Obama Will Nominate Elena Kagan To the Supreme Court 413
Mr Pink Eyes writes "President Obama has made his choice to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court that was left by the retirement of Justice Stevens. According to this article that choice will be Elena Kagan."
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a US centric site, managed by Americans about technology.
You're going to have a lot of US bias here. If you don't like these stories, don't read them.
I mean, looking at the title, what exactly did you think you'd find in this article?
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Great, block politics from your home page. This is not a tech news site, it is a news for nerds site. If you don't like politics, feel free to modify your preferences. This appointment could have very significant consequences on dozens of issues to be decided at the Supreme Court level. Many of those, no doubt, will be news for nerds as well.
Re:What does this article have to do with anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, hypothetically... if she is confirmed, and any RIAA/MPAA/intellectual property/copyright/file sharing/patent/wiretapping/etc. cases ever make it to the Supreme Court, this might be important. Your Rights Online and all that.
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? You think we're unaware of the American-heavy story selection around here?
The point here is clearly that a purely political story is misplaced on /.
That said, I would love for somebody to analyse Kagan's positions on tech issues here (or provide some pointers to places doing that).
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.
I know right? What possible impact could the LIFETIME appointment of a 50 year old have on the world. It's not like that appointment will have anything to do with directing the behavior of US law. And US law never has had any impact other countries.
Ok, snark off...
But understand, that a young Supreme Court Justice can have an impact on the United States and its laws an policies that go well beyond that of even the President. Obama is gone in 8 years at most, and as we have seen the first year, the fourth year, and potentially the 8th year will mean nothing. At most you will see 5 years of him effecting change and quite possibly only 2.5 yrs. Considering we see these justices approaching 90 years of age, and they don't have to campaign, this appointment will likely have 30+ years of influence on US law that will likely resonate around the world.
I'd place a US Supreme Court justice as one of the top 100 most powerful people in the world. They don't get to wield their power in the typical manner like a show of force, but they when they use it, it would take 3/4ths of the United States to overrule them.
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:4, Insightful)
And if the position of the court swings to support more ridged software patents or towards supporting what is proposed in the ACTA treaty.. won't that have an extreme impact on the technological realms ?
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Less biased, but says nothing about the nominee. Very shallow article (I haven't read the one in the submission).
Re:What does this article have to do with anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Hi. Please turn in your internet license.
This may not be strictly technology news. However it is most definitely news that matters. In the U.S., this represents a huge deal to the political process: one-ninth of one branch of our government. You can damn well be sure this will impact many hot button topics that relate to technology.
And if you are outside the U.S. the impact is less... but the United States still sets the tone on many privacy and technology issues. It would be smart to have at least SOME idea about what is going on in this regard.
So, sorry that this isn't your third daily update on the iPad. But maybe, just maybe, this is more relevant.
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, near elections there are a lot of political stories on /. I recall that there was an actual "Politics" section created in 2004.
Let's fact it, U.S. elections have a huge effect on the technology world and a Supreme Court appointment directly effects many issues as well. Many YRO stories are closely tied to what the leadership of the U.S. is choosing to do with respect to technology, the policies they pursue and the laws they pass.
Now I would have expected to see a story relating something in Kagan's past that related to technology and might reflect her views on something relevant to our interests. Nevertheless, her choice can be very important to "News for Nerds", but since she has not been a judge I think it will be very interesting trying to decide what kind of judge she will be. Non-judges have been appointed before, there's no problem with someone who's never been a judge but has other relevant experience, but there's no paper trail of judgements or decisions.
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.
And yet, look at the most active stories [slashdot.org]:
Which of those were "News for Nerds"? The editors here sure know what attracts eyeballs and "discourse."
As others have pointed out, you can disable politics [slashdot.org] by adding "politics" to your exclusions on dynamic or unchecking it in classic. Keep in mind that will block everything filed in politics both here and abroad [slashdot.org].
Whether you like it or not, nerds are often very opinionated about politics because they know it affects them and therefore it is important to them. It is not a bad thing, it is not a good thing. It's just the way I am and many of my friends are.
CmdrTaco is editing right now, it's his site originally and he prefers to keep discussions diverse daily. If it annoys you just avoid it altogether.
I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world.
