Author Topic: *MSM BLACKOUT: Elena Kagan has been a paid advisor for Goldman Sachs for years!  (Read 46448 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline America2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,299
  • Romans 10:9-10 King James Version
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100510/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticsjusticecourtobama_20100510024833

Obama picks Kagan as next US Supreme Court justice: media

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama has chosen US Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the next US Supreme Court justice, NBC TV reported.

If confirmed by the White House and later by the US Senate, Kagan will replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Stevens, 90, announced his decision to retire in April.

Kagan's appointment would mark the culmination of a meteoric rise for the former Harvard law professor, who is a close ally of Obama and was only sworn in in March 2009 as the first female solicitor general.

At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder praised Kagan's "intelligence, experience and commitment to the rule of law."

In some ways, Kagan's is a surprise appointment, as Kagan has spent much of her time in academia teaching the law, rather than arguing cases on the courtroom floor.

Her lack of courtroom experience has been somewhat mitigated over the past 14 months in her role defending the government's position on cases before the Supreme Court.

Kagan would be only the fourth woman after Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor to sit on the nation's top court.

Some legal lobby groups had called on Obama to chose someone from outside the judiciary, who might be more in touch than the aspirations of ordinary people, than a candidate who spent years in the legal profession.

A president can put a stamp on American life for years after leaving office with the lifetime appointment of a Supreme Court justice.

Stevens, 90, joined the bench amid the traumatic fallout of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, and will step down after 34 years, with bitter partisanship once again tearing at the fabric of American politics.

Yet his departure announced last month, is unlikely to change the current court's conservative leaning.


Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2010, 10:03:05 pm »
Basically, both int he courts and academia, she has been passed on/inserted despite her lack of direct experience.  She is a plant, like Soetoro himself, and she is a staunch supporter of state power.  Don't be deceived.

Online jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,753
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2010, 10:21:21 pm »
A buddy of Obama's at University of Chicago - Oh, I guess that qualifies her!   :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

Is Elena Kagan the Best Legal Mind in the United States for the Supreme Court Bench?
http://www.opednews.com/a/110176?show=votes#allcomments
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2010, 10:32:50 pm »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

  She would also be the eighth Jewish justice and the third on the current bench.



  I'm not picking on Jews but The Supreme Court is sure going to look pretty Jewish---3 out of 9.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline America2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,299
  • Romans 10:9-10 King James Version
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2010, 10:35:40 pm »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

  She would also be the eighth Jewish justice and the third on the current bench.



  I'm not picking on Jews but The Supreme Court is sure going to look pretty Jewish---3 out of 9.

Don't we also have 6 Roman Catholics on the bench? So would that make 6 RCCs, and 3 Jewish? Either way, the balance isn't very good.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2010, 10:39:08 pm »
Don't we also have 6 Roman Catholics on the bench? So would that make 6 RCCs, and 3 Jewish? Either way, the balance isn't very good.

  Interesting.  I didn't know we had so many Catholics on The Supreme Court.  If they were real Catholics, they would overturn Roe v Wade.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2010, 10:47:43 pm »
Quote
Is Elena Kagan the Best Legal Mind in the United States for the Supreme Court Bench?

I would say she isn't.  It depends what they mean by best legal mind.  I have always thought that a Supreme Court judge has a special allegiance to the president that nominated them.  Thus Soetoro can easily manipulate Sotomyer and Kagan if she is selected by Congress.

A friend of mine knows the best legal mind in America.  He is the best personal injury lawyer in America and his name is Don Beattie.  He practices out of DM, Iowa.  But he would make a terrible Supreme Court judge because he doesn't compromise.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline America2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,299
  • Romans 10:9-10 King James Version
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2010, 10:47:58 pm »
  Interesting.  I didn't know we had so many Catholics on The Supreme Court.  If they were real Catholics, they would overturn Roe v Wade.

Nah-it's really more of a facade, IMHO. If anything, they want to have a pretty a face as possible to lure people into their cult. At abortion clinics, it seems like most of the protestors there are Catholics, sadly. Ultimately, it's as if the Vatican is pulling the strings.

