• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP source: Obama chooses Kagan for Supreme Court

From the source that Aps linked above:

Won praise -- from both liberals and conservatives -- during her tenure as dean of Harvard Law. Hired some of the best law professors in the country, including Obama friend (and administration official) Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago.

*** But some liberals believe that Kagan, if nominated, would move the Supreme Court to the right. They argue that she -- a la Harriet Miers -- has a tiny paper trail, and so they believe it's inconclusive if she's as liberal as other possible Obama picks. Liberal critics also cite Kagan's past statements that suggest she believes in strong executive-branch powers.

***While at Harvard, received a standing ovation from the conservative Federalist Society. "I sort of looked out at them, and I said, 'You are not my people, and everyone laughed. And then I said, 'But I love the Federalist Society, and I think that that's when I got a standing ovation." (NPR interview, 12/22/09)
She sounds interesting. I don't know if I support her as a pick or not. I'm in favor of having a more centrist court, for sure.
 
So who is the leftist you'd pick?

I was hoping he would pick Pam Karlan (Stanford University Law Professor).

She was a contender, although considered a long shot because she is "too liberal" :roll:
 
Today it was made official that Obama has picked Kagan. Honestly I am strongly appalled with his pick.

Kagan is an open socialist and has zero judiciary experience. Obama has clearly demonstrated that he is incompetent and unfit to make wise decisions. Seriously, he has nominated a judge who has no judicial experience and has advocated for socialism.

I don't think I would jump to conclusions as to her being a socialist. During her tenure at Harvard she would hire right wing professors like Jack Goldsmith.
 
I don't think I would jump to conclusions as to her being a socialist. During her tenure at Harvard she would hire right wing professors like Jack Goldsmith.


True evil never tells you the full truth.


j-mac
 
Personally I think the attacks from the left and the right are misplaced; Elena Kagan is a brilliant and extremely well qualified nominee.

Excerpted from “The liberal case against Kagan is overstated; President Obama's Supreme Court pick is mainly guilty of muting her progressive ideals in the service of ambition” By James Doty, Salon, Monday, May 10, 2010 00:20 ET
[SIZE="+2"]O[/SIZE]ver the past several weeks, a chorus of progressive voices has portrayed Elena Kagan -- whom President Obama is expected to nominate for the Supreme Court on Monday -- as an intellectual cipher. She may be smart, they argue, but she has provided few clues about her thoughts on any major legal issues and even fewer about her judicial philosophy. Even worse, her critics claim, what we do know about Kagan’s beliefs suggests that she is sympathetic to Bush-style arguments on executive power and thus, on at least one major issue, threatens to move the court significantly to the right.

These criticisms are, at the very least, dramatically overstated. A review of Kagan’s professional record and writings suggests that she would fit comfortably on the left-hand side of the judicial spectrum.

To begin with, Kagan’s professional biography reveals that she has spent the last several decades working closely with some of the country’s best known left and center-left figures. After graduating from Princeton, where she wrote an article hoping that a “more leftist left” would emerge in American politics, Kagan enrolled at Harvard Law School, where she served as a research assistant for the famed liberal law professor Larry Tribe. After her graduation from Harvard, she clerked first for Abner Mikva, a legendary figure of the American political and judicial left (and an Obama advisor). She next clerked for Thurgood Marshall, another liberal icon, whom Kagan has called her legal hero and the greatest lawyer of the 20th Century. …


Worth a look-see.

Some Links on Elena Kagan:

Articles:
“A Climb Marked by Confidence and Canniness” (The New York Times)

Biography:
AllGov.com
Harvard Law School
The Wall Street Journal

Public Financial Disclosures:
The Washington Post
 
Oh well, that's it....If Media Matters says she's the shiz-nit, then by all means, let's just skip straight to the swearing in.....:cool:


j-mac
 
The one thing about Media Matters is they always meticulously document their case which in this climate of outrageous, unsupported charge-counter-charge, is much appreciated.
 
The one thing about Media Matters is they always meticulously document their case which in this climate of outrageous, unsupported charge-counter-charge, is much appreciated.


Oh please! They are hyper-partisan hacks that routinely pull out of context, and smear.


j-mac
 
Wouldn't it be funny if Obama picked her just to make the conservatives head'd explode! :rofl

Like Bush did to the lefties with Meyers...
 
Wouldn't it be funny if Obama picked her just to make the conservatives head'd explode! :rofl

Like Bush did to the lefties with Meyers...


Now that is probably close to the truth.


j-mac
 
images
images


Hmmm, I'm seeing a trend here.
 
And I'm hoping the left (or the right for that matter)....will derail the nomination and we will get a true liberal (like the right-wing got the hard right Alito).....
 