Also, not to sound like an elitist but I would posit that high profile court cases in privacy (warrantless wiretapping), patents (re:Bilski) and technology regulations that make it to the supreme court actually do have some bearing on the rest of the world.
A Jewish lesbian chickenhawk? ORLY? (Score:5, Insightful)
That squicking noise you're hearing is political talking heads and late night comedians the length and breadth of the nation literally creaming their pants. Warm gushes of pure joy as their jobs are secured for the next 3 months.
Synopsis of the candidate: the rule of law is like, the foundation of our society and stuff, and should totally apply to absolutely everyone except for Bad People.
Not, let me grab some popcorn before the shrieking begins from both sides. What a perfect compromise candidate - everyone will hate her.
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:1, Insightful)
While it may not affect you now. It will.
These dudes decide MANY of the constitutional things. Such as is the DMCA constitutional. Who is in charge of copyright (the congress). How long is 'too long' for copyright (any time just so long as it is limited).
Then it will get pushed on other countries as being 'congruent'. Which I disagree with.
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:4, Insightful)
I like political news as it pertains to technology (e.g., DMCA, ACTA, George W. Bush's daughter giving him an illegal mix CD for his birthday). I'd rather not block all stories filed under politics to avoid non-tech stories such as this one.
Re:Obama confirms his right-wing credentials (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because, from an American politics standpoint, he's actually a centrist, and that really pisses people off. To quote Stephen Colbert: We're at war, pick a side!
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a politician.
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, but that's not the kind of story I come to Slashdot to read. I'm sure they don't cover this article on Epicurious or Disney.com either, however crucial this individual's appointed role may be.
I was waiting for this article to appear on Slashdot actually. For me, this appointment will inevitably touch on several issues which I would like to hear discussed from a tech perspective.
1. With the FTC and the FCC engaging the issues of network neutrality, are they authorized to wield the power necessary to implement such rules on the telecom industry?
2. Communities are being blurred with respect to the internet. As many laws are written based on community standards, if I were to say something 'obscene', is the item evaluated by your communities standards, my communities standards, or the internet's standards? What is the community?
3. We are seeing more and more functions of electronics hidden behind 'DRM' and the protections of the DMCA, I'm sure we will see more cases regarding that soon.
4. If the United States enters into an agreement to share ALL of the information it collects about UK citizens with the UK, and the UK shares ALL of the information it collects about US citizens with the US, were any wiretap laws broken if neither country spied on its own citizens?
I could go on for hours on the number of topics that can come up before Kagan, and when she now represents 1/9th of any vote on a subject, you can be certain that her opinions and background will matter a great deal to everyone.
Glenn Greenwald (Score:3, Insightful)
Glenn Greenwald has written several articles over the past few weeks detailing what information is available about Kagan.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan [salon.com]
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/10/kagan/ [salon.com]
A good choice, open to different viewpoints (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with this article [volokh.com], that while she may be a liberal candidate, she seems to be very willing to seriously consider alternative viewpoints.
You have to expect a liberal candidate is going to nominate someone with a liberal bent, so to nominate someone who can truly work with diverse viewpoints on an issue is, I think, a pretty thoughtful and intelligent nomination.
As to those wanting this story off Slashdot - just who do you think is going to be involved in the end-game of various copyright and FCC regulation? The largest issues will all end up in the supreme court. Like it or not, the future of what is possible with technology is intertwined with the laws that define what CAN be realistically presented to the market. In an ideal world, wouldn't you love to have her views on copyright extension, and the constitutionality of the ACTA treaty brought up?
You can chose to ignore politics and focus only on technology - but politics is in no way going to ignore YOU.
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's neither exceptional, nor necessarily a bad thing. Judges tend to be pretty far removed from the way most Americans live.
Re:Of course... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is of course not really worth replying to, but I'm feeling masochistic today, so:
- 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."
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:4, Insightful)
This argument comes up all the time.
Since when is News for Nerds, limited to just technology? You might be a "technology" centric nerd, but there are other nerds out there. There are Sci-Fi Fantasy nerds. There are nerds of sciences other than Technology, like Psychology and Sociology...
If you don't like the title, don't click the link.
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's neither exceptional, nor necessarily a bad thing. Judges tend to be pretty far removed from the way most Americans live.
