the last week the Senate is in session before its July 4 recess, which runs from Saturday, July 3 to Sunday, July 11. So, tomorrow’s announcement is timed to permit hearings to be conducted prior to the recess, if (and it’s a big if) the Senate Judiciary Committee agrees.
Whether they will agree will depend on a number of factors. Kagan’s relatively short paper trail – note the contrast with the nearly two decades of decisions by Sonia Sotomayor – means there is less to review, and thus less time is required prior to the start of hearings. Kagan was also recently confirmed by the same Committee as Solicitor General.
Senate Democrats will prefer to move the process forward quickly for two reasons: so that Kagan is not “left hanging” for nine weeks before she appears before the Committee; and so that the nomination can be moved forward to make room in the calendar for legislative efforts. On the other hand, Republicans, as the opposition, will prefer delay because as more time passes there is a greater chance that something will emerge that justifies defeating (or at least undercuts) the nomination.
Also important will be the speed with which the Administration produces documents – not only the nominee’s questionnaire to the Senate but also the documents it intends to produce from Kagan’s time in the Clinton Administration. A genuine fight over materials could lead to a delay.
***
From SCOTUSReport:
Rick Garnett, professor of law and associate dean of University of Notre Dame Law School, and former law clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist: “Elections matter, and the election of President Obama has turned out to matter a great deal for the future decisions and direction of Supreme Court. With the nomination of Solicitor General Kagan, the President has taken a significant step toward reshaping the Court and its work for generations. No one should think that this nomination is inconsequential, or that it changes little because it involves merely replacing one liberal justice with another. A conservative might someday win back the White House, but any future Republican president will be playing defense with his or her Supreme Court selections. With his second Supreme Court pick — and, to be clear, he will almost certainly have more — the President is on the way to having had more influence over the Court than any President since Reagan, and perhaps even Roosevelt. Future elections might undo some of the President’s policies, but his more liberal views about the Constitution, the powers of the national government, and the role of unelected federal judges, are now being locked in securely.”
David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society and former congressman from Indiana: I’m deeply disappointed that President Obama has chosen to nominate an individual who has demonstrated a lack of adherence to the limits of the Constitution and a desire to utilize the court system to enact her beliefs of social engineering. Solicitor General Kagan has been nominated with no judicial experience, a mere two years of private law practice, and only a year as Solicitor General of the United States. She is one of the most inexperienced nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court in recent memory.
More from the Judicial Network here.
Heh: “I love it when the most transparent administration ever picks a nominee because they don’t have much of a paper trail.”
***
A look at Kagan’s days at Harvard: The Kagan cover-up.
Update: 10:23am Obama made the formal announcement, painting Kagan as a woman who will represent “everyday people” and “ordinary citizens.” Kagan repeated the narrative in her own brief remarks. Alinskyite story-telling in full force. Funny enough, the nutroots still aren’t playing.
Cue the Democrats’ Kagan confirmation theme song!
***
Sad, but true: Why Kagan is Likely to Sail to Confirmation. The nutroots seem to be more up for a fight than the Senate Republicans, alas.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Nancy Pelosi: The Obamacare SCOTUS Arguments Should Be Transparent (Now That the Bill Has Been Written, Passed and Implemented)
November 16, 2011 08:51 PM by Doug Powers
47 CommentsDocument drop: C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to open Obamacare oral arguments to cameras
November 15, 2011 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 CommentsObamacare Arrives at the Supreme Court; Update: Court Announces They’ll Hear Case This Term
November 13, 2011 03:42 PM by Doug Powers
158 Comments
Indiana Supreme Court: Resisting an Unlawful Entry Into Your Home is… Unlawful
May 14, 2011 01:03 PM by Doug Powers
148 CommentsWhite House Tells Supreme Court to Stay Away from Obamacare
March 15, 2011 09:38 AM by Doug Powers
130 Comments
Why Liberals and the Supreme Court are a Dangerous Mix, Part XXXVII
September 14, 2010 12:52 PM by Doug Powers
51 CommentsWho Inspired Lindsey Graham to Vote for Elena Kagan’s Confirmation? Why, Jesus, of Course!
August 6, 2010 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
Categories: Supreme Court
Patterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpThe Hill
» Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine voteJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidDaily Caller
» Obama’s deputy downplays church-state controversyRiehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your way
Napolitano, Romer and now Kagan…
I think Obama has a secret fetish for the Campbell Soup Kids.