Online jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,753
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2010, 10:48:12 pm »
Justices Bios:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

And yes, the makeup of the court is extremely biased and this is another problem we have!


Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2010, 10:51:48 pm »


  These judges are getting HEAVIER AND HEAVIER.  Makes me wonder if they have a minimum weight requirement.  At least , because of health reasons, they won't serve until they're 90.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Online jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,753
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2010, 10:53:06 pm »
The most disturbing part about Kagan is that I would bet a huge amount that she is a cousin to Robert Kagan and Frederick Kagan and Donald Kagan, their NEOCON FATHER. Before reading the oped article I posted above, this was my first thought when I saw the  name KAGAN. If they are related, this is nothing but more "putting friends in high places" and it's not based on her intellect.   >:(

The people selected for the Supreme Court should be a brillant legal mind, as the first qualification, and nothing else! Then look at other factors!

Read more about the NEOCON KAGAN CLAN, who helped influence the Iraq War (Frederick) and the PNAC ideology:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=242

Neocon Weekly Standard endorses her (of course they do):
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/elena_kagan_the_weekly_standar.html?wprss=right-now

More associations:
http://groups.google.co.bw/group/sci.space.station/browse_thread/thread/5655cb16ba3717da
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline America2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,299
  • Romans 10:9-10 King James Version
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2010, 11:10:23 pm »

  These judges are getting HEAVIER AND HEAVIER.  Makes me wonder if they have a minimum weight requirement.  At least , because of health reasons, they won't serve until they're 90.

Beh-they're in-taking too much HFCS.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2010, 11:12:14 pm »

  Thanks jofortruth.  She'll be working for the closet neocon Soetoro.  Our government is so screwed up and so fraternal--it's not what you know but who you know.  It's a wonder it works at all.  Of course it barely does.  OUR GOVERNMENT IS MOSTLY RUN BY OLIGARCHS who are after our freedoms.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2010, 11:15:37 pm »
Beh-they're in-taking too much HFCS.

  This is true.  As you know it's killing us all.  It is so sad to go to a 7-11 and see a young kid get a Double Big Gulp--64 ounces, a.k.a. a half a gallon of HFCS.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline America2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,299
  • Romans 10:9-10 King James Version
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2010, 11:20:09 pm »
 Thanks jofortruth.  She'll be working for the closet neocon Soetoro.  Our government is so screwed up and so fraternal--it's not what you know but who you know.  It's a wonder it works at all.  Of course it barely does.  OUR GOVERNMENT IS MOSTLY RUN BY OLIGARCHS who are after our freedoms.

That's the problem - the American public just doesn't see this - I mean even when I was "asleep" myself, in just about every election, candidates from both parties(save the likes of Ron Paul et al) had some wickedness about them, but en yet, the MSM would give them the most attention, while the honest and genuine candidates wouldn't get squat.

The 2000 election was a prime example - both Bush Jr and Gore were rotten, but nonetheless the line was drawn, and you had no choice but take a side of "the lesser evils". Honestly - I really don't think Christians who voted and supported Bush really thought he was a God-fearing man, it was really more that they feared the Democrats more, and just stuck their heads in the sand from there. I would have done the same thing, to be quite honest.

Of course, it doesn't help too if one really thinks FOX and CNN are "trusted" news sources. The election coverages are just jokes - they're bring in panels of "conservatives" and "liberals", and they make vain repititions from hours on end.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2010, 11:29:15 pm »
That's the problem - the American public just doesn't see this - I mean even when I was "asleep" myself, in just about every election, candidates from both parties(save the likes of Ron Paul et al) had some wickedness about them, but en yet, the MSM would give them the most attention, while the honest and genuine candidates wouldn't get squat.