The Supreme Court is about the constitution. Congress is about the way "most American's live."
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Great, block politics from your home page.
I'd rather not block all stories filed under politics to avoid non-tech stories such as this one.
OK, simple solution: don't click 'Read More'. Problem solved.
Re:Gravely Misleading Endorsement (Score:2, Insightful)
That is one seriously weak set of data you chose for supporting your thesis.
Re:Obama confirms his right-wing credentials (Score:5, Insightful)
The Boy In The Bubble (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.
Elena Kagan at fifty would be the youngest judge on the Court.
Justice Stevens is ninety.
Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court cast a very long shadow.
"If confirmed, Kagan will be the fourth woman justice in the history of the Supreme court, the eighth Jewish justice to sit on the court, and the first nominee since 1972 with no prior experience as a judge." Court Nominee Elena Kagan [time.com]
The U.S. Supreme Court is the court of the Constitution:
It has become fashionable for Supreme Court nominees and sometimes the Justices themselves to deflect controversy and play down their own importance by suggesting judicial decision-making involves nothing more than the simple application of clear, undisputed rules. Perhaps with Obama's selection of a woman, we won't be subjected to the baseball metaphor that Chief Justice John Roberts has used, but however the idea is couched, it's pure bunk. There is no rulebook for constitutional interpretation. In trying to give meaning to inherently elastic constitutional concepts like "equal protection of the laws" and due process, and in interpreting federal statutes that are often less than precise, Supreme Court Justices inevitably make subjective value judgments that are colored by their individual views about right and wrong, fair and unfair, wise and unwise.
In voting against confirming John Roberts, then Senator Obama explained that he was opposing the conservative Roberts because of how he would decide the slim "5%" of cases in which the law really is ambiguous and a Justice's values will inevitably shape his or her views. Our law-professor President got the concept right but the percentage wrong. Cases rarely reach the Supreme Court level when the right answer is clear. Most of the time, the Supreme Court hears cases only after lower federal courts have reached conflicting answers on vexing legal questions.
In short, there is a reason that Justice Harry Blackmun, a man whose grandfathers had fought for the Union in the Civil War and who idolized Abraham Lincoln, opposed the states' rights movement and was a passionate liberal voice on issues of race. There is a reason that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a pioneer of the fight for women's legal equality, takes an expansive view of the equal-protection clause. There is a reason that Roberts, who came of age as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, has a voting record that matches the old Reagan agenda. And there is a reason that Clarence Thomas, who grew up resenting the racial preferences that took him up the educational ladder to Yale Law School, reads the Constitution as imposing absolute colorblindness on government actors.
Conscientious judges understand that the law is much more than a reflection of their own personal preferences. But in the hard cases, the political cases, the cases tinged with moral judgment, where constitutional language and history provide no single irrefutable answer, a judge's formative experience matters -- family, geography, mentors and heroes -- they cleave liberal from conservative and ineluctably insinuate themselves into the law.
Four Enduring Myths About Supreme Court Nominees: 3. Supreme Court Justices Are Umpires [time.com]
Re:Of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
risk that we'll end up with a justice incapable of asking a single relevant question during an oral argument for years on end.
I was napping through the first part of your comment. With this last part, you were referring to Thomas, right? the justice who famously decides the case before oral arguments are even made, and thus has no use to ever ask any questions? And you are probably hoping that Kagan will be as astute and informed as he is?
Re:PoliSci... (Score:3, Insightful)
I had a lot of fun demolishing my poli sci instructor's graduate thesis. It was that increasing the speed limits had turned out to vastly increase the number of highway deaths. A little statistics later, I showed him that almost all of the increase he was citing was in areas where the speed limits had not in fact increased (urban areas), and that most urban areas had no change outside the margins of error. PoliSci is not particularly rigorous, I find.
I am curious in what way the tea parties are "a bunch of garbage." It would seem to me that "stop expanding the Federal government, cut the programs that don't work, balance the budget, and leave us alone" is a reasonable position.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! (Score:3, Insightful)
Posting the names and addresses of those who oppose them is a common tactic of Democratic Party affiliated organizations.
Citation needed. Preferably one that matches in offensiveness, say, Republican-affiliated sites that list the names and addresses of abortion doctors and make 'wanted' posters with targets superimposed on their features.