Off topic: Pray for those who have lost their homes in tonight’s round of tornado’s that ripped through OK…I was lucky it hit about 5-6 miles east of me (an F3) but I did have some baseball size hail in the yard….
For most of my life I’ve had a recurring nightmare where I am running away from a tornado. When I drove across the country to move from MA to CA in the summer of 1989, I found myself in the most violent rain storm I could have ever imagined while driving through Montana. A sunny day suddenly turned pitch dark and eerily silent until the golf ball-sized hail came down followed by a torrential downpour. The only thing on my mind was Tornado!. There might have been one nearby by I never learned about it. Scared the hell out of me.
I drove off the road that I couldn’t see anymore and waited it out sitting in a ditch hoping not to drown. I really can imagine how scary it is to be trapped in a tornado’s path. I hope everything’s alright.
We are just fine but a lot of folks aren’t. They are devastated and homeless. It’s still scary knowing that you are even within a mile or two of the path the storm is taking. We were ready to duck into the storm shelter (basically a hole in the garage floor. Here’s a link to the hail in the front yard…luckily none went through any windows…
http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac5/goAZ_2010/hail1.jpg?t=1273538132
It sounds like this is what Obama and Kagan really represent…
On further reflection, I’m pretty sure my
“tornado” incident happened outside of Rapid City SD, not Montana. Biggest thunderhead I’ve ever seen.
“what is not transparent about the marketing?”
Go to MSNBC or McClatchy or CNN and read….
Tonight’s was the most defined hook I’ve seen on a wall cloud in a long time…nasty…and fast…moving at 55-60mph
And bammy’s mentor, FMD was from Chicago, then he moves to Chicago, joins a marxist church, makes friends with marxists, works with marxists.
Things that make you go mmmmm, mmmmm, mmmm…………………..
They’re all Alinsky’s children.
mmmmm, mmmmm, mmmmm.
My niece worked at the Sonic Drive-In at I-49 and Choctaw Rd. She joined the AF about 6 months ago. I’ve eaten at that Sonic and bought gas at the Love’s.
My sister just e-mailed me that their home in Choctaw near Henney and NE 23rd is okay. They had some hail.
At least 5 reported fatalities. 1 in Midwest City (54 yr old had an RV roll over on him), 1 in OKC, and 3 in Techumsa east of OKC…pray for the families and those who’ve lost homes or are injured.
With all due respect, that doesn’t really help me much. The reason I asked was because I’d read a lot of coverage and didn’t notice a lack of transparency and wanted to know if you could point to any examples.
They love to talk about firsts. Well, the main important first here is that this is the first time in history that Protestant Christians (the majority of the country) are not represented on the Supreme Court.
It’s almost like a joke.
I’m fixin to offend a ton of people here, but humor me because I’m making an observation. . .
If George Washington were to come back today, he’d be shocked.
The speaker of the house is a woman, Catholic from San Francisco. . . he’d say ‘where?’
The Senate Majority Leader is a Mormon from Las Vegas.
The President is a Black Liberation Theology adherent from Chicago.
There are no Protestants on the Supreme Court. . . but the two most recent appointees are a latina woman Catholic and a Gay Jew woman.
If it wasn’t reality, He’d think it was a joke. Being reality, I’m sure he’d cry. I don’t think the future is bright for our republic because we have turned from the God that granted us providence over this land. The first Protestants in America made sure to give thanks to God. Now Americans curse the mention of God.
America won’t last without an understanding of grace.
or
Obowmao (singing):
“When it says Libby’s Libby’s Libby’s
on the label label label
you will like it like it like it
on the table table table.”
It should be a very interesting confirmation hearing.
“No Senator, I have never been a judge, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.”