The 2000 election was a prime example - both Bush Jr and Gore were rotten, but nonetheless the line was drawn, and you had no choice but take a side of "the lesser evils". Honestly - I really don't think Christians who voted and supported Bush really thought he was a God-fearing man, it was really more that they feared the Democrats more, and just stuck their heads in the sand from there. I would have done the same thing, to be quite honest.

Of course, it doesn't help too if one really thinks FOX and CNN are "trusted" news sources. The election coverages are just jokes - they're bring in panels of "conservatives" and "liberals", and they make vain repititions from hours on end.

  It truly is ONE PARTY OF IDIOTS. Our entire family voted for Ron Paul.  We only wished he was 60 instead of in his 70's.  Somebody on this forum thought we were winning the infowar but I say not yet.  The TV's are still occupying too much of people's free time.  Most of them are still Zombies.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline America2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,299
  • Romans 10:9-10 King James Version
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2010, 11:35:44 pm »
  It truly is ONE PARTY OF IDIOTS. Our entire family voted for Ron Paul.  We only wished he was 60 instead of in his 70's.  Somebody on this forum thought we were winning the infowar but I say not yet.  The TV's are still occupying too much of people's free time.  Most of them are still Zombies.

My late grandmother, who was a lifelong Republican voter, ended up voting for Gore in 2000 b/c he did NOT like Cheney. And that says quite a bit right there. She died months before 9/11, but if she had lived at least a couple of more years, she probably would be telling everyone, "See? I told you so". Of course, a Gore admin, for obvious reasons, wouldn't have been any better.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2010, 04:48:56 am »
Kagan is huge supporter of the first amendment, probably the biggest supporter in 50 years of nominees, but she also is a big supporter of executive powers.

she is a closet lesbian which has already caused some situations with the white house blasting CBS for outing her. we also are aware of how gay blackmail has affected people like lindsey graham. hopefully since cbs outed her, this is no longer a concern.

also she has never been a judge.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2010, 05:00:41 am »
she also is a big supporter of executive powers.


also she has never been a judge.
These are my two biggest problems with her.  I couldn't give a damn about her sexual preference.

As for the first ammendment, why should anybody be against it?

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2010, 05:06:26 am »
frmone year ago, looks like she will help demolish Miranda:

Obama's Solicitor General pushes to limit suspects' rights
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/04/obamas-solicitor-general-pushes-limit-to-suspects-rights/


President Barack Obama's Department of Justice has asked the Supreme Court to consider overturning a 1986 ruling that disallows a police interrogation if the suspect is not in the presence of his or her legal counsel, even if the suspect later agrees to speak to the police without an attorney.

In other words, for you progressives and libertarians: Bad News ahead.

From the Associated Press:

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

Anything police learn through such questioning cannot be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.


The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

The Michigan Messenger, which scooped the hell out of the Associated Press on this story, has much more:

The current case, Montejo v Louisiana, seeks to overturn the 1986 Michigan v Jackson ruling that established the rule that if someone accused of a crime has an attorney or has requested the appointment of an attorney by the court, police may not question them without that attorney being present even if the accused agrees to waive the right to have their attorney present during that particular session of questioning. Under Jackson, any waiver of that right is presumed to be invalid because it was not made with the advice of counsel.

The Sixth Amendment protects the right of those accused of crimes to a speedy trial, to confront the witnesses against them and to be represented by counsel. The government’s brief argues that the Jackson rule is unnecessary because the purpose of the Sixth Amendment was merely to “protect the adversary process” in a criminal trial. Questioning a defendant without counsel present, the government asserts, does not undermine the adversary process because the defendant can choose on his own to talk to the police and answer their questions.

The Jackson ruling established the notion that once a defendant asserts their right to be represented by an attorney, they are requesting the attorney’s participation “at every critical stage of the prosecution.” Interestingly, the government’s brief recognizes that, just as in the Miranda case that requires the police to inform the accused of the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning, the purpose of such a rule is to “prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving” their previously asserted rights.

