You’d have been better off cutting that first quote short at the first sentence. Ms. Kagan inarguably has far more of a public and published history than did Mr. Estrada.
Okay, do we have a thread to discuss the actual nomination hearings? 'Cause this here lefty had two thoughts today:
Lindsey Graham is a smart mother-fucker and someone I wouldn’t mind having a couple of beers with. Seriously, his question period was a class on what these sessions should be. Good on ya, Sen. Graham (R-SC)! If I had a vote in South Carolina, you’d get it.
Elena Kagan is also pretty goddamn smart. She was charming today.
Oh, btw, if the hard left thinks she’s their gal, they’re delusional.
Bricker, at least, is refreshingly honest about his bias.
Graham lost whatever respect I may have had for him when he slipped the “you’d have some 'splaining to do” line into the Sotomayor hearing. Seriously, dude.
This is probably the most lefty site I frequent so I may be wrong, but I’d thought the meme that she was a “hard lefty” was a right-wing construct (along with the “Obama is a socialist”, “Obama is a fascist” and “everyone who voted for Obama thought he was the Messiah” ones). Are the radical left saying otherwise?
Question, adhay. Given the Citizens United case, and several previous cases (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., Westmoreland v. CBS) it seems clear that corporations retain First Amendment rights to a considerable degree.
Indeed, you have posted content within the last few minutes on a corporately owned message board that now holds the right to that content, pursuant to an agreement entered into by you and that company. That company enjoys rather robust First Amendment protections, doesn’t it?
Why are you putting things I didn’t say in quotation marks? Obviously, the “it’s refreshing” comment demonstrates an a priori assumption that Kagan’s nomination should be approved, while her comments on Estrada demonstrated an assumption that his should not.
Guess what? It’s a political appointment. As EH notes, you might as well point out the sun.
If it’s such a yawn, such an obvious fact, what’s your assessment of the realism of this made-up interview of the senator in question?
REPORTER: Senator, you were quoted in yesterday’s L.A. Times as calling Elena Kagan’s lack of judicial experience ‘refreshing.’ But in 2003, you had less encouraging words for Miguel Estrada’s equal lack of judicial experience. Would you care to comment?
SENATOR: Of course. Mr. Estrada was nominated by the opposing party, while Ms. Kagan was nominated by my party. Naturally, the standards I claim to be using change.
The idea of corporate rights/personhood was first conjured up by SCOTUS in 1889. The word corporation does not appear once in either the Constitution or its amendments.
I don’t like the comment, though accept it is an expression of realism. However, there is a legitimate rationale behind it. I look much deeper into things told me by people I know I disagree with on fundamental issue. A Klansman tells me something about race, and I will treat it differently than if Julian Bond does. When Bush nominated a Supreme Court justice, my assumption would be that the constititional theories of that nominee would be in alignment with those of Bush’s advisors, and therefore contrary to what I believe to be the correct ones. When Obama nominates one, I’m less likely to presume that the person is wrong headed about the constitution. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t vet them, but the vetting process would be less in depth, and come from a different viewpoint.
Obtaining information has costs. The person who nominates sends information by the very action of selecting that person. It would be foolish not to use that information.
Freedom of the Press is explicitly spelled out in the First Amendment, but that doesn’t mean that newspapers are people. The Constitution says nothing about corporations.
Obviously, conservatives don’t have a problem with corporations buying elections because they buy them for the party that conservatives like, but that doesn’t mean the worm can’t turn someday. Remember that, especially since the door is open for foreign corporations.
Very well. I agree that is a principled basis upon which one might rest such differing comments.
Do you believe that Senator Feinstein’s analysis is, in fact, so grounded? And do you believe if asked about it, she would provide the explanation you posit here?
Yes, at least partially. People do this all the time - we give credibility to information based on its source, and we short cut decision making processes a lot by relyign on signals. It’s not necessarily a conscious thing.
Probably not. Though I think you might find some of it in her answer if you looked closely enough.
I imagine so. She seems to be all about the law for its own sake (which is a double-edged sword in a Justice - good for scholarship and reasoning; not so good for real-world outcome).
I’m curious – can you indulge me in an unrelated question?
So let’s imagine Senator Smith. When he’s part of the majority in the Senate, he says, of the filibuster rule, that it’s an antiquated process that has no place in a modern democracy. When his party is in the minority, several years later, he participates in a filibuster and calls it the bulwark against the tyranny of the majority.
Do you think your reasoning above could be adapted to defend Smith?