Oliphan: Kagan's a not so leftist liberal

[Elmore Furth]

Like Obama, Kagan has a history of a complicated detente with conservatives and their views. She may disappoint liberal 'true believers' just as Obama has. She seems to be a pragmatist trying to accommodate both the liberal and conservative tribes wherever she goes.

By the time she left Cambridge last year to become solicitor general in the Obama administration, she (Kagan) had cemented a reputation as someone who could get things done at the highest levels of academia, business and government. At 50, she is firmly in the establishment, apparently as comfortable with conservatives such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, whom she also feted at Harvard, as with her mentor, liberal Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Though Marshall was an unwavering liberal, Kagan already appeared less so. Memos on file in Marshall's papers at the Library of Congress show Kagan to be cautious, skeptical and, at times, scornful of those who would push the law too far to the left.

With the Harvard endowment flush, she hired waves of new professors, defusing tensions among the polarized faculty. Her most audacious move was to recruit Jack Goldsmith, a lawyer who had served in the George W. Bush Justice Department and helped craft anti-terrorism policy. Kagan backed the hire against criticism from some liberal faculty and alumni. "I think it was a disgrace," said Francis Boyle, a Harvard Law graduate and a professor at the University of Illinois who will no longer donate money to the school because of the affair.

John Manning, a conservative law professor, joined the faculty months after Goldsmith in 2004. He said that Kagan's efforts at the school suggest that if she is confirmed as a justice, she'll be "collaborative" and will "listen to justices across the spectrum." That thought has some liberals worried that Kagan might not be a stalwart backer of their cause on the bench.

Kagan's a not so leftist liberal

[Unvanguard]

1. She was not the best choice Obama could have made.

I would give a lot to get inside his head and figure out what he was thinking. She may surprise us yet. Or this may be a mistake.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Some folks didn't like Sotomayor before her confirmation either....

[Unvanguard]

5. I was not among them.

Kagan, unlike Sotomayor, has a lot of record behind her, and it seems to pretty consistently portray her as basically a moderate pragmatic establishment figure--defensible tactically in a politician, but not in a Supreme Court justice. We need left-wing versions of Antonin Scalia, especially to replace Stevens.

[nightrain]

6. yep, that's what's needed for balance. I doubt we'll get anything close....

[Dawson Leery]

2. I would filibuster her confirmation vote.

[Unvanguard]

3. What positive outcome do you see from that?

Serious question. Not rhetorical.

[Hawkowl]

7. Left version of Harriet Miers

The right wing screamed about Miers because she wasn't conservative enough. So W nominated Alito, a hardcore corporatist. W listened to his base, Obama ridicules his.

[Unvanguard]

8. Harriet Miers was manifestly unqualified. Elena Kagan is not.

So the circumstances are not the same. And the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, could not mount a credible filibuster threat.

[Hawkowl]

9. Mixing apples and oranges

The right vetoed Miers because she wasn't conservative enough, not because she wasn't qualified.

It only take a handful of Senators to mount a filibuster. Six could easily do it with six shifts of four hours of talking. The point is courage in the face of conflict. Obama has none. Harry Reid has none. And unfortunately it doesn't seem there are enough brave liberal Senators to stand on principle.

Besides if Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are all so MANIFESTLY qualified, I'll take an average ordinary citizen any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[Unvanguard]

10. They all were, except arguably Thomas.

Even he had judicial experience.

It takes 41 Senators to mount a filibuster. The Democrats didn't have the votes.

[Hawkowl]

12. Wrong!

Why do you think it takes 41 Senators to mount a filibuster? It takes 60 Senators to invoke cloture, i.e; an end to debate. That is not the same as starting a filibuster, which is merely continuous non-stop debate. Theoretically one Senator can conduct a filibuster if cloture can not be invoked (a Mr. Smith goes to Washington moment, where he loses but then he morally wins!)

Harry Reid has so twisted the meaning of the word filibuster, nobody even knows what it means anymore. Harry gets all weak in the knees whenever anyone even whispers filibuster. Keep in mind the Rethuglicans have gotten there way without ever, EVER, conducting an actual filibuster. They have merely threatened to hold their breath until they turn blue. And Reid has caved under the threat every time.

So my point is why not let a handful of left leaning Senators threaten Harry in the same manner. If Harry would be willing to round up enough votes for cloture against his own rebellious party, but not against Rethuglicans, at least more people who are blind would now be able to see.

However, I think that Harry and the President would simply find a more suitable liberal justice and then perhaps we would get a battle of the filibuster threats. You can't win if you don't fight.

[Unvanguard]

You're missing the point.

It is true that any Senator can attempt a filibuster. But there is no point attempting one if it is going to fail by cloture vote.

Also, you are wrong: the idea of a "real" filibuster, while much invoked, is at odds with the realities of Senate rules, which allow a 41-vote minority to get away with obstructing business much more easily. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html?view=print">here, for instance. What used to restrain the use of the filibuster was custom, not the stress of mounting one (how many cases of filibustering Senators giving up do you know of?); now that it is out of hand, it is effectively a supermajority requirement on the Senate, like it or not.

[Hawkowl]

14. No I think you are too literal

There is a point in fighting and losing. History is replete with examples such as Thermopolyae, Wake Island, Dunkirk, or non military examples such as Rosa Parks, Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Mandela. Notice that they all lost before they won, but they all FOUGHT.

But it looks like we won't find out. Because somebody computes the odds and says why bother? It's too hard. It's not practical, it's not realistic. We have NO LEADERSHIP.

I understand the rules and custom.

[Unvanguard]

13. Duplicate. n/t

[MisterP]

11. "Kagan steers between constantly-wrong and constantly-right groups, and is bound to disappoint both"

this whole view of politics--as of "tribes" rather than of ideas and policies--is how we got to parties that are increasingly overlapping, but still retain some differences, due to both internal diversity and in order to keep members frothing at the loathly "Other." furthermore, ending partisan distinctions won't help improve politics, since even if 70% of Americans got together, it would be under the auspices of a conservative framing and an idea of "outreach via compromise" where leftist and other good policies are surrendered in the name of coalition-building: we'd need new paradigms that refuse "we'll stand firm on Social Security but jettison gun control"; conscientization and education are what's needed, not the slippery slope of "populist acquiescence."

[truedelphi]

15. If you love the idea of GMO crops, if you enjoy the fact that one company may

Well hold the patents for most crops grown on the surface of the earth, you will love love love Kagan.

Another nightmare brought to us by the Obama Administration.