And finally, from the actual brief (PDF link) the Soliciter General filed with the Supreme Court:

Although the Sixth Amendment affords criminal defendants a right to counsel at certain critical pre-trial stages, the Amendment should not prevent a criminal defendant from waiving that right and answering questions from police following assertion of that right at arraignment. Jackson serves no real purpose and fits poorly with this Court’s recent precedent; although the decision only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions, even that cost outweighs the decision’s meager benefits.

Any lawyers reading out there who'd care to give an analysis on what exactly this could mean?

-- Stephen C. Webster
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2010, 05:08:22 am »
She also helped Obama to block prisoner abuse photos, in other words granting executive proivelege unconstitutionally:

Obama petitions high court against releasing prisoner abuse photos
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/10/obama-petitions-high-court-against-releasing-prisoner-abuse-photos-2/
By Stephen C. Webster Published: August 10, 2009


Lawyers for President Barack Obama’s administration have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the release of photos showing prisoner abuse by US soldiers in Iraq.

In the petition, President Obama writes, “there are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm’s way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. It is my judgment … that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion and allow our enemies to paint United States troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, thereby endangering them in theaters of war.”

The president previously supported disclosure of the abuse photos, before reversing his position in May after consulting with military brass.

Obama’s sentiments were echoed by Department of Justice attorneys.

“The president of the United States and the nation’s highest-ranking military officers responsible for ongoing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have determined that disclosure by the government of the photographs… would pose a significant risk to the lives and physical safety of American military and civilian personnel by inciting violence targeting those personnel,” administration lawyers said.

The court’s nine justices, including newly-confirmed Justice Sonia Sotomayor, will decide in coming months whether to take up the petition.

This spring, a lower court granted a request by the American Civil Liberties Union, a US rights group, that the photographs be made public and ordered the Defense Department to make them available by the end of May. But on May 13, Obama said he had decided to appeal the decision and seek court approval to block the release of the photos, fearing that their release could stir anti-American sentiment and endanger US troops.

“This is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action,” Obama said in May, according to MSNBC. “In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

The photographs, according to details included in the brief filed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, depict various humiliating and abusive tactics being used against prisoners who are often naked and hooded.

Kagan’s filing also notes that the abuse was investigated and “three of the six investigations led to criminal charges and in two of those cases, the accused were found guilty and punished.”

The brief also cites the opinions of various senior military officials with experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, who warn that the release of the photos would endanger US troops.

ABC News reporter Jake Tapper added:

The legal brief filed today argues that the previous appeals court ruled that the Freedom of Information Act “mandates the public disclosure of such photographs—regardless of the risk to American lives —because FOIA Exemption 7(F) requires the government to ‘identify at least one individual with reasonable specificity’ and show that disclosure ‘could reasonably be expected to endanger that individual.’”

That holding, the Obama administration argues, “is inconsistent with the text of Exemption 7(F), which broadly encompasses danger to ‘any individual,’ with no suggestion of the court’s extra-textual requirement of victim specificity.” The history of drafting that exemption “underscores that conclusion,” the brief argues. “Congress did not mean for public disclosure of agency records to trump the life and physical safety of individuals—particularly in a case such as this, in which the government has already made public the underlying investigative reports revealing all relevant allegations of wrongdoing and the associated investigative conclusions.”

The ACLU filing in the case notes that lower courts have rejected the argument that the photos can be blocked because of the potential backlash against US forces their release might prompt.

“These photos would provide a visual proof that prisoner abuse by US personnel was not aberrational, but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib,” the ACLU said.

“As disturbing these photos may be, it is critical that the American people know the full truth about the abuse that occurred in their name.”

The complete Supreme Court petition may be read here (PDF link).
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2010, 05:08:53 am »
here is her 1st amendment stand:

Closet SCOTUS Nominee includes government motives as factor in 1st Amend cases
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=167224.0

Obama petitions high court against releasing prisoner abuse photos
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/10/obama-petitions-high-court-against-releasing-prisoner-abuse-photos-2/
By Stephen C. Webster Published: August 10, 2009


Lawyers for President Barack Obama’s administration have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the release of photos showing prisoner abuse by US soldiers in Iraq.

