E-Mails to my Senators: DEFEAT ELENA KAGAN.

Just sent an E-mail to my two DINO Senators, Lautenberg and Menendez. (Reference: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x360556)



Looks like I will have one more reason to never vote for either of these men ever again.

"Stare decisis."

Does it, for instance, mean that the Supreme Court never overturns prior decisions?

...unless under extraordinary circumstances.

The Supreme Court is involved in establishing the ground rules of our entire legal system; for obvious reasons, those rules need to be at least somewhat fixed, and can't be radically changing every few years when new justices come on and change the balance of the court. For that reason, the SCOTUS is extremely reluctant to overturn it's own precedent, usually doing so only when a prior decision created a clear injustice. Slaughterhouse, Brown vs. Board of Education, Lawrence vs. Texas, etcetera--and you could probably still count the number of major reversals on your hands.

For a nominee to say that they will stick by the freshly established precedent of Citizens United is not as all surprising--in fact, no one would say anything different, and it would be inappropriate for them to pre-judge any future cases that might come before them involving campaign finance. That doesn't mean that they're backing an unlimited money pipeline into the political realm.

I'm well aware what it means.

I'd just like to pick a SC justice who recognizes "extraordinary circumstances" and "clear injustice" when she sees them.

She's replacing the guy who wrote the dissenting opinion. It isn't unreasonable to ask whether she would have voted the same way.

in fact, no one would say anything different

I'm sure that were Justice Stevens given the opportunity to vote on the issue again, he wouldn't change his mind.

There's nothing in what Kagan said which implies that she won't support the constitutionality of substantial limits on political spending by corporations. What it does mean is that--as any nominee would--she expressed understanding of and respect for the court's standing decisions.

and sayiing that you support the decision (particularly when you were the one who argued the other side).

There wouldn't be a thing wrong with saying "I support the position I argued before the court." That is, of course, assuming she does.

Should Plessy v. Ferguson have stood?

I'll answer my own question. Nope.

Stare Decisis does not prevent the overturning of any case. It simply creates a presumption that cases (in most instances) should not be overturned. That presumption can be challenged on multiple grounds, as was the case with Plessy.

Kagan never said that she wouldn't vote to overturn Citizens United (and SPECIFICALLY said she wasn't binding herself to anything).

In case you didn't notice, Stare Decisis is the only reason Roe v. Wade is still law of the land today.

Legal matters are always difficult to explain, here.

can NEVER be overturned?

Kagan simply said it is settled law under stare decisis. This creates a presumption that it shouldn't be overturned, but this presumption can be challenged on multiple grounds as she herself stated in general.

If she isn't saying it was wrong and will vote to overturn it when the occasion arises, then she is supporting it and doesn't deserve to be on the Court.

For her to have an opinion on a case (that doesn't exist yet) to overturn the SCOTUS has already decided.


That is how you lose a confirmation battle.

which means she should lose, or she DOES support it, and thus should lose.

We can't expect someone unwilling to take a stand on such a fundamental issue, and such flawed logic as went into that decision, to be an advocate for the individuals who come before her looking for justice.

Until a case that comes along to reverse it.

(Or a Constitutional Amendment)


As a nominee, she absolutely should not tell the committee that others on the Court were wrong and how they were flawed in their decision. (And what difference would it make?) If she were to criticize the decision, she would negate the perception that she has created about being unbiased.


You just don't do that if you want to make it out of committee.

The whole thing is her ability NOT to be biased, and to uphold the current laws.

You are exactly right. The worst possible thing she could do would be to challenge standing, current law.

Takes time for 'living Constitution' to catch up with us, tho.

:shrug:

His voting record since coming back in 2003 has made me wince.

when he introduced Alito to the Senate. Menendez when he voted to kill the public option and force the Baucus Bill down our throats.

Does that make you yawn a little less?

:shrug:

Let him appear alone.

Or, if he NEEDS to be introduced, then Lautenberg could have used a "hold" on the nomination and refused to present him.

