Which liberals would those be?
Has she taken such a position? Are we talking about her views of the non-delegation doctrine?
I sing that tune to myself whenever I think of Menominee, MI.
Her (2001. pre-9/11) HLR Article, “Presidential Administration” is supposed to be a defense of the constitutionality of the shift of power to the executive. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet.
It is available here.
It seems to be a discussion of presidential authority over regulatory agencies. Not over Congress or the Supreme Court, but rather how Reagan put his stamp on offices that were under the executive branch already.
Sorry I’m late getting back. Glenn Greenwald and Jonathon Turley raise the issues in better detail than I can at this time.
Will there be any meaningful pushback from the Left over her?
I just read Elie Mystal’s (Above the Law blogger) account of his Civ Pro class with Professor Kagan. I like her more every day!
Depends. Who’s the “Left”?
Wow, those guys are as obsessed with gay sex as George Rekers…
More to the point, the “views” in question were at least partially concerned with ability to do the job of applying the language of the Constitution. The notorious “ink blot” statement was (at best) a statement that if something in the Constitution is too hard to figure out then he’ll just ignore it or (at worst) a statement that if something in the Constitution leads to conclusions he dislikes then he’ll just ignore it.
Those law professors who question her commitment to diversity reiterated their concern, and I saw an article recently that the White House had released a statement aimed at smoothing things over with them.
Andrew Sullivan has called upon her to make a statement addressing her sexuality, but I don’t know if he’s classifiable as left or right anymore.
Well, yeah. How can we permit a person to occupy a seat on the nation’s highest court without knowing what she likes in bed? I hope she also clears up any controversy about her first experience masturbating and her position on sex during her period. The public has a right to know these things.
Define “the Left”.
I can’t see Obama making a “Harriet Meyers” mistake on the left. And she’s pretty obviously not a Harriet Meyers wrt her qualifications.
So, I’m sure some on “the Left” will bitch and moan about not having someone further to “the Left” on the bench, but let them. Senate Democrats aren’t going to let them derail Obama’s pick for the SCOTUS. Providing there is no hidden scandal that surfaces, of course.
Since we don’t have a cite, it’s hard to say, but my guess is that AS is thinking that she should be bold and out herself for good of the Gay Community, not that Senators need to know about her sexual orientation. He’s not that stupid.
That and she has some strange ideas about the First Amendment right of free speech.
From United States verses Stevens:
**
“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”**
According to the First Amendment Center: the Court ultimately rejected the government’s argument for creating a new unprotected category of speech, ruling April 20 that the law was unconstitutionally overbroad.
And then he retracted the call. (Andrew Sullivan)
Looks like it’s a little bit of both. She should be proud, and the public has a right to know.
In the part Lessig commented on, I do think Greenwald seems to have either intentionally or unintentionally conflated Kagan’s work on executive authority over agencies with the executive power issues raised by the Bush Administration.
Turley does a bit better, but still asks us to infer a lot from not very much evidence. Kagan thinks an AQ agent captured in the Phillipines has been captured on the battlefield. Ok. We might infer that this means she thinks the entire world is a battlefield in the war on terror, and therefore all such detainees are to be treated like battlefield captures. We might also guess that she thinks people captured on the battlefield are not entitled to things like habeas corpus. And while those are plausible inferences, I don’t think they quite get us to “she has taken an extreme position on the limits of executive power.”
Her position on non-delegation doctrine and Presidential control of agencies is a strong one. No doubt. It is one of the very few things we really know about her personal views. And it has constitutional implications. But I think we have to be very careful not to conflate the issue of Presidential control over agencies with the issues of executive power raised by the Bush Administration. At least for me, when I hear “a defense of the constitutionality of the shift of power to the executive,” I don’t think non-delegation doctrine, I think Youngstown.
He comments as SG are comments on behalf of her client’s position. They do not necessarily reflect her personal views. Eugene Volokh, a very well-known libertarian/conservative First Amendment scholar, writes of Kagan’s First Amendment scholarship:
This whole thing is hilarious. The GOP holds some positions I strongly disagree with, but I never thought they come out as pro-slavery. I guess Steele isn’t drawing a salary?
I kid, I kid. I’m pretty sure they aren’t pro-slavery. But man, that’s showing some embarrassing ignorance of history and the Constitution.
This isn’t conclusive proof, obviously, and I have no personal knowledge of Professor Kagan’s personal life.
But for what it’s worth, many of her old friends are coming forward to state that she is NOT gay, and that she has regularly dated men in the past.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=8A882123-18FE-70B2-A8A8667A106A0FCC
I know, I know… Cynthia Nixon dated men, too. That doesn’t prove she COULDN’T be gay. But indications are now that she is not.
Which means Andrew Sullivan is still a dick. So what else is new?
I can’t do any better than these words:
From here.