In the petition, President Obama writes, “there are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm’s way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. It is my judgment … that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion and allow our enemies to paint United States troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, thereby endangering them in theaters of war.”

The president previously supported disclosure of the abuse photos, before reversing his position in May after consulting with military brass.

Obama’s sentiments were echoed by Department of Justice attorneys.

“The president of the United States and the nation’s highest-ranking military officers responsible for ongoing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have determined that disclosure by the government of the photographs… would pose a significant risk to the lives and physical safety of American military and civilian personnel by inciting violence targeting those personnel,” administration lawyers said.

The court’s nine justices, including newly-confirmed Justice Sonia Sotomayor, will decide in coming months whether to take up the petition.

This spring, a lower court granted a request by the American Civil Liberties Union, a US rights group, that the photographs be made public and ordered the Defense Department to make them available by the end of May. But on May 13, Obama said he had decided to appeal the decision and seek court approval to block the release of the photos, fearing that their release could stir anti-American sentiment and endanger US troops.

“This is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action,” Obama said in May, according to MSNBC. “In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

The photographs, according to details included in the brief filed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, depict various humiliating and abusive tactics being used against prisoners who are often naked and hooded.

Kagan’s filing also notes that the abuse was investigated and “three of the six investigations led to criminal charges and in two of those cases, the accused were found guilty and punished.”

The brief also cites the opinions of various senior military officials with experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, who warn that the release of the photos would endanger US troops.

ABC News reporter Jake Tapper added:

The legal brief filed today argues that the previous appeals court ruled that the Freedom of Information Act “mandates the public disclosure of such photographs—regardless of the risk to American lives —because FOIA Exemption 7(F) requires the government to ‘identify at least one individual with reasonable specificity’ and show that disclosure ‘could reasonably be expected to endanger that individual.’”

That holding, the Obama administration argues, “is inconsistent with the text of Exemption 7(F), which broadly encompasses danger to ‘any individual,’ with no suggestion of the court’s extra-textual requirement of victim specificity.” The history of drafting that exemption “underscores that conclusion,” the brief argues. “Congress did not mean for public disclosure of agency records to trump the life and physical safety of individuals—particularly in a case such as this, in which the government has already made public the underlying investigative reports revealing all relevant allegations of wrongdoing and the associated investigative conclusions.”

The ACLU filing in the case notes that lower courts have rejected the argument that the photos can be blocked because of the potential backlash against US forces their release might prompt.

“These photos would provide a visual proof that prisoner abuse by US personnel was not aberrational, but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib,” the ACLU said.

“As disturbing these photos may be, it is critical that the American people know the full truth about the abuse that occurred in their name.”

The complete Supreme Court petition may be read here (PDF link).
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Online jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,753
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Kagan supported detaining terror suspects indefinitely without trial
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0510/kagan-supported-detaining-terror-suspects-indefinitely-trial/
By John Byrne
Monday, May 10th, 2010 -- 9:23 am


Elena Kagan, President Obama's selection for the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, says she supports holding terror suspects without trial -- indefinitely, in some cases.

Questioned as to whether she'd support the detention of al Qaeda suspects without access to US laws -- or even a trial to prove their guilt -- Kagan told Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last year she backed the Obama Administration's policy of "indefinite detention."

Graham asked Kagan whether she'd apply battlefield law instead of criminal law if a suspect were believed to be financing al Qaeda.

"I do," Kagan said.

Under military law, Graham noted that prisoners can be held without trial in an effort to keep them from returning to the "battlefield."
Story continues below...

Kagan's response went farther than previous Administrations' claims; she maintained that the battlefield can apply to terror suspects caught outside traditional war zones (agreeing with Graham, for example, that an alleged al Qaeda financier detained in the Philippines would not be granted access to US laws).

