Obama nominates Elena Kagan for Supreme Court

[Rand_Rover]

You know how I know Elena Kagan is gay?

@astorian

many of her old friends are coming forward to state that she is NOT gay

But I agree with Bricker, I don’t care whether she is a lesbian.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Since she’s not hawt, I would imagine most conservative senators wouldn’t particularly care whether or not she’s lesbian. She won’t be featured in the late-night fantasies of any of them, I’m guessing. A threesome with Ginsburg and Sotomayor? :: shudder ::

[bubba_jr]

@Elendil_s_Heir

Since she’s not hawt, I would imagine most conservative senators wouldn’t particularly care whether or not she’s lesbian.

Actually, she very well might be in their fantasies, in some of the less flattering pictures, she really looks like a man.

[Marley23]

I don’t think any Republicans have said they’ll vote for Kagan, but some are making positive comments. Since GOP leadership has already said they don’t think a filibuster is in the cards, it’s pretty much over unless she really bombs at the confirmation hearings.

[villa]

@Richard_Parker

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.

Well it’s both, isn’t it? Hell, I know this is a battle that’s been lost - if Congress won’t defend its own powers it is unlikely anyone else will for them.

[Gyrate]

@Rand_Rover

You know how I know Elena Kagan is gay?

I am relieved you didn’t say it’s because she plays softball.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

White House seeks release of National Archives files on Kagan’s Clinton-era work: White House Seeks Release of Kagan Documents - The New York Times

[Elendil_s_Heir]

GOP filibuster seems unlikely: News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

ETA you clearly don’t have any Constitutional understanding of Roe. You appear to have the impression that Justices should rule according to some kind of personal ideology or philosophy and ignore the Constitution if it gives you what you want.

Some of us would say that said philosophy is exactly how we got Roe. Don’t get me wrong; I think legal abortion is a necessity in a modern civilized society. But I think Roe was bad law.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Some of us would say that said philosophy is exactly how we got Roe. Don’t get me wrong; I think legal abortion is a necessity in a modern civilized society. But I think Roe was bad law.

Curtis was talking specifically about positions on things like parental consent – ideological positions, not interprative legal ones. whatever you think about Roe (and you’re wrong fyi ;)), it was not an ideological decison, but a legalistic one based on prior rulings that citizens had a right to privacy.

[erez]

Kagan’s nomination is back in the news and here is an interesting article about her views: Kagan and the porn wars - POLITICO.

During a panel discussion, Kagan presented the group with what she portrayed as promising legal strategies to combat the scourge of pornography.

She seemed to count herself among “those of us who favor some form of pornography and hate speech regulation” and told participants that “a great deal can be done very usefully” to crack down on such evils.

“Statutes may be crafted in ways that prohibit the worst of hate speech and pornography, language that goes to sexual violence. Such statutes may still be constitutional,” Kagan assured the meeting. She pressed for “new and harsher penalties against the kinds of violence against women that takes place in producing pornography, the use of pandering statutes and pimp statutes against pornographers…perhaps the initiation—the enactment of new statutes prohibiting the hiring of women for commercial purposes to engage in sexual activities.”

Is this a problem for any liberals on this board who support Kagan?

[John_Mace]

I see that she has adopted the Sotomayor style of speaking…extremely…slowly…like…she’s…talking…to…children.

[Miller]

@erez

Is this a problem for any liberals on this board who support Kagan?

Yeah. A pretty big one, for me at least.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Me too, depending on whether the new statutes she’s talking about would have to apply equally to men and women.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@erez

Kagan’s nomination is back in the news and here is an interesting article about her views: Kagan and the porn wars - POLITICO.

Is this a problem for any liberals on this board who support Kagan?

Yes, at least at first blush. It might not be as bad as it looks. This was a statement made 17 years ago, and she has apparently rescinded her views on using pandering/prostitution laws to prosecute pornographers. I think it’s definitely something she should be grilled heavily about in her confirmation hearings.

It sounds like she might have that old school, Gloria Steinem feminist view of porn that it’s all violent debasement of women (my wife is like this too, unfortunately). That actually does concern me. It’s the one aspect of the feminist movement that is absolute bullshit and has no place on the highest court.

Ironically, it might help her with right wingers. From what the Politico article says, it sounds like Republicans might not really want their base to know this about her because it doesn’t fit their narrative of a radical leftist.

[Gyrate]

17 years ago? Jeebus. If we have to go that far back to find something objectionable, she can’t be that bad.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

We went back 20 years on Bob McDonnell. Kagan was already a professor when she wrote this stuff, so it’s not like we’re looking at kindergarten drawings her mom saved.

[asterion]

@John_Mace

I see that she has adopted the Sotomayor style of speaking…extremely…slowly…like…she’s…talking…to…children.

Well, she is talking to a bunch of United States Senators. We should just be glad she doesn’t have to resort to sign language and Pictionary.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Yeah, I do wish she’d pick up the pace a little. NPR said this morning the consensus on Capitol Hill is that she’ll be confirmed unless some bombshell goes off.

[Bricker]

Dianne Feinstein, 2003, on Miguel Estrada:

Miguel Estrada has never been a judge. So we have no record of judicial decision-making to examine. This is not dispositive in itself, but it is the first area where we find no record to help us in our decision.

Mr. Estrada is not a prolific writer. So we have no real record of writing to examine. Again, this alone would not be dispositive, but it is strike 2 in terms of where we can get information about this nominee.

We have not been granted access to the memos he wrote at the Department of Justice. So we can only take the word of the man who supervised him that those memos were ideologically driven and that he could not be trusted.

Dianne Feinstein, yesterday:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called Kagan’s lack of judicial experience “refreshing,” …