Compromising justice

[yunghustlaz]

Nicole Colson looks at Barack Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court--and why progressives are right to be worried about what she'd do as a justice.

Comments

[hey_its_michael]

Well, to be fair to Kagan, most nominees with any chance of getting confirmation would be to the right of Stevens, technically. It's a completely different era than it was when Stevens was confirmed, as far as the Senate stamp on judicial nominees goes.

[hey_its_michael]

Plus, while I am strongly against the death penalty, the large majority of Americans disagree with me. So, running that as a reason to vote against Kagan isn't really a strong point, unfortunately.

[yunghustlaz]

I don't really understand why not. Capital punishment is unequivocally bad, without defense, regardless of public sentiment. I just can't get over that to support her, or remotely root for her. Obviously, she'll probably get confirmed, but I won't be happy. But that's just politics. I'll be advocating against her the whole way through, because if I can't really influence public sentiment (obviously) at least the criticism stands as an important part of the democratic process. I refuse to make apology.

[hey_its_michael]

I don't really understand why not.

Because the large majority of Americans do not agree with you and me on the death penalty. We can argue until we are blue to the face that it is not acceptable, but the term "unequivacable" has little meaning when 6/10 people disagree with us. But, as you point out, all of this is pure politics. But, I am also pragmatic, and I don't think there would be a person much more liberal than Kagan who would get through the confirmation process. I mean, Obama is holding someone in reserve who is MORE conservative for when the Republicans gain votes in the Senate come November.

I say all of this as someone whose views on capital punishment will probably prevent me from working with Texas prosecutors when I move back to Texas in a few weeks. :-/

[haruhiko]

Just because Kagan's opinion on the death penalty matches that of a majority of Americans doesn't mean that it's suddenly invalid to criticize her nomination over that point. Criticizing her nomination on the basis of her agreement with a policy that's well-documented as being racist and unjust is precisely the type of debate that should be had.

As for "pragmatic," as Greenwald said recently with regard to Obama's methods/Kagan, "pragmatic" is a term that ends up being used to justify virtually anything and everything that somebody ends up articulating, even if it’s bad. “Well, that might be bad, but they’re being pragmatic.”

[hey_its_michael]

Well, that's fine and criticize her on that point if you want. I didn't say not to. How effective that criticism is, however, depends entirely on people agreeing with you on that point. Before one can really argue against someone being appointed over a particular issue, one must first get the majority of people to agree with one on that issue.