Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Will Nominate Elena Kagan To the Supreme Court

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:37AM (#32154462) Journal

    Consensus to people like Barack Obama means to reverse your opinions and agree with him.

    Seriously? Well I guess that's what you get when you link to "America's Watchtower." Check out his About Me [americaswatchtower.com] page for some clues.

    Here's Reuters for some less biased sanity [reuters.com].

  • Ok then do this (Score:5, Informative)

    by jDeepbeep (913892) on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:47AM (#32154566)
    Help and Account >> Classic Index >> Sections >> Politics >> Click checkbox corresponding to red circle with line through it >> Press Save button
  • Re:!newsfornerds (Score:5, Informative)

    by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Monday May 10, 2010 @10:01AM (#32154780)
    From her Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org]

    The New York Times paraphrases Kagan as saying "that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law -- indefinite detention without a trial -- even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.

    - New York Times, 17th February 2009 [nytimes.com]

    There you go! An article on her view regarding detention and human rights, two hot topics on any news website. If you want a nerd angle, consider the word "cyberterror."

  • by scotch (102596) on Monday May 10, 2010 @10:21AM (#32155006) Homepage

    Choice quote from the About Me page:

    "... if it contradicts religious beliefs it should not be legal."

  • by conspirator57 (1123519) on Monday May 10, 2010 @11:00AM (#32155520)

    Glenn Greenwald has been covering this likelihood. and of course he has a piece on it today.

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/10/kagan/index.html [salon.com]

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Monday May 10, 2010 @11:01AM (#32155546) Journal
    You're being a bit disingenuous:

    'Starving yogi' astounds Indian scientists [physorg.com]
    Chavez rockets to No. 1 on Twitter in Venezuela [physorg.com]
    'Happy ending' gives recyclable products higher status [physorg.com]
    Sweden pushes condom use as study hints risky sex common [physorg.com]

    All from today, May 10th. Don't get me wrong, I love physorg as well and read it daily. But to say it's not political charged or sometimes trivial is frankly misleading and disingenuous. Every news site has problems, just find what's best for you.
  • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Monday May 10, 2010 @11:02AM (#32155578)

    the Tea Party folks... you know, those good ol', down home, middle American folk who just want to, you know, live in peace and stuff (when they aren't throwing rocks through windows and cutting propane tank lines),

    Citation needed. The only case of "Tea Party folks" throwing rocks through windows I've seen reported was the offices of a Democratic Congressman...offices which were located on the thirtieth floor of the building they were in. As for cutting the propane lines, the only sure connection to the Tea Party folks is that some of them mistakenly posted the address as the home address of a Congressman who voted for the healthcare bill. Posting the names and addresses of those who oppose them is a common tactic of Democratic Party affiliated organizations. While I agree that it is reprehensible that these individuals did so, it is a bit much for them to be condemned by Democrats who support such tactics when used by those on thier side if the issues.

  • by jcr (53032) <jcr@mac.cEINSTEINom minus physicist> on Monday May 10, 2010 @11:37AM (#32156276) Journal

    Here you go [csmonitor.com]

    Solicitor General Elena Kagan argues in a friend of the court brief that local, state, and federal prosecutors must enjoy absolute immunity from citizen lawsuits - even when they sent innocent men to prison for life by fabricating incriminating evidence and hiding exculpatory evidence.

    As I said before, she's evil.

    -jcr

  • by moosesocks (264553) on Monday May 10, 2010 @12:05PM (#32156880) Homepage

    SCOTUSblog has a great writeup [scotusblog.com] on Kagan.

    Although they ultimately come out in her favor, the writers make a great presentation of their evidence, and certainly know a thing or two about the Supreme Court.

    It's definitely worth a read before sounding off on your initial gut reactions to the nomination. It's also your right and prerogative to research the case against Kagan, although you really need to comprehend and understand the context of her job as Solicitor General before jumping to any conclusions.

    Personally, despite my initial unease, I'm growing to like her, and would welcome a persuasive, non-activist judge on the court.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 10, 2010 @12:13PM (#32157030)

    Here you go [csmonitor.com]

    Solicitor General Elena Kagan argues in a friend of the court brief that local, state, and federal prosecutors must enjoy absolute immunity from citizen lawsuits - even when they sent innocent men to prison for life by fabricating incriminating evidence and hiding exculpatory evidence.