:)

I'm pleased with the job both Lautenberg and Menendez are doing.

And we must keep them in office because Governor Burger King badly wants those seats to go to teabagging wingnuts.

With the admitted one, you know what you're getting.

calls himself a Democrat?

but the Blue DUgs and the "Obama Right Or Wrong" crowd have you outnumbered.

but since you show no understanding of how the Supreme Court works, I would have to question your understanding of your senators

I prefer to get my information from more informed sources

She said, she considers their decision "precedent" and "settled law" simply because the Supreme Court's ruling is in the past. That does not mean she agreed with it. She did her best to argue for the Administrations's position on this case, but she failed. She cannot state her personal opinion on anything. That does not mean Congress can pass other laws concerning these issues, and as a Justice, she may have the last laugh when laws concerning campaign finance come up. The Court has to consider "precedent", but as in the past, they often come to new conclusions. We have NOT heard the last of this topic.

if she is not willing to come right out and say that the decision was wrong, she doesn't deserve to sit on the Court.

Would that have satisfied you?

I want to hear that she thinks it is wrong, and will vote to overturn it when the occasion arises.

It's ok.

Now she's doing what she criticized.

She doesn't belong on the Court. I'll even go so far as to say that I think she might do real harm as a Justice. Not as much as Alito has done, but harm nonetheless.

Because of perceived ideology, but the fact remains that the duly elected President nominated her, and the Senate will confirm her with 78+ votes.

and it makes me fear for our country once she's in place.

:rofl:

She said that Citizens United was a decided case, entitled to weight under stare decisis. This is in fact a factually accurate statement. That does not mean it can't be overturned and it does not mean she supports the decision. In case you didn't notice, she ARGUED against the outcome in front of the Supreme Court.

She will be confirmed easily (notwithstanding any e-mails you may send or desire to send), with the votes of Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, and other progressives.

First, a complete misunderstanding of Kagan's carefully scripted comments concerning stare decisis in an overly politicized hearing. There may be reasons to vote against her, but this is not one of them.

Then, calling Menendez and Lautenberg DINOs. They may not be far enough left for some, but they are as left as it gets in NJ, and that's not bad.

BTW, just what are those "core views" of the Democratic Party I keep hearing about? I grew up with Tammany Hall Democrats in NY and when I lived in Joisey the machines still called all the shots.

I see county Democratic leaders Lesniak and Norcross haven't retired from the Senate yet-- how they doin' with those core values? I don't remember this DiFilippo woman when I lived in Elizabeth, but she seems to have taken over a lot of Lesniak's territory without the immunity from prosecution.

Can they put the Jersey City mayor's name on the reservoir up by Route 46 yet? There was a time when the mayors got indicted so fast it wasn't worth making a new sign.

Does not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court at all, let alone replace the most liberal justice on that Court.

I'm tired of stealth nominees. I'm tired of the Democratic Party helping to push our country even further to the right. We have to draw the line somewhere.

And what an absurd letter to two above average Senators. Like and respect Lautenberg, Menendez - not so much, but still he is anything but a DINO.

My only hope is that you were not serious....

for a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT's nominee makes one a DINO.

:sarcasm:

Voting for Kagan has nothing to do with it, although their track records as DINO's makes me convinced they won't take a stand.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But don't look at me when the damage is done once she's sworn in.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You don't get it, but you're all fired up over a GOP talking point and you are going to take your show on the road... brilliant.

No wonder we're doomed.

Fucking doomed. No matter how many times it's been explained to you here, you still don't get it and you're fired up ready to cause a ruckus. Fucking brilliant.

On the one hand it was a bad decision.

On the other hand, I don't think the campaign finance laws they knocked down were accomplishing anything anyway. They weren't doing anything to decrease corporate influence in government so it's hard to care. I don't know if I would oppose her over that one issue.

I don't, but it's a perfectly acceptable legal reasoning.