Today President Obama announced that Elena Kagan will be his nomination to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. For those on the left, the Supreme Court nominations are the single most important part of Obama's presidency. They will outlast any legislative measures he manages to push through the embattled house. But Kagan stumps most of us. What exactly are we supposed to think about the newest Justice?
There are a few important points that need to be made. First, Kagan is likely pro-choice. She has stated before that she supports taxpayer funded abortion clinics. And, auspiciously, pro-life groups are up-in-arms about her nomination.
Second, Kagan has shown limited support for gay rights. As Dean of Harvard Law School, she, along with many other law deans, opposed military recruitment on campus because of their policy of LGBT exclusion. However, gay rights advocates might be nervous about the rumors circulating that Kagan is a lesbian. Lesbian or not, the "is she or isn't she" controversy was handled so badly, neither Kagan, nor the Obama administration seems very comfortable with the question of Kagan's sexuality. This makes many wonder if she can really be all that liberal when it comes to real questions of equality like the issue of federally recognized gay marriage.
It might be that this is enough. The hot button court issues are likely to be abortion and gay rights in the future and we certainly don't want to lose ground on either of those two points.
But the rest of the Kagan analysis is more complicated.
First, she is an advocate for increased deference to Presidential power. In her much discussed article on Presidential influence over agency process, Kagan argues that judges should acknowledge in their judicial review of agency decisions when the President has weighed in on an agency decision and, by doing so, taken responsibility for the agency's action. In real terms this means that Kagan believes even if an agency acts in a way that seems unfair or unreasonable, if the President approves the decision, courts should consider backing off.
This is worrisome for many reasons. But you only need to remember the kind of Presidential power wielded by George Bush to start getting nervous about a Kagan-style of judicial review.
Second, we just don't know much about how she feels about other important issues like ramped up criminal laws, Miranda rights for terror suspects (now under threat from Holder), and corporation rights which will be the subject of much litigation following the Citizens United decision. Sure, a 2005 letter encouraging protections for non-citizen terror suspects signed by Kagan, among others, has surfaced. But the letter certainly doesn't accord with the later support for Presidential authority Kagan espoused.
In contrast, Diane Wood, another court frontrunner, has a long judicial history to examine. She is a strong liberal proponent who has written decisions protecting the rights of non-citizen detainees, religious freedom, and abortion providers, among others. She is an eloquent writer and staunch defender of minority groups. She would have been a superb and honorable replacement for Justice Stevens.
So, at the end of the day, what do we know? We know that Kagan is a centrist without much of a record. We know she might be liberal on the hot button social issues, but also that she might find in favor of conservatives on other important aspects of America's future.
Most importantly, we know that we elected Obama so that he could leave a powerful liberal legacy on the Supreme Court after his middle-of-the-road presidency was finished. We know that he let us down.
Follow Emma Ruby-Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmaRubySachs
Diana Butler Bass: Elena Kagan and a Lament for American Protestantism
Elena Kagan will be a fine and fair justice. President Obama has made a thoughtful, considered choice. But, on this day, I am a little sad. Missing from the bench will be someone who empathizes with the Protestant worldview in a visceral way.
You may not have noticed, but this is a divided country. Kagan is going to sail through, which is probably a good thing in a contentious mid-term, and neither Ruby-Sachs nor anyone else knows how she will perform. I like what I've read of her writings so far. The signs are good despite this desire to badmouth Obama.
The inequality, the homelessness, the hunger, the outsourced jobs, businesses and industry, the bankruptcies, the perpetual war policy, the chronic unemployment, the slave labor force from south of the border, the loss of healthcare and the benefits provided by the "people" at the levers of power educated at our Ivy League Colleges must be assessed now. Will anyone ask "where is the benefit to the nation." Our elite are not enamored with the nation state or the middle class or the blue collar worker. We're on our own. The U.S. government has been financialized beyond our understanding and grasp.
They are not involved with civil rights, the slavery issue, the emasculation of men, the attack on labor and the American standard of living. They are very passionate about the war that will open up frontier markets, provided they won't have to fight it. The bankruptcy of the United States caused by the Financier Power, the Perpetual War Policy, the U.S. submission to Globalization, does not bother them a bit. Our Harvard men and women are informed by Adam Smith not John Adams.
The Harvard/ Ivy League persons appear to be dangerous people with dangerous agendas.
In the meantime, crisis economy formation measures must be implemented now or this great nation is doomed.
For more info: www.larouchepac.com
“To what degree have you learned how to lead by subordinating your own ambition to the common good, rather than vice versa?"
The Dean of Admissions of Yale encourages Community Organizing in commencement address.
That's some real change!
As I've said, a real investigation/assessment of the Ivy League curriculum must be a part of our national recovery. We have elitist graduating from these schools, with sociopath personalities, "market orientated", nation killing agendas.
Crisis economy formation measures must be implemented now, or this great nation is doomed.
If you look at the background of our greatest Supreme Court justices, those with the strongest influence in favor of civil liberties and justice, none of them, other than Thurgood Marshall, were liberal activists before joining the court. They grew into their job. And Kagan will too.
While in the Senate clearly displayed a fairly conservative voting policy, especially in the economic area-- refusing to cap credit card rates, voting for Cheney's energy bill etc.
The chief blame lays with the people who jumped on the band wagon based on campaign speeches and multi-cultural persona.
Obama is doing what Obama always done-- being a MUDDLE-of-the-road Democrat.
Now people on the left:socialists and communists, who had some education in political analysis, were more successful in recognizing the inherently petit bourgeois nature of this administration.
I cannot think of any other politician in the country that I would rather see occupying the white house.
Perfection in unobtainable in any mortal human being, I am quite happy with almost perfect and having a chief executive who is a sincere advocate of the common people over the super rich lobbyists.
At this stage it is difficult to predict how liberal a Justice Ms Kagen will be?
Interesting. And what country do you live in?
I can thing of THOUSANDS of people more worthy and more intellectually savvy to occupy the White House. A person who cannot think of anyone else suffers from a serious lack of imagination and a serious case of idolization.
You may have a list of thousands, and I fear they are the elitist who own the wealth, basically appropriated from the middle class; however, they hardly are equipped to do the job Pres. Obama has taken on. I couldn't do it and I'm pretty sure you couldn't either.
but just wish he would get the troops
out of the Middle East
besides give nice speeches, then do a prompt 180 degree turn
in the opposite direction?
On every front, Mr. Hope and Change enables the status quo.
(btw, I voted for him. Never again!)
It is a long list
but 3 things stand out
!. He saved he economy
2. Healthcare
3. Restored our standing in the World
Some among us seem to believe that the president should have achieved his full agenda on his first day in office. Some among us apparently thought they were voting for the Inverted Bush - one who acts like Bush did but with a liberal agenda. However, I believe that most of us voted for a strategic, intelligent, enlightened President who would work to uphold the Constitution, work to find consensus and govern for the benefit of all the people.
I would also like to echo Ann Shahan from her slightly earlier post:
"I voted for President Obama because he was a common sense moderate, not an extremist. Just because you voted for him with unrealistic expectations of who he actually is, does not mean he has let "us" the people of this country down".
What still dismays me is those, apparently on the left, who keep saying, "I voted for him and he let me down." Like they're the only ones in this country and he was going to ram a left wing agenda down the country's throat. In the current political climate, he has had to tread in a realistic way to get anything accomplished. Wish they could see and accept that. Progress has always been gradual and has required patience. Progress had come to a virtual standstill under right wing control. The fact that President Obama has accomplished as much as he has is a miracle and much to his credit.