    As I said before, she's evil.

    -jcr

    But as solicitor general, she has to defend the administration position on this whether she wants to or not, so we don't know if she personally supports that position also.

  • Re:Of course... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 10, 2010 @12:16PM (#32157108)

    - Kagan is the current Solicitor General of The US
    - Kagan was the Dean of Law at Harvard

    --> Now imagine having that on your CV and people telling you "Nah, that's not enough experience for us, sorry."

    For the job of "top 9 judges in the United States", yes, that's not enough experience. For comparison's sake, consider that Sonia Sotomayor had been spent about 20 years on the bench before she was nominated [...]

    * John Roberts: Was a Republican Party operative who had been a judge for two years before being appointed to lead the Supreme Court by the same President who had given him a judgeship.
    * Earl Warren: Was governor of California and that state's Attorney General, and became one of the best justices of all time.
    * William Rehnquist: Was a Republican Party operative challenging the voting rights of Latino citizens in Arizona before being an Assistant Attorney General, and became one of the worst justices of all time.
    * Abe Fortas: Was a Democratic Party operative and a criminal defense lawyer who won Gideon v. Wainwright.
    * Harlan Stone: Was a U.S. Attorney General.
    * Clarence Thomas: Was Assistant Attorney General of Missouri and a member of the EEOC and had been a judge for two years before being appointed to the Supreme Court by the same President who had given him a judgeship
    * Lewis Powell: Was the American Bar Association President and a Tobacco Institute lawyer.
    * Arthur Goldberg: Was a union lawyer and Secretary of Labor.
    * Byron White: Was a running back and an Assistant U.S. Attorney General.
    * John Harlan: Was judge for one year before being appointed to the Supreme Court by the same President who gave him a judgeship.
    * Felix Frankfurter: Was a Zionist activist and co-founder of the ACLU
    * William Douglas: Was a member of the Securities and Exchange commission
    * Robert Jackson: Was a U.S. Attorney General

  • by Vidar Leathershod (41663) on Monday May 10, 2010 @12:59PM (#32157920)

    According to Byron White in US vs. Wade, the prosecution has an obligation to make sure they are not going after the wrong guy. It's the defense that has to do everything in it's power to avoid conviction, even if the defense believes the allegations are true:

    "Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. 5 To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. Our system assigns him a different mission. He must [388 U.S. 218, 257] be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty. The State has the obligation to present the evidence. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution's case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. 6 Our interest in not convicting [388 U.S. 218, 258] the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State's case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe 7 but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth."

  • Re:!newsfornerds (Score:3, Informative)

    by lwsimon (724555) <lyndsy@lyndsysimon.com> on Monday May 10, 2010 @05:47PM (#32162418) Homepage Journal

    He's a left-leaning centrist with Socialist/Fascist tendencies. He has done some things that have surprised me, the Kagan nomination being one of them.

    Overall, though, he's still 90%+ anti-libertarian - and that's who you see doing the stirring right now, not the people who are Republicans because their parents were Republicans.

  • Re:Of course... (Score:3, Informative)

    by jwhitener (198343) on Monday May 10, 2010 @06:06PM (#32162700)

    The Solicitor General has a nickname: "The 10th Justice".

    She is very well qualified. She also clerked for a justice.

  • by L0rdJedi (65690) on Monday May 10, 2010 @07:29PM (#32163570)

    Bullshit. She's an academic. Which means she's been sitting at a University writing papers about how the world should be instead of how it really is. Clarence Thomas went to Yale law school and John Roberts went to Harvard. Fortunately, they didn't stay at their schools and keep writing papers. They got out into the real world and practiced law.

    Let's see what she thinks about the Constitution. If she sees it as a "living, breathing document" we'll know how she's going to rule on anything. If she's a constructionist, which I seriously doubt, then I'll be amazed if Liberals/Progressives don't tear her apart. Obama has already stated she'd have "empathy" and "understanding" from many different points of view. That's not what I want to see in a judge. I want someone who's going to follow the law equally, no matter what the circumstances of the individual. If I wanted an empathic judge, I'd move somewhere where the people in power don't even have to bother going to court.

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...