Take on Kagan?

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/10/us/politics/20100505-kagan-opinions.html

Above is a link to some of her positions as reported by the tabloid NY Times. Thoughts? I don't know much about her, but a cursory look at the above makes her seem pretty moderate. Though since the above came from the Times, the validity of the piece is obviously taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Bonestorm]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/10/us/politics/20100505-kagan-opinions.html

Above is a link to some of her positions as reported by the tabloid NY Times. Thoughts? I don't know much about her, but a cursory look at the above makes her seem pretty moderate. Though since the above came from the Times, the validity of the piece is obviously taken with a grain of salt.

Here is the definitive takedown of Kagan from a left-wing perspective:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

Personally, I don't know all that much about her other than that there isn't really all that much known about her "philosophy." The most troubling aspect of her record, to the extent that one exists, is her seemingly robust support for expansive executive authority.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here is the definitive takedown of Kagan from a left-wing perspective:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

Personally, I don't know all that much about her other than that there isn't really all that much known about her "philosophy." The most troubling aspect of her record, to the extent that one exists, is her seemingly robust support for expansive executive authority.

Interesting read... thanks.

From what I have read, she is kind of a wild card... the progressives aren't quite sure where she will land on the issues important to them. Her comments have essentially been from her answers to the questionnaire, she otherwise has been sparse in stating her positions on cases/issues.

The far right doesn't seem to like her, the far left is concerned about her. That alone seems to put her to the right of Stevens (which to be fair isn't that hard to be)

 

[Jarod]

I dont know much about her, but it does seem this pick will move the court to the right...

Ugh.

 

[Onceler]

Today, she's a moderate.

By Friday, she'll be a dangerous radical bent on socializing America....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Today, she's a moderate.

By Friday, she'll be a dangerous radical bent on socializing America....

lol... thanks for your brilliant insight.

 

[Jarod]

Today, she's a moderate.

By Friday, she'll be a dangerous radical bent on socializing America....

It will not take until Friday, Linbaugh comes on the air at noon!

 

[Bonestorm]

Today, she's a moderate.

By Friday, she'll be a dangerous radical bent on socializing America....

Friday? I'll take the under on that one.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Friday? I'll take the under on that one.

the far right has already started whining about her. That happened just about the time it leaked that she was the pick. The 'argument' against her is her trying to boot out the military from recruiting at Harvard, her lack of judicial experience and her support of more executive powers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20004519-504564.html

 

[Jarod]

She will be the most radical homosexual liberal ever to step foot in Washington by 12:15 today.

 

[Jarod]

ITs about fundraising, they have to have a boogie man.

 

[Bonestorm]

the far right has already started whining about her. That happened just about the time it leaked that she was the pick. The 'argument' against her is her trying to boot out the military from recruiting at Harvard and her support of more executive powers.

If the bold is true, that cracks me the fuck up. Right-wingers upset about expansive executive power. Ha!

Of course the DADT thing will be an issue because then they get to hint that she is teh gay.

 

[Chapdog]

its a net net for the dems. No real argument will happen until a pub dies or is retiring and they try to put a dem in place.

 

[Jarod]

its a net net for the dems. No real argument will happen until a pub dies or is retiring and they try to put a dem in place.

Thats going to happen in Obama's second term and I am looking forward to a hard left turn on the court. (I dont want anyone to die, but it may happen)

 

[Jarod]

Obama has already had two appointments... He will likely get at least one more depending on if he is reelected.

Today reelection looks very likely, but two and a half years is a LONG time away!

 

[Bonestorm]

Obama has already had two appointments... He will likely get at least one more depending on if he is reelected.

Today reelection looks very likely, but two and a half years is a LONG time away!

Which is why he should nominate solid left-wing justices. He won't have a better time than now to do it. Of course, this assumes that he would want to nominate solid left-wing justices -- an assumption that isn't necessarily warranted.

 

[Chapdog]

Thats going to happen in Obama's second term and I am looking forward to a hard left turn on the court. (I dont want anyone to die, but it may happen)

Id prefer to have constitutionalists on the supreme court regardless of what party they most closely associate.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Id prefer to have constitutionalists on the supreme court regardless of what party they most closely associate.

yes, but then, you are a rational human being and not some nut job from one of the parties who wants ideology to trump all else.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Which is why he should nominate solid left-wing justices. He won't have a better time than now to do it. Of course, this assumes that he would want to nominate solid left-wing justices -- an assumption that isn't necessarily warranted.

agreed. I think his choice here is a mistake for that reason. If he wanted a far left judge... now was the time to do it. So you may have a point in stating that he may not want a nutjob on the court.

 

[Bonestorm]

Id prefer to have constitutionalists on the supreme court regardless of what party they most closely associate.

So would I. Then again, I think we have different views of what "constitutionalist" means.