“Yes Senator, I have ample knowledge about the Constitution. As a matter of fact, I taught remedial classes on the Constitution and many members of the current administration including the President himself took that remedial class multiple times.”
I finally figured out who she is: Its Pat!
Why is it that everytime the Obama administration wants to promote a position they must demonize some charater of the American society. Now, the Supreme Court nominee must emphasize with the little guy and protect them from large corpoarte greed. Who is protecting the little guy from the government?
One of her papers:
“That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of “motives and … actions infested with them” and she goes so far as to claim that “First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting.”
“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
Then we have Sock Puppet:
“information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.”
“He used the speech to warn that new media and new technology are “putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.”
So am I to take this as: Let us control all that you see and hear so you are not so confused?
For a women with-out a paper trail she sure has a long paper trail. We are told to not comment on her looks so I won’t but Ugly Women Make Good Leftist was a country song wasn’t it?
So, we have someone with no judicial experience and a very sparse record, but an Ivy League pedigree, wanting to start at the top.
This reminds me of our current president, who isn’t exactly overwhelming. Our previous president actually had some experience, and he wasn’t so hot either.
The logical conclusion is that an Ivy league pedigree ought to disqualify one from positions of responsibility and influence. If you want to argue, Keith Olbermann is my next exhibit.
“What’s that? It’s Pat!”
She looks like Pat from SNL fame.
A lot of people say, “What’s that?” It’s Pat!
A lot of people ask, “Who’s he? Or she?”
A ma’am or a sir, accept him or her
or whatever it might be.
It’s time for androgyny.
Here comes Pat!
I guess that to a president with no executive experience, a judge with no judicial experience would make sense.
I’d expect nothing less than a lapdog from the teacup-in-chief.
In marketing her, they are hiding her views. There’s little to go on so when you’re trying to get marxist installed on the SC in a capitalist society, that’s a good thing as far as other marxists are concerned.
“The less the Senate can dig up from her past, the better.” is what Obama thinking. Pretty much like his past. At Columbia for example.
It’s that emotionally bankrupt dysfunction of the left…divide and conquer. Purely based on a lack of self esteem and self worth. Must tear down others to make ourselves look better. Oh and, the left is always manipulating to “look” better – sorta like middle school.
Really? And who decides the value and those “societal costs” that will determine what is free speech and what is now? You madame? Or perhaps your fellow Marxists?
I don’t think so.
She would like to open the door to her flavor of conditional free speech. Abiding by her conditions.
I didn’t know that Madeleine Albright and Janet Napolitano had a baby? She’s all growned up!
It’s a Jon Lovits and Helen Thomas love child! I heard Jon toughed it out and carried her full term, no C section for him!
I was thinking more Janet Reno and Janet Incompetano.
Jon Lovit’s love child? John Lovits…ya, ya, Jon Lovits; that’s the ticket.
Her position is hardly controversial or novel. You don’t think speech is already restricted based upon perceived societal costs? Think of the classic example of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Or why you might have an issue with a guy on the sidewalk shouting into a megaphone outside your bedroom window at 2 in the morning.
Yeah. Or chap disturbing the tranquility of our echo chamber with his Aristotelian hyper Markist pragmatism.
While I agree with you in theory, chap, in execution I must disagree. Kagan did not qualify the “societal costs” in such a manner. What is her threshold for societal costs being too high?
I would say we can look at her judicial record for some idea as to how she would adjudicate, but alas, she doesn’t have one.
John Deaux–shall we try tea leaves?
I understand what Obama was aiming for by choosing someone he agrees with ideologically but also doesn’t have a record that provides fodder for disapproval. The problem is that this is a lifetime appointment, so experience is an absolute necessity.
If Elena Kagan is qualified for SCOTUS, then Harriet Miers is owed an apology.
What? You mean she didn’t qualify “societal costs” in such a manner in that one sentence pulled from what was probably a 50 page law review article?
You know what that article is actually about? Basically, she is saying that the government often shrouds its true motives for restricting speech. The courts say that improper motives are not a factor in their decisions, i.e., that if the restriction itself is constitutional, motive shouldn’t matter. She contends, however, that courts have basically come up with clever ways of investigating motives without expressly saying they are. She concludes that we would all just be a whole lot better off if the courts openly admitted that governmental motivations can be a factor in determining whether or not a restriction on speech is constitutional.
