Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Stevens Retiring: Now is the summer of our discontent
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6277

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I actually like that she hasn't been a judge. I think we need more diversity of background with respect to the law (as an institution), otherwise things become increasingly philosophically myopic over time.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5123
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nathan wrote:
I haven't heard enough yet to form a proper opinion, and from the sounds of it may not until she gets some rulings under her belt. That said, Greenwald isn't exactly bullish on her civil rights/executive authority positions... so let's hope that turns out to be a communist herring.


SCOTUSBlog suggested that Greenwald doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground:
Quote:
Some have criticized Elena Kagan for supposedly favoring a strong view of executive power. They equate her views with support for the Bush Administration’s policies related to the “war on terror.” Generally speaking, these critics very significantly misunderstand what Kagan has written.

Kagan’s only significant discussion of the issue of executive power comes in her article Presidential Administration, published in 2001 in the Harvard Law Review. The article has nothing to do with the questions of executive power that are implicated by the Bush policies – for example, power in times of war and in foreign affairs. It is instead concerned with the President’s power in the administrative context – i.e., the President’s ability to control executive branch and independent agencies. That kind of power is concerned with, for example, who controls the vast collection of federal agencies as they respond to the Gulf oil spill and the economic crisis.


Ok, So maybe I'm suggesting that about Greenwald. It doesn't mean it's not true.
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10421
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I'm not so certain she's the "change candidate"... she's East Coast Ivy League and has a resume almost identical to John Roberts (and most of the rest of the Justices). But, hey, she's worked in government...
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6277

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mizike wrote:
Ok, So maybe I'm suggesting that about Greenwald. It doesn't mean it's not true.

Greenwald actually wrote:
The only other real glimpse into Kagan's judicial philosophy and views of executive power came in a June, 2001 Harvard Law Review article (.pdf), in which she defended Bill Clinton's then-unprecedented attempt to control administrative agencies by expanding a variety of tools of presidential power that were originally created by the Reagan administration (some of which Kagan helped build while working in the Clinton White House), all as a means of overcoming a GOP-controlled Congress. This view that it is the President rather than Congress with primary control over administrative agencies became known, before it was distorted by the Bush era, as the theory of the "unitary executive." I don't want to over-simplify this issue or draw too much importance from it; what Kagan was defending back then was many universes away from what Bush/Cheney ended up doing, and her defense of Clinton's theories of administrative power was nuanced, complex and explicitly cognizant of the Constitutional questions they might raise.


His main critique, actually, is her utter silence during the vast overreaches of the Bush years - during which time her liberal peers were standing up and shouting "holy shit guys, this here's some bad behavior for a nation of laws!"
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So here's a bit of trivia - Kagan being confirmed would give us the first time the SCOTUS has had no Protestants. Kagan would bring the court to six Catholics and three Jews.
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group