Most Americans... (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress is about the way "most American's live."
Most Americans are apparently lawyers and/or successful businessmen, then.
Re:PoliSci... (Score:1, Insightful)
Tea Party - well, where is their "stop expanding the Federal Government" stance? They didn't whine about it under Bush's two terms, they just suddenly appear once a black president takes power, would they have appeared under a McCain/Palin administration? Doubtful.
I'm looking at their "contract" linked off Wikipedia.
Identify constitutionality of every new law - that's for the Courts to do, and it's a Ron Paulian thing, I'm not a fan of him or his politics, anti-semites rub me the wrong way.
Reject emissions trading: I don't have a dog in that fight
Demand a balanced federal budget: Sure, its been a goal for at least 30 years
Simplify the tax system: Adopt a single-rate tax system; eliminate the internal revenue code and replace it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words. - Umm thats kind of specific, but I like the idea of a simple tax code
Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: - umm, no, Jesus, the Constitution says nothing about a space program or GPS, would those be done away with?
Limit annual growth in federal spending: - sure, but what happens in case of war, natural disaster? Tough luck? That would have made WW2 untenable
Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Too specific
Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: - drill baby drill and no development of alternative energy sources, cause its not in the Constitution!
Reduce Earmarks: That'll wreck the rural states, where the conservatives are from, good work guys
Reduce Taxes: Sure
To me, a Bush and McCain voter, the teabaggers seem too white, too fringy astroturfy and too incoherent.
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not about their "stance". It's about their qualifications. Period.
It's only in the last twenty-five years with the televising of the confirmation hearings that senators have decided to put on a clown show for political purposes. It doesn't matter what the nominee's "stance" on abortion, on religion, or on whether or not they believe a corporation has the same civil rights as a human being, except to the 24-hour news cycle and the culture of hysteria that requires them to shit on the floor if a liberal gets nominated.
In a way, I hope that the Republicans in the Senate decide to filibuster Kagen. This way, we can finally do away with the filibuster for SCOTUS confirmations, which is not constitutional. The GOP had it right about the "nuclear option" (aka "the Constitutional option). The Senate has become an institution that requires super-majorities for every goddamn thing, and it wasn't meant to be that way. Every single administration can't even get people into important appointed posts because they have to play the 60-vote game. So, important undersecretary jobs and federal court appointments go unfilled.
The most interesting aspect of the coming hearings on Kagan is going to be how the GOP can call her a "lesbian" without actually using the word. You're going to hear a lot more questions about "teh Gay" in these hearings than for any other justice in history. They're going to have to figure out how to throw red meat to their "base" without actually calling her a carpet-muncher and then giggling like schoolboys. Since Lyndsay Graham is on the judicial committee, it's going to be especially interesting for him to try to insinuate homosexuality, since he's had more rusty trombones than a high-school band.
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, the majority of Americans disagree with you about that. How's it feel to be a powerless minority? What you call damage, real Americans call progress. In fact, most of us think he hasn't done enough. He's too centrist, we all wish he was a real socialist, but he's not. Frankly, I don't understand why the right wing hates him, he's practically a clone of Ronald Reagan, who, by the by, is Obama's stated favorite president. Senile Ronald freaking Reagan, our 'socialist' president's favorite. Doesn't that beat all? Bet you never heard that, listening to the delusional right wing echo chamber.
Okay, I lied. I do know why the right wing hates him. To the right wing, it doesn't matter what Obama really is. He's the enemy, and he must fail for them to win. Thus, the constant stream of lies. But real lefties like myself are even more disappointed in the man than you probably are. Repealed DADT yet? No. Stopped torture? No. Prosecuted anyone in the Bush admin for war crimes? Are you fucking joking? Gotten out of Iraq? No. Socialized health care? Hah! Not even close. Reined in Wall Street? Hardly. Face it, Obama is a center right corporatist, about as far as you can get from a socialist, despite what the right claims.
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:3, Insightful)
This article on stare decisis [wikipedia.org] talks about the problem at length, since courts generally favor regularity over conformity with the original meaning of the law. Stare decisis is not strictly limited to legal precedent, either-- judges are often split about whether the common law aspects of our legal system are important, since our system is derived from the English common law system. Regardless, an understanding of history, and the way people live now, is essential to the correct interpretation of a law.