Does that really sound all that ominous?
Sorry, but no. Setting aside the fact that neither have been judges, Miers couldn’t hold Kagen’s jockstrap in a comparison of legal and scholarly accomplishments.
Chap, you need to take Andrew Sullivan to task on the gay question.
I read that Sullivan piece yesterday. And I disagree.
I think the issue is whether or not Kagen wants to talk about it. If she does, and Obama is telling her not to, then that is a problem. However, I doubt that is the case. It is no one’s place but Kagen’s to make that decision.
But in any case, the specific point on this board was whether or not she was subject to the “same disclosure requirements” about her personal life that any other candidate is. And she is. Are you married? Do you have any kids? That’s it. No one else has ever been asked to disclose their sexual orientation, which we are often reminded of, is not the same as one’s marital status.
Who else was rumored to be gay when gay marriage was an issue? That’s Sullivan’s main point.
“Miers couldn’t hold Kagen’s jockstrap in a comparison of legal and scholarly accomplishments.”
That she has a jock strap to hold concerns me.
Intellect does not prove appropriateness for the court. Kagan has issues. Some are troubling like the military recruiter issue. I do not want a judge sitting on the Supreme Court who uses her position as President of Law School to in effect slam the military.
Is she smart? Very sure that she is.
Do I want someone with her bias to be sitting on the Supreme Court?
Nope.
I’m still amazed at how “qualified” she is being sold as in one breath and in the next Obama is appointing her because of the left’s current majority. So if she’s qualified let her qualifications be the reason she is approved, not the politics.
By putting the politics first, one then reasonably is suspicious of her “qualifications”.
Its a bizarre twist on affirmative action but this is for the Supreme Court.
Doesn’t feel like the kind of integrity of the process that Kagan herself both criticized in its lack and supported bringing back into the process.
If its good for the goose, its good for the gander.
Her bias and her willingness to use positions of power to force that bias into public policy is problematic when the Supreme Court’s role is suppose to be looking at the Constitution as the touch stone.
I’m Obama. I have a majority in the Congress. They’ll voter for whomever I put up there because of the politics. In that case, I nominate Ms. Kagan.
Oh I forgot. She is qualified.
__________________________________
Not how I’d like to get on the court.
“is not the same as one’s marital status.”
Try and sell that to my wife.
For us being so backwards here in sunny AZ it is interesting that Janet Napolitano’s sexual orientation was never an issue in her election. No one on the conservative side who ran against her even hinted at it.
Not bad for us racist bigoted backward folks…..
Behold the point.
She was following a policy, put into effect long before she got there, that barred any recruiter who discriminated based on sexual orientation from recruiting on campus. She also set up alternative arrangements so that students that were interested in the military could meet with recruiters through an alternative process.
Again, John, the list of justices that had never been judges before is long and distinguished. It doesn’t seem to be a significant factor one way or the other in terms of how well they perform on the Court.
I’d be okay with the lack of being a judge IF Obama would sell the matter as being a good thing. “She’s never been a judge but that can be a good thing and here’s why…” Ok, that might work.
As it is they are trying to make it unfair to even ask her about it or that it is no big deal she’s never been a judge.
It could be a good thing to bring a different point of view to the Supreme Court other than a judges point of view. Explain why Mr. Obama.
So if its a good thing to have someone with a different mind set from a judge on the Supreme Court, maybe we should appoint a non-lawyer next time?
I know a wise old Asian man who could be a great Supreme Court judge cause he’s not white, he’s never been a judge, he would clearly bring a different mindset to the highest court of the land.
Of course I’d miss my take out Chinese but hey, we all have to sacrifice for the greater good right?
If its a good thing that a Supreme Court justice has never been a judge, gotta wonder how many great surgeons there are out there who need to be operating on us despite the fact they’ve never been a doctor.
Airlines start hiring 747 pilots who’ve never flown a plane?