And I'm hoping the left (or the right for that matter)....will derail the nomination and we will get a true liberal (like the right-wing got the hard right Alito).....

we can see what moving to the extremes has done to our politics (and our nation)
the last thing we need to do is pursue a move to the extremes with our judiciary
 
And I'm hoping the left (or the right for that matter)....will derail the nomination and we will get a true liberal (like the right-wing got the hard right Alito).....

I hope that they will derail her nomination because she has no experience. I hope they appoint a centrist or someone who will credibly uphold the law and the Constitution and not legislate based on their feelings or ideologies. We don't need a true liberal or conservative, we need a true objective judge who will uphold the law regardless of his personal beliefs and feelings. The justice system should have nothing to do with political spectrum and the SCOTUS has no place in legislating or pushing for ideology.
 
I hope that they will derail her nomination because she has no experience. I hope they appoint a centrist or someone who will credibly uphold the law and the Constitution and not legislate based on their feelings or ideologies. We don't need a true liberal or conservative, we need a true objective judge who will uphold the law regardless of his personal beliefs and feelings. The justice system should have nothing to do with political spectrum and the SCOTUS has no place in legislating or pushing for ideology.

That might be true, except for the fact that GWB tilted the court to the hard right by appointing right-wing activist judges (Roberts and Alito). We need to restore balance to the court. Kagan doesn't restore that balance. We need a true liberal.
 
That might be true, except for the fact that GWB tilted the court to the hard right by appointing right-wing activist judges (Roberts and Alito). We need to restore balance to the court.




How are they activists? Which decisions make them activists? :roll:
 
How are they activists? Which decisions make them activists? :roll:

Alito and Roberts had a history that preceded their appointment to the court.
They routinely rule in favor of the state when the decision involves the state vs. the individual. They routinely rule in favor of the corporation when the decision involves an individual vs. corporation.

One perfect example is their positions on the fairly recent decision that Corporations are "persons" under the Constitution. Talk about stretching that "strict constructionism"...:doh
 
That might be true, except for the fact that GWB tilted the court to the hard right by appointing right-wing activist judges (Roberts and Alito). We need to restore balance to the court. Kagan doesn't restore that balance. We need a true liberal.

I see, so two wrongs make a right (or a left)? what has been done has been done. Are you wanting to appoint someone to rule based on their ideology just to cancel out others? If presidents appointed people to "keep a balance" then we would never see an end to it. Someone has to start, and it should be now and through Obama's nomination. If he appoints a liberal to make the court more liberal, then he is just as bad (if not worse) than GWB with appointing conservatives.
 
I see, so two wrongs make a right (or a left)? what has been done has been done. Are you wanting to appoint someone to rule based on their ideology just to cancel out others? If presidents appointed people to "keep a balance" then we would never see an end to it. Someone has to start, and it should be now and through Obama's nomination. If he appoints a liberal to make the court more liberal, then he is just as bad (if not worse) than GWB with appointing conservatives.


Its not that simplistic.

Dating back to O'Connor I have supported pretty much every nominee because they were fairly centrist (which is personally what I think Supreme Court Judges should be).

I didn't support Bork because he was completely off the radar.

However, that really changed during GWB's terms in which he made it a point (publicly) to appoint right-wing judges that would shift the focus of the court.
That is why I think we need a true liberal.

Any other day....I would be fine with Sotomayor or Kagan. However because of the Alito and Roberts appointments, we need balance on the court that Sotomayor doesn't bring and neither will Kagan.
 
Its not that simplistic.

Dating back to O'Connor I have supported pretty much every nominee because they were fairly centrist (which is personally what I think Supreme Court Judges should be).

I didn't support Bork because he was completely off the radar.

However, that really changed during GWB's terms in which he made it a point (publicly) to appoint right-wing judges that would shift the focus of the court.
That is why I think we need a true liberal.

Any other day....I would be fine with Sotomayor or Kagan. However because of the Alito and Roberts appointments, we need balance on the court that Sotomayor doesn't bring and neither will Kagan.

So then we will have liberals left when the conservatives retire, so then in your opinion should we appoint conservative judges to keep the balance? The court doesn't need to be balanced, it needs to be lawful. If a liberal or conservative can judge objectively and according to the law then I have no problem with them being on the court. However, it's when they legislate from the bench is when I have a problem.
 
So then we will have liberals left when the conservatives retire, so then in your opinion should we appoint conservative judges to keep the balance? The court doesn't need to be balanced, it needs to be lawful. If a liberal or conservative can judge objectively and according to the law then I have no problem with them being on the court. However, it's when they legislate from the bench is when I have a problem.

It depends. I have supported conservative nominees when I felt the court was out of balance.

The bottom line is this: The Supreme Court should not be left or right. That said....whenever the court is out of balance, then that balance needs to be restored.
 
Back
Top Bottom