Both President Obama and former President George W. Bush have backed holding some suspected terror combatants without trial. In the case of Guantanamo Bay detainees, the Obama Administration has said they would hold prisoners without trial in some cases because the evidence against them has been tainted by suspects' harsh treatment at the hands of their US jailers and would be inadmissible in a trial.

Kagan's comments on indefinite detention seem to have new relevance after comments Sunday by Attorney General Eric Holder, in which he declared that even US citizens don't need to be read their rights if they're suspected of being involved in terrorism.

“If we are going to have a system that is capable of dealing, in a public safety context, with this new threat,” Holder said on ABC's This Week Sunday. “I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public safety exception.”

Modifying that exception, Holder said, is “one of the things that I think we’re going to be reaching out to Congress to do – to come up with a proposal that is both Constitutional, but that is also relevant to our time and the threat that we now face.”

Holder said that the U.S. needs to examine whether the current rules regarding Miranda warnings give law enforcement agents the “necessary flexibility” when dealing with terrorism cases.

The Miranda warning requires law enforcement officials to inform suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent. Conservatives have attacked the Obama administration for informing suspects of their right to remain silent because they believe it is antithetical to collecting valuable intelligence during situations in which lives may be at stake.

Holder's comments come on the heels of a failed plot to detonate a Nissan Pathfinder in Times Square.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
The case against Elena Kagan
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan
By Glenn Greenwald Tuesday, Apr 13, 2010 09:13 ET
AP

(updated below - Update II [responses from Dellinger and others] - Update III [response to Lessig])

It is far from clear who Obama will chose to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, but Elena Kagan, his current Solicitor General and former Dean of Harvard Law School, is on every list of the most likely replacements.  Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog has declared her "the prohibitive front-runner" and predicts:  "On October 4, 2010, Elena Kagan Will Ask Her First Question As A Supreme Court Justice."  The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin made the same prediction.

The prospect that Stevens will be replaced by Elena Kagan has led to the growing perception that Barack Obama will actually take a Supreme Court dominated by Justices Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (Bush 41), Roberts (Bush 43), Alito (Bush 43) and Kennedy (Reagan) and move it further to the Right.  Joe Lieberman went on Fox News this weekend to celebrate the prospect that "President Obama may nominate someone in fact who makes the Court slightly less liberal," while The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus predicted:  "The court that convenes on the first Monday in October is apt to be more conservative than the one we have now."  Last Friday, I made the same argument:   that replacing Stevens with Kagan risks moving the Court to the Right, perhaps substantially to the Right (by "the Right," I mean:  closer to the Bush/Cheney vision of Government and the Thomas/Scalia approach to executive power and law).

Consider how amazing it is that such a prospect is even possible.  Democrats around the country worked extremely hard to elect a Democratic President, a huge majority in the House, and 59 Democratic Senators -- only to watch as the Supreme Court is moved further to the Right?  Even for those who struggle to find good reasons to vote for Democrats, the prospect of a better Supreme Court remains a significant motive (the day after Obama's election, I wrote that everyone who believed in the Constitution and basic civil liberties should be happy at the result due to the numerous Supreme Court appointments Obama would likely make, even if for no other reason).

There will, of course, be some Democrats who will be convinced that any nominee Obama chooses is the right one by virtue of being Obama's choice.  But for those who want to make an informed, rational judgment, it's worthwhile to know her record.  I've tried here to subject that record to as comprehensive and objective an assessment as possible.  And now is the time to do this, because if Kagan is nominated, it's virtually certain that she will be confirmed.  There will be more than enough Republicans joining with the vast majority of Democrats to confirm her; no proposal ever loses in Washington for being insufficiently progressive (when is the last time such a thing happened?).  If a Kagan nomination is to be stopped, it can only happen before her nomination is announced by Obama, not after.