This could be a great thing for all of us who ever wanted to be something but we’ve never had any experience first. This could set a precedence that has a huge impact on all of our options for what we want to be when we grow up!
“She was following a policy”
That is her excuse? I was just doing what I was told?
This is the mindset of a person we want on the Supreme Court?
Well I guess its the kind of person Obama wants on the Supreme Court.
Gotta go. I’m off to sew up open wounds in the ER even though I’ve never been a doctor.
Wish us all luck….
Imagine that, the ER wouldn’t let me touch a patient despite my being smart, not that I’m “Kagan” smart mind you, and being educated in a field with similar vocabulary and concepts. They told me if I was not a doctor, had not been a doctor before, I could not be a doctor now.
Imagine.
I even offered to show them my SAT scores too.
Kagan is not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Typical liberal mindset, all the benefits of without paying the price to…..
Go get a job as a judge, work you way up, get qualified and then get back to us…..
I agree with you in theory, but not in practice. The concept of the activist judge and the potential impact they can have on every aspect of our country has never been of greater concern. Judges routinely overstep their bounds with regard to legislating from the bench. The level of polarization between the left and right makes it necessary to avoid such a candidate.
Would you have said that to Rehnquist? John Jay? John Marshall? Brandeis?
Take a look at this (obviously) subjective, but pretty thoughtful article on the 9 most important justices.
Guess how many of them had no prior judicial experience.
Sorry, forgot the link to the article.
Not sure how not being a judge matters at all to this.
Simple. You can see how a justice will act based on their past decisions.
And this will avoid polarization how, exactly? I suspect that the only way you would see to “avoid polarization” is to pick a justice in the Roberts/Alito/Scalia mold, yes?
In any case, I suspect that the justices see themselves as far less polarized than we on the outside think they are.
“Again, John, the list of justices that had never been judges before is long and distinguished.”
Long?
If a judge has been on the bench for ten years and has no controversial decisions, just simply interprets the law as written, then it’s safe to assume said judge will be a moderate justice. Compare that to one who interprets each case to fit their particular ideology. Which one is polarizing?
Exactly what have Roberts/Alito/Scalia done to be polarizing?
John,
I think you just proved my point. You think Roberts/Alito/Scalia are considered “moderate”, non polarizing and non controversial?
Not so shockingly, about 50% of the population would disagree.
So IF we define being NOT upholding the Constitution and NOT writing laws from the bench as being the odd way to approach the Supreme Court then I guess Chap might have a point.
Folks who want to use the court to enact laws instead of test them against the Constitution would view Roberts/Alito/etc., as being controversial and polarizing.
So IF we define being NOT upholding the Constitution and NOT writing laws from the bench as being the odd way to approach the Supreme Court then I guess Chap might have a point.
________________________________
Let me try that again. I’m at work…
If we define upholding the Constitution and NOT writing laws from the bench as eing the odd way to approach the Supreme Court than I guess Chap has a point.
So if you have law abiders mixed in with law breakers, the law breakers would consider the law abiders as divisive and polarizing.
That does not mean the law abiders ARE polarizing and divisive.
Any more than Supreme Court justices like Alito/Roberts/etc. are.
chap,
I asked how they are polarizing. Naturally, those who are in favor of activist judges because they agree with them are opposed to judges who interpret law without ideological bias.
I’m suggesting that judges that refuse to further a liberal agenda are in fact moderate.
And I said they are polarizing because about half the population vehemently disagrees with many major decisions. You can’t define that away simply by saying you are right and the other half is wrong. No surprise, they say the same thing about you.
Hence…polarization!!!
The only justice that is nonpolarizing is Kennedy, the only one that could TRULY be called a moderate by any real definition of the term,and that is only because both sides kind of hate him.
Examples? And evidence?
“I’m suggesting that judges that refuse to further a liberal agenda are in fact moderate.”
I agree. The idea that the Supreme Court judges who block the way of liberal activist judges forcing a liberal agenda on us via the court are the divisive ones is only true if you are on the left.
Like the conservative blocking Obama are cast as the party of “no” and the “obstructionist” as if that’s a bad thing.
