Kagan Nomination Leaves Some Longing on the Left

[IndianaGreen]

Kagan Nomination Leaves Some Longing on the Left

By PETER BAKER
Published: May 10, 2010

WASHINGTON — The selection of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the nation’s 112th justice extends a quarter-century pattern in which Republican presidents generally install strong conservatives on the Supreme Court while Democratic presidents pick candidates who often disappoint their liberal base.

Ms. Kagan is certainly too liberal for conservatives, who quickly criticized her nomination on Monday as a radical threat. But much like every other Democratic nominee since the 1960s, she does not fit the profile sought by the left, which hungers for a full-throated counterweight to the court’s conservative leader, Justice Antonin Scalia.

In many ways, this reflects how much the nation’s long war over the judiciary has evolved since Ms. Kagan was a child. While the American left back then used the Supreme Court to promote social change in areas like religion, race and abortion, today it looks at it more as a backstop to defend those rulings. The right, on the other hand, remains aggrieved and has waged an energetic campaign to make the court an agent of change reversing some of those holdings.

Along the way, conservatives have largely succeeded in framing the debate, putting liberals on the defensive. Sonia Sotomayor echoed conservatives in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings last year by rejecting the idea of a “living” Constitution that evolves, and even President Obama recently said the court had gone too far in the past. While conservatives have played a powerful role in influencing Republican nominations, liberals have not been as potent in Democratic selections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/us/politics/11nominees.html?hp

[NJmaverick]

1. and it leaves others on the left very happy

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. And it's obviously got some on the right damn near orgasmic

The DLC right, at least.

[NJmaverick]

5. The DLC isn't the right, do you have another example?

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. Is this a stand up comedy bit now

Or do you just need medication?

"The DLC isn't right wing. We're Liberals. You fucking retards aren't the Left, we are !1!1!!!1" :rofl:

[NJmaverick]

11. So I take it that was your only example. Fair enough, so we agree that there is no one on the

right that was "orgasmic" over her selection.

[ShortnFiery]

3. OK, I can buy, at least with respect to social issues that you're "progressive"

as you claimed earlier. :thumbsup:

However, you're not counting yourself in as part of "the left." Are you? :shrug:

[NJmaverick]

4. To me the core liberal values are fairness and compassion

that's where my views of equal rights for all comes from

it's what guides me to protect worker's rights

it's where I am coming from when we push for regulations that protect people from corporate excess

it's why I believe every American regardless of birth circumstances should have a fair chance to succeed

its why I believe we should also try to prevent people from turning to a life of crime rather than only punish it


No where do those values drive us to try and destroy corporations or start thinking of the government as inherently evil. In fact true liberals believe the government serves the important role of helping people accomplish what they can't accomplish on their own. It's not about refusing to work with others that don't share the same liberal views.


Now you can share your views that show you have a right to not only claim the title of liberal but to challenge me.

[ShortnFiery]

7. I'll just simply comment that crony capitalism and civil liberties can not co-exist. eom

[NJmaverick]

13. I gave you a careful and well thought out response

and this is what I get when I ask you the same question?

[ShortnFiery]

17. Believe it or not, I did not follow your thought process.

Neo-liberalism and LIBERAL Values are not synonymous. How much more clear do I need to put it? Your narrative, in today's context of our right-wing duopoly, does not make sense to me. :shrug:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

NEO-LIBERALISM defined:
The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

[ihavenobias]

8. You do realize when you say that it HURTS her chances of making it through, right?

We agree that the right wing is going to go nuts trying to paint Kagan as a radical leftist/socialist/communist, etc. And we know the mainstream media likes to parrot stupid right wing talking points and make it "conventional wisdom". Here are two responses:

A)-The left praises the choice of Kagan, saying she's excellent and a slam-dunk on the court.
B)-The left criticizes the choice of Kagan, saying she might be conservative and not progressive.

Forgot your personal opinion for a moment and answer this question from a politics/media perspective. Is A or B more helpful in refuting (or confirming) the right wing/MSM talking points about Kagan? Is A or B more helpful in getting Kagan in place on the court in light of the political climate in our (corporatist and conservative) Congress?

[NJmaverick]

10. What President Obama has done is similar to what Bush did with Alito

sure we knew Alito was going to be a radical right voice on the Court but we had nothing on him that was damning. For the Dems to try and filibusterer his nomination would have been political suicide for the entire party. Now the tables are turned and it's the Republicans that are in the position of having to grin and bare it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

12. What Chimpy did with Alito

was to float the ridiculous joke nominee Harriet Miers first, and even Republicans looked at her and said "Chimpy, are you fucking kidding me??".

Then he withdrew her and threw the hard right lunatic Sammy the Fish at us.


So are you saying that Kagan is the fake nominee, and that Obama has an actual Liberal nominee standing by?

OK.... I won't tell Mitch McChinless if you don't. :evilgrin:

[NJmaverick]

14. No he isn't tossing out a fake nomination. He has a solid liberal with

Kagan. The President has made his views of what he considers a good Justice to be like. In short he considers Justice Stevens to be the standard they should strive for. What you need to appreciate is the that President knows Kagan far better than you or I or the general public. He knows what type of justice she is going to be and you can bet the farm she is not going to be pulling the court to the right. Remember the President cares about our nation just as much as we do and he doesn't want to see more right wing activism like Citizens United.

[Sebastian Doyle]

15. But Kagan is to the right of Stevens.

If it was Scalia or Thomas retiring, and Kagan was replacing them, that would be different. But because Stevens is the most Liberal of the current justices (even more so than Clinton's appointees) that means that a Kagan nomination IS moving the court even further to the right. There is no way to put a positive spin on that fact.

Even assuming a best case scenario where we didn't lose any seats in the 2010 election, Obama is re-elected in 2012 and we actually DO get rid of either Fat Tony or Clarence the Clown some time in the second term, do you honestly believe the Repukes would allow an actual Liberal nominee to replace THEM?

THIS is the opportunity to put a Liberal on the court. And it's being wasted. :evilfrown:

[NJmaverick]

16. That is a mistaken assumption on your part. You need to, like President Obama did, TALK to the

woman find out her views.

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. Sure thing.

Tell Rahm to e-mail me her cell number and I'll get right on that.

[NJmaverick]

19. You could email her, in my Google research on her this week

I actually came across an email address for her.

[last_texas_dem]

9. Good article,

and the graph that accompanies it is worth a thousand words. I'd heard the argument before that the court's "liberal" contingent could more fittingly be described as "moderate," in terms of the court's ideological lean over time, and I can see why.

Also, it's interesting that Kennedy is often described as a "moderate" and Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer liberals, when all five of them are actually about equally moderate; gotta love that "lib'rul" media.