Obama pulls another one.. Supreme booboo
Obama nominates "friend" from Harvard to the open Supreme court seat.
This lady has never been a judge, and nobody knows her views on anything. Except some theorize she may be left of center. This is looking like another Obamacare style ramrod decision.
Quote: "Imagine a candidate for the U.S. Senate who has never taken a public stand on almost any policy issue. Imagine that her campaign consists of asking people for their support because, according to friends and colleagues, the candidate is smart, fair, and good to others. When her friends are asked what her views are on various political matters, they reply that they don't know-but that they're confident she'd make an excellent senator.
This bizarre hypothetical closely resembles the actual campaign to put Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court. [[The White House will reportedly announce her nomination on Monday.) Of course, a Supreme Court justice is not a conventional politician in the way a senator is, but being a justice involves making often controversial judgments about the law, and these judgments are unavoidably political.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to know what Kagan's views are on most political issues, nor does anyone know what she believes about how judges ought to interpret the Constitution, how much deference courts should give to Congress and state legislatures, and what role the judiciary should play in checking the powers of the executive branch. We don't know because she hasn't told us. Indeed, Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and publisher of SCOTUSblog, describes Kagan as "extraordinarily-almost artistically-careful. I don't know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...ry&tag=related
Kagan attacks free speech
Quote:
Detroitej72: "Your pretty naive if you think only Democratic Presidents nominate people who donate to their party's candidates? I would bet that every presidential nominee for the S.C. had contributions to that party's candidates. Presidents nominate people who they feel are close to their ideology."
Did I say that I thought only Democratic Presidents nominate people who donate to their party's candidates or did you imagine I said it?
Now, however, I have a good reason to oppose Ms. Kagan assuming these quotes are correct.
"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." -Elena Kagan
Besides ignoring the 1st Amendment, Ms. Kagan seems to believe in expanding the power of the President at the expense of Congress.
WND found that in his academic paper, Blustein quoted Kagan, formerly a senior member of President Clinton's White House domestic policy staff, asserting, "[We live today in an era of presidential administration," an assertion that, she acknowledged, might be "jarring" or "puzzling" to some.
Kagan argued, "Presidential control of administration, in critical respects, expanded dramatically during the Clinton years, making the regulatory activity of the executive branch agencies more and more an extension of the president's own policy and political agenda."
Kagan herself, writing in the Harvard Law Review in 2001, argued that an increased presidential role in regulation "both satisfies legal requirements and promotes the values of administrative accountability and effectiveness."