Just think how folks who obstructed Hitler were portrayed in early Nazi Germany.
Its the judges who are forcing a liberal agenda via the courts, like Ginsberg, who are divisive and polarizing.
Not the judges who put the Constitution first and foremost.
Ummmm….Citizens United.
Interesting thing about public reaction to the Citizens United case is how wildly public opinion varies depending on how essentially the same question is worded.
Even taking your rosiest poll, 55% essentially agree with Citizens United and 45% don’t. You know what that is called?
POLARIZING!!!
“You know what that is called?”
Sorry but that is not the case. A person’s response to a thing does not mean the person responsible for that thing is polarizing.
A person can simply be right. Other’s respond for whatever reason in a way that you describe as “polarizing”. That does not make the original person polarizing.
People get polarized for all sorts of reasons. Witness Al Sharpton getting people worked up here in AZ about our very necessary and proper illegal immigration law. People are polarized no doubt. But its not the law’s fault.
How polarizing it is depends on how worked up people get about it. Otherwise, a 55-45 distribution can be no more “polarizing” than what movie should get the award for Best Picture.
By the way, you referred to “many” major decisions by the conservative majority that half the people “vehemently” disagree with.
Jesus, Blackstone. Don’t be purposely obtuse. If you can’t think of some recent decisions that were controversial, then I am not going to waste my time arguing with you until you get up to speed. Just off the top of my head:
Kelo
Heller
Boumedine
“on how worked up people get about it.”
And that depends on a lot more than the person making the original decision and the court making a decision.
The left is very responsible, witness Obama and his partisan leadership, for drumming up polarization after the fact.
How many folks on the left are still living out Bush and 2000?
Heller? Yeah, real divisive there.
Boumediene and Kelo were decisions by the 4 liberals plus Kennedy, so I don’t know what you were trying to prove there.
And I’m the one being purposely obtuse?
Um, I never said that it had to be an instance where the conservative bloc won out. Why does that make a difference? Point is that people (and the justices) are hugely divided over each of those cases.
And the poll you linked to is next to worthless. As you correctly pointed out, a lot depends on wording and polling on a general statement like that is about the least useful piece of information. It’s like saying 95% of people think kittens are cute. But if you ask if you prefer cats or dogs, well that same group prefers dogs 2 to 1. Why don’t you venture down that page you linked to and check out the question in the same poll where 49% said they favor stricter gun control laws to the 11% that favored less strict laws.
Oh, I don’t know, might have something to do with you saying, in #280:
Forgive me for assuming that you were trying to back up your point.
And you conclude from there that they favor laws as strict as the D.C. gun ban? If you believe that, then go here and scroll down to the third graph.
And surely you’re not arguing that Heller struck down all gun control laws, are you?
How does that equate to saying they are only so when they happen to be in the majority? You don’t think people vehemently disagree with them when they are in the minority. Think a little bit.
Oy. Where to begin?
First, it is entirely a different thing to ask whether or not you think there should be a gun ban, IN GENERAL and whether or not you think an INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITY, where an overwhelming majority of the citizens favor said ban, has the right to impose such.
Second, that poll predates the one we were looking at before.
Third, look what it says!
You are quoting a series of polls that concludes the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove. Thanks for making my job so easy! Usually I have to go out and find my own information!
Egad. So you’re telling me that half the population vehemently disagreed with the DISSENT in Kelo? Seriously?
But when an overwhelming majority believes that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, it’s hard to draw a different conclusion. At some point, “indiviudal right” becomes pretty meaningless if you can enact a complete ban.
And did you happen to catch the direction it was moving in?
I wasn’t trying to prove anything. You’re the one who made the assertion about the people vehemently disagreeing repeatedly with the conservative Justices, and you’re not doing a good job of backing it up. Yes, I know that gun control is a controversial, hot button issue, but Heller didn’t have anywhere near as much of an impact on it as you’re making it out. There’s little to no evidence that more than a fairly small minority had a serious problem with how the Court ruled in that case.
love this little cartoon from Gary Varvel…spot on…
http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/05122010.jpg