* * * * *

Kagan's lack of a record

One of the difficulties in assessing Kagan's judicial philosophy and view of the Constitution is that direct evidence is extremely sparse.  That's not only because she's never been a judge, but also because (a) her academic career is surprisingly and disturbingly devoid of writings or speeches on most key legal and Constitutional controversies, and (b) she has spent the last year as Obama's Solicitor General, where (like any lawyer) she was obligated to defend the administration's policies regardless of whether she agreed with them.  As Goldstein wrote at SCOTUSblog:  "it seems entirely possible that Elena Kagan does not really have a fixed and uniform view of how to judge and to interpret the Constitution."

As I've previously documented and examine further below, the evidence that is available strongly suggests that a Kagan-for-Stevens substitution would move the Court to the Right in critical areas.  But Kagan's lack of a real record on these vital questions, by itself, should cause progressives to oppose her nomination.  That's true for two reasons:

First, given that there are so many excellent candidates who have a long, clear commitment to a progressive judicial philosophy, why would Obama possibly select someone who -- at best -- is a huge question mark, and who could easily end up as the Democrats' version of the Bush-41-appointed David Souter, i.e., someone about whom little is known and ends up for decades embracing a judicial philosophy that is the exact opposite of the one the President's party supports?  As Goldstein wrote of Kagan:


Are there risks for the left in a Kagan nomination? God yes. The last nominee about whose views we knew so little was David Souter. . . . 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.


Why would any progressive possibly want to take risks like that given how large the stakes are, and given how many other excellent, viable candidates Obama can choose who have a long and clear record?  

This was exactly the argument which conservatives such as David Frum made to force George Bush to withdraw Harriet Miers as his replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor and instead choose Sam Alito.  As Frum put it on PBS during the fight over Miers:


Stakes are so enormous in this seat.  This is something, as Bill Kristol said, the conservatives have worked for, for a long time. . . . I mean she has been a lawyer for more than three decades. In that time she has never found it necessary to express herself on any of the great issues of the day. . .   Part of what isn't good enough is for the president to say -- although there are lots of conservatives of incredible distinction who have written and published, where the world can know what they think -- "I have a secret, I know something and nobody else does. And I'm going to go with my personal knowledge."

Republicans have been disappointed with that kind of knowledge often before, and although they trust and support this president, he is asking too much.

[It's ironic that the anti-Miers case was grounded in conservatives' refusal to place too much faith and trust in their President's judgment.  Can anyone envision Democrats mounting a serious and sustained campaign against Obama's Supreme Court nominee of the type mounted against Bush by conservatives, whom progressives like to accuse of blind leader/party loyalty?]

Frum's anti-Miers argument prevailed, and conservatives got what they wanted:  Sam Alito, someone with a long record of advocacy for their judicial philosophy who they knew would be the kind of Justice they wanted for decades to come.  Part of the conservative case against Miers (i.e., that she lacked intellectual heft) is plainly inapplicable to the unquestionably intelligent Kagan, but the bulk of it is directly applicable:  why should progressives who care about the Supreme Court possibly accept someone whose judicial and Constitutional philosophy can barely be discerned?

When it came time to replace David Souter, Sonia Sotomayor was far from the ideal nominee for many progressives, yet virtually all supported her nomination (as did I, vigorously) because it was clear that she would be essentially the same kind of Justice as Souter, and would thus maintain the Court's balance.  By contrast, conservatives rightly perceived that replacing O'Connor was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape the Court to their beliefs about judicial philosophy, and they thus refused to accept a nominee about whom so little was known.

Under the circumstances that prevail now, why would progressives possibly demand any less?  After all, Obama is now replacing the Justice who has become the leader of the "liberal" wing of the Supreme Court (accepting the dubious premise that there is even is such a thing as a "liberal" wing).  As Scott Lemieux notes, this is the seat which, since 1916, has been held by only three Justices, three of the great progressives Justices in history -- Louis Brandeis, William O. Douglas, and Stevens.  Given that, why wouldn't progressives insist on a nominee whom they know will approach legal questions at least as progressively as Stevens did -- or, dare to dream, have a nominee be more progressive than the Justice being replaced, something that hasn't happened literally in decades?  Acquiescing to a Kagan nomination would mean accepting someone who could easily move well to the Right of Stevens, thus taking the whole Supreme Court with her.