If an academic has the knowledge required to do the job, I don't have any problems with this, particularly if the focus of that person's academic career has been the law. Even if you ARE a strict Constitutionalist, wouldn't you want someone who has a deep understanding of the law rather than a person who has grown jaded over the years by seeing the repeated application of the murkier parts of law? I would.
Re:This woman is evil. (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting case [scotuswiki.com].
Personally, I would be against the prosecutorial immunity she's arguing to maintain; but she's not really trying to create some new right because of a personal ideology. She's arguing on behalf of the current administration to maintain a principle that is in place to allow prosecutors to be dilligent in their pursuit of criminals. There are other safeguards in place for prosecutors who cross the line (that are in the actual amicus but not the article you referenced), and although this case was settled before a decision - the SCOTUS gave no strong indication that they disagreed with her side enough to destroy prosecutorial immunity.
Seems like she's doing her job. I wouldn't call her "evil" because of it.
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh noes! I was called out for pointing out by way of example what conservatives do, telling other Americans they aren't 'real.' Yes, that makes me just like them, to the satire impaired.
I'm not a 'winger' of any stripe. I'm a fucking anarcho-socialist, capice? I voted for Obama as the (far) lesser of two evils. You assholes who try to equate the left and right wings are being totally disingenuous, and it isn't because you are in any way independent. From what I've witnessed, you're all disenchanted Bush Republicans who have gone over to the batshit crazy tea party. You have no defense for what your party has done, so you falsely claim that both major parties are identical. Not true. Democrats are influenced by big money and special interests. Republicans are owned by them, lock, stock and barrel.
I recognize that face (Score:1, Insightful)
You can't fool me, that's John Lovitz in drag!
Re:PoliSci... (Score:2, Insightful)
RE - Citation needed - go google for yourself.
Rural states, you know, the "fly over" or "red states" generally get more earmarks/pork than urban states. You know, things like the Bridge(s) to Nowhere that the darling of the Teabaggers, Sarah Palin, supported.
Note - I'm from a Red State (South Dakota) and fully support Senators and Congresscritters getting as much for their state or district as they can.
As for "auditing for Constitutionality", again, Jesus, its a slippery slope to a nightmare.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - No Air Force in there, no Marine Corps, so both are unconstitutional.
Therefore, the GPS isn't constitutional. Oh and 911, it's not in the constitution either.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
TSA, wiretaps, police wires, body wires, those aren't "constitutional". Nor is the EPA, lets throw it all out!
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:4, Insightful)
You've got some "clairvoyance" there to comfortably map out her entire SCOTUS career when she still has to make it through both the confirmation process and said career if she does get confirmed. It's completely reasonable to be wary of any incoming nomination to the most powerful court of the land. It's absolutely unreasonable to respond to a measured statement like "she might have a secret agenda but it's more likely she's just not very biased about stuff" with "Are really that naive or are you just a shill"? You sound like quite the shill yourself (I'm ignoring the qualifier of being paid of in some way since you are ignoring it too), essentially touting the Conservative talking points as if because Obama nominates her she is going to assume every single position that you personally disagree with, because she's obviously one of "them" if Obama nominated her.
I don't like her nomination, I personally don't think that replacing the liberal Stephens with the apparently executive-branch-friendly Kagan is necessarily the best way to go. But it takes a special kind of ignoramus to start yelling that the sky is falling because all you need to know about her you learned when you discovered what a dirty word "Progressive" is in your mind. Slap that label on her, it's obviously important to you to show other people how distasteful it is. The truth of the matter is that she's not expressed many (if any) really Progressive ideas so most of your post is vapid hot-air complaining at length about what every Conservative has been saying about every Liberal in recent history.
Clarence Thomas (Score:3, Insightful)
Good thing we've got Clarence Thomas on the Court. He's asked a handful of questions in his whole Court career, even though the entire Court procedure is based on justices asking questions during the arguing of cases before them. He's the worst justice of your lifetime, and he's your gold standard.
Along with Roberts. Evidently, the more extreme Republican they are, the more you like them. Hardly an example of "real world" connectedness.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)