This is interesting:
Yet as a young writer for The Princetonian, the student newspaper at Princeton, Ms. Kagan offered clear insight into her worldview. She had spent the summer of 1980 working to elect a liberal Democrat, Liz Holtzman, to the Senate. On Election Night, she drowned her sorrow in vodka and tonic as Ronald Reagan took the White House and Ms. Holtzman lost to “an ultraconservative machine politician,” she wrote, named Alfonse D’Amato.
“Where I grew up — on Manhattan’s Upper West Side — nobody ever admitted to voting for Republicans,” Ms. Kagan wrote, in a kind of Democrat’s lament. She described the Manhattan of her childhood, where those who won office were “real Democrats — not the closet Republicans that one sees so often these days but men and women committed to liberal principles and motivated by the ideal of an affirmative and compassionate government.”
She also plays poker and has been known to smoke cigars.
It’s also interesting that Obama has chosen two women for the Supreme Court, both of whom grew up in New York City, went to Princeton for undergraduate work and Harvard for their law degree. Those last two life experiences are shared by Michelle Obama.
I loved that NYT bio. Quite entertaining. I don’t know her, but I sorta like her now. Before, I was agnostic about the potential justices. Except, Koh seems really smart during conf. hearing for State Dept and seems pleasant. He has written a lot though not as definitive as a longtime Judge. Garland seemed a bit Centrist.
I don’t care about cigars and poker. i care about her views on indefinite detention and executive authority.
.
or a question?
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Me either. As Obama has stubbornly clung to the Bush Administration view on Executive Authority and his Justice Department chisels away at Miranda, many of my reasons for excitement at the prospect of an Obama Administration hammering away at a lot of the Bush excesses have faded with the realization that civil liberties and the Constitution do not seem high on their list of priorities.
Makes all those years of bitching to my Republican friends about the tyranny of the Bush gang and their assault on the rule of law look pretty foolish. Needless to say, they are quite amused.
as long as you keep complaining, you’re being consistent, which is more than you can say for your republican friends.
Our “most progressive president ever” (is that the term, or is it “since FDR”?) certainly has pretty authoritarian views on civil liberties, right to due process, right to a lawyer, and unitary executive.
Funny ideas about the environment too. and wow, that health care bill: who knew the corporatist “solution” was the best “the moost progressive” president with massive majorities could accomplish.
Almost makes you think.. but no, couldn’t be. Politicians never misrepresent their views when campaigning.
Like many people, I’ve been around the political block long enough to understand that there is often a certain disconnect between the world of campaigning and the real world of governance. But when it comes to things like basic legal rights which we have enjoyed for centuries and have taken seriously enough to etch into the granite of government buildings and town squares around the country and teach to our children in public schools, I get a little pissed off. Pissed off that these same rights seem to be so easily compromised, traded away or dismissed by a President who has steadfastly claimed to object to this assault on the core values of this nation which we have suffered through for most of the last decade. I can only surmise that this probably gives Dick Cheney some kind of sick and morbid pleasure.
…civil liberties and the Constitution do not seem high on their list of priorities.
sadly true. and the selection of kagan continues that trend. as greenwald wrote today:
the confirmation hearing should be very interesting, although l think it’s a foregone conclusion that she’ll be confirmed.
l think this gambit is one hell of a gamble given the current makeup of the scotus.
l am not impressed.
…ssssooooo….. You’re thinking MO might be as good a choice for the SCOTUS as Kagan?
..Makes me remember Bobby Kennedy as AG under brother Jack…
Personally I can’t shake the feeling Kagan is going to be crucified by the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee (or, they’ll try their level best to crucify her). Unlike Sotomayor, Kagan has an absence of bench experience that will probably be brought up as a reason to disapprove, and I won’t even go into gender, identity or politics…..
Abe Fortas’ wife also used to smoke cigars.
You could look it up.
But will she oppose the further rape and murder of Miranda rights proposed by Eric Holder for Obama?
that 4 of the 9 Justices would be from NYC.
And diversely from NYC:
. Kagan from Manhattan
. Sotomayor from Da Bronx
. RB Ginsburg from Brooklyn
. Tony Scalia from Queens
leaving only Staten Island unrepresented on the Bench …
I’m glad Obama is increasing the number of the women on the court. But I do wish he would increase the geographic, religious and alma mater diversity of the court.
No protestants. No judges who did not attend Harvard or Yale.
My only concern is if she’s pro-choice. I think after Stupak, it would be nice to get a boost in the direction of pro-choice rights.
I don’t like that this administration thinks that all the talent in the US is in the Ivy League. Someone at orange joked that to them “diversity” means splitting appointments between Harvard Law and Yale Law.
“She also plays poker and has been known to smoke cigars.”
Almost like saying;
“She seems like she would be nice to have a beer with.”
Where have we heard that before, and what were the results?
nalbar
Peter Bienart captures my uneasiness with Kagan’s decision to ban military recruitment at Harvard. It’s the reason I was one of the few who didn’t think the President would pick her. It’s not something that can ever be explained to the American public satisfactorily. And it rightfully offends American sensibilities that our military recruiters would be banned anywhere in the United States, but it also offends a basic sense of fairness. Why was the military’s discrimination against gays her dividing line? Why didn’t she ban companies found guilty of recent racial discrimination? Gender discrimination? Union busting? Human rights violations?
Why such an obviously self-serving decision that wasn’t uniform?
I have a feeling this is going to offend many Americans. I don’t understand why the White House would take a risk like this on someone that’s not an inspirational pick despite the White House talking points (unless she comes out).
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-10/the-problem-with-elena-kagan/?cid=hp:mainp
romo2#
Especially, the post-911 miltary worshiping public.
because there is no riper place to recruit people into the US military than among the hyperachievers in Harvard’s Law School. Have they ever successfully recruited even one member of that school in the entire history of our country? Maybe during World War Two.
Sotomayor went to Yale Law School.