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

[susypalahwolfe]

'[I]n our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy.'"

The court has been used to limit the power of the individual. Lol Roberts. So, yeah, if there's an opportunity to reverse or limit such rulings, "we" will take it.

Focus on the Family, another far-right group, has declared that it will not tolerate a gay Supreme Court justice.

And I won't tolerate Focus on the Family.
Oh snap.

My obligatory contribution to every Kagan post...

[leprofessional]

Ugh Kagan. Annoying.

Re: My obligatory contribution to every Kagan post...

[yunghustlaz]

lol is this a thing I missed or is it just scotus drama exhaustion cause after this I'm tuning everything out.

[mindrtist]

i'll say it again. good job for nominating the person that lost the "Citizen's United" case wherein unlimited campaign contributions are now possible.

wtf with this pick.

[hey_its_michael]

Citizen's United" case wherein unlimited campaign contributions are now possible.

I think you are giving the Solicitor General's position far too much credit, there.

[yunghustlaz]

The Solicitor General is pretty important. Any case in which the government is involved, or in which an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the government is filed (which is a bunches), the Solicitor General argues

[hey_its_michael]

I am definitely aware of the Solicitor General's role in government. In this case, as you allude to, there is little Kagan could have done to change the outcome of that decision. That's why I said the person was giving the position too much credit, at least in this case.

[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]

Thanks for posting

[yunghustlaz]

More like sweet comment is fuckin' sweet. HIGH FIVE UP IN HERE.

[haruhiko]

HIGH FIVE TO THE SIDE DOWN LOW TOO SLOW

[thechangingwind]

This comment is amazing.