Why Kagan makes me uncomfortable for the Supreme Court, especially given all the choices out there.

Until then, the drumbeat of Kagan criticism may get louder as scrutiny of her brief record as solicitor general intensifies. Advocates for human rights and other liberal causes who are upset at the Obama administration for continuing Bush-era policies may take their frustration out on Kagan.

"From the perspective of those who have been advocating change from Bush policies, she has been a disappointment," said Tina Foster of the International Justice Network, who argued against Kagan's deputy Neal Katyal over detention policies in an appeal in January.

"She would spell very bad news" if she became a Supreme Court justice, said Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has long challenged Bush and now Obama detention policies. "We don't see any basis to assume she does not embrace the Bush view of executive power."

At the Electronic Frontier Foundation, senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston called the Obama administration's stance on state secrets and national security wiretapping "a grave disappointment, particularly for those who took Obama's promises seriously." Bankston cautioned he is not certain how involved Kagan herself has been in the positions the department has taken on these issues.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202448233938

Elena Kagan’s recent defense of presidential administration concentrated on domestic policy, but her ideas suggest a criticism of the above proposals. She claims that presidential administration energizes a moribund bureaucracy:





But this view of the presidency, at least in the realm of foreign affairs, is as far from a description of contemporary reality as are Madison’s views, reprinted in the first paragraph of this Essay. Consider such claims in light of
the facts that: (1) there is little public accountability when decisions are secret; (2) agency officials have been excluded from providing input on answers to key legal questions; (3) no neutral subordinate decision-maker exists; and (4) the
administration has itself asserted that the brunt of these questions are beyond the purview of the courts altogether.

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-9/Katyal.pdf

One example: when she was being confirmed by the Senate for her current post, solicitor general, she defended the right of indefinite detention of terrorism suspects.

I think these things should be taken seriously. It follows a certain logic that she probably wouldn't feel as free as John Paul Stevens did to offer striking dissents on such matters. Stevens was in his eighties and beyond caring what anybody thought of him. Kagan will want to be a force on the court, meaning (I'm just guessing here, but it makes sense if you read that Times profile) that she might want to be more of a conciliator, more of a power-player among the court's nonet rather its thundering dissenting voice on these questions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/may/10/obama-administration-supremecourt

While she has some liberal leaning credentials, to me it is not enough to offset her "blank slate" and these issues at the core of power.

nor, of course, a Republican one. I'm sure the tories of our party may unrecommend this but it does not matter. I will speak to such matters until due process returns to my country (if ever).

I just hate to see the OP bitching about unrecs mere minutes into the process.

So, BAM!

I'm so impressed. But I didn't mention unrecommends in my OP.

Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

It is a given list of my reasons.

Why is what YOU say any better than the "whining" you complain about.

Get over your bad self. Try engaging in TOPICAL discussion. Is that too much to ask on a ...... DISCUSSION board?

This whining about "whining" is beyond tiresome.

I'm just using a function on a message board...and using it correctly.

Your whining about my whining about his whining is even more beyond tiresome. (See how that works?)

Such peevish childishness.

You're getting good at it, too.

Clearly you're easily amused.

Here ya go .... enjoy.

There could always be worse choices, and yes "McCain's pick would be worse." But that doesn't mean any of us have to be happy about it. With the extreme rightward lurch the court has been undergoing we don't need someone who can "reach out" or "build concensus" which seem to be the buzzwords dujour.

We need someone who is going to be a strong, unwavering liberal voice on the court. I fear that she will not be the one to provide that.

Like most of the things coming from the Obama admin that I have issues with, he would prefer to stem the bleeding with minimal controversy and fight than he would actually get in there and clean the wound and repair it with much needed attention which might not be pleasant and might actually be painful but would go much more towards repairing the wounds altogether.

those related to corporate power, corporatism, lobbying with unlimited corporate money, consolidation of wealth and power into fewer hands, consolidation of media, deregulation, etc

Where does she stand wrt these?

I haven't pursued that angle due to the fact I automatically stopped at due process rights and separation of powers.

roughly, as serving on a cursory panel but an indication that she is in the club of elites.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-pick-ties-goldman-sachs/story?id=10483996

Guess they couldn't find a REAL judge who was in Goldman Sachs' pocket, so they went for Kagan.

from your link:

a paid member of an advisory panel for the embattled investment firm Goldman Sachs, federal financial disclosures show.

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan prepares to address the forum "Striking the Balance: Fair and...

Solicitor General Elena Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute, according to the financial disclosures she filed when President Obama appointed her last year to her current post. Kagan served on the Goldman panel from 2005 through 2008, when she was dean of Harvard Law School, and received a $10,000 stipend for her service in 2008, her disclosure forms show.

A spokesman for Goldman Sachs did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

The advisory panel met once a year to discuss public policy issues and was not involved in any investment decisions, Justice Department spokesman Tracy Schmaler said.

... given that her background before that point had nothing to do with financials at all.

IMO, anyone with any association EVER with Goldman Sachs is inappropriate to be in government at all at this time.

and wouldn't be surprised if this GS connection was her "in".

Sandra Day O'Conner was supposed to be a conservative voice. The same goes for Stevens.

Was anyone saying he was a liberal before he got on the court?

Just because we cannot predict with absolute certainty how someone will turn out does not negate using what information is available.

Most justices are exactly what is expected.

To say that we might get lucky is no defense of selecting her.

Republican ideology. Same goes for Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. Bush 1 and 2 wanted predictability and they got it. Has Thomas ever voted contrary to any vote by Scalia?

Kagen Is not an ideologue like the above. I don't think any of us will be able to predict where she will come down on any particular case.

I wouldn't count much on that kind of thing happening nowadays.

Stevens didn't move drastically to the left the country went on a mad scramble to the right.

traditional democratic criteria. At best Obama's made another mistake.

The current executive branch onto the Court. Too much temptation for her to make decisions biased towards executive power. If Bush had done this progressives would've been upset.

Bad on executive excess.

He can't find a Democrat who isn't aligned with Bush on those issues?