Second, I believe Kagan's absolute silence over the past decade on the most intense Constitutional controversies speaks very poorly of her.  Many progressives argued (and I certainly agree) that the Bush/Cheney governing template was not merely wrong, but a grave threat to our political system and the rule of law.  It's not hyperbole to say that it spawned a profound Constitutional crisis.

Recognizing the severity of this radicalism, numerous legal academicians used their platforms -- and created new ones -- to protest vocally and relentlessly.  Former OLC official and Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman blogged on a virtually daily basis about the extremism and lawlessness of Bush's policies.  Former Acting OLC Chief and Indiana University Law Professor Dawn Johnsen wrote article after article decrying the lawlessness and demanding greater public outrage.  Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal -- Kagan's not-at-all-progressive Deputy Solicitor General -- was so appalled by Bush/Cheney extremism that he spent a huge number of hours working pro bono representing Osama bin Laden's driver all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he succeeded in having Bush's military commissions declared illegal and the Geneva Conventions held applicable to all detainees -- in a decision written by Justice Stevens (and, like Johnsen and Lederman, Katyal has a long record of written analysis on a whole litany of key legal controversies, including vehement opposition to many aspects of the Bush/Cheney assault).

Where was Elena Kagan during all of this?  Why is it seemingly impossible to find even a single utterance from her during the last decade regarding the radical theories of executive power the Bush administration invoked to commit grave crimes and other abuses?  It's possible that she said something at some point, but many hours of research (and public inquiries) have revealed nothing -- other than when she endorsed the core Bush template during her Solicitor General confirmation hearing.   As Adam Liptak put it in The New York Times when she was nominated last year for Solicitor General:  "she has provided few clues about where she stands on the great legal issues of the day, notably the Bush administration’s broad assertions of unilateral executive power in areas like detention, surveillance, interrogation and rendition."  The Boston Globe similarly pointed out that she "has had little to say about the legal and political issues related to presidential power that have emerged as a result of Bush's efforts to combat terrorism."  

Given the severity of the crisis posed by Bush/Cheney lawlessness, what justifies someone with Kagan's platform -- Dean of Harvard Law School and former Clinton White House lawyer -- remaining utterly silent in the face of that assault?  Even if one believes that a Law School Dean should generally be attentive to institution-building, didn't the severity of the legal crisis spawned by Bush and Cheney merit serious opposition from those in a position to voice it?  Before any progressive considers supporting her nomination to the Court, shouldn't they be able to point to some evidence, somewhere, that she opposed the core claims used to prop up the Bush/Cheney assault on the Constitution and the rule of law?

* * * * *

The sparse record of Kagan's views

Beyond the disturbing risks posed by Kagan's strange silence on most key legal questions, there are serious red flags raised by what little there is to examine in her record.  I've written twice before about that record -- here (last paragraph) and here -- and won't repeat those points.  Among the most disturbing aspects is her testimony during her Solicitor General confirmation hearing, where she agreed wholeheartedly with Lindsey Graham about the rightness of the core Bush/Cheney Terrorism template:  namely, that the entire world is a "battlefield," that "war" is the proper legal framework for analyzing all matters relating to Terrorism, and the Government can therefore indefinitely detain anyone captured on that "battlefield" (i.e., anywhere in the world without geographical limits) who is accused (but not proven) to be an "enemy combatant."

Those views, along with her steadfast work as Solicitor General defending the Bush/Cheney approach to executive power, have caused even the farthest Right elements -- from Bill Kristol to former Bush OLC lawyer Ed Whelan -- to praise her rather lavishly.  Contrast all of that with Justice Stevens' unbroken record of opposing Bush's sweeping claims of executive power every chance he got, at times even more vigorously than the rest of the Court's "liberal wing," and the risks of a Kagan nomination are self-evident.

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.

Still, the questions she was addressing were the crux of the debate back then over the proper limits of executive authority, and the view she advocated was clearly one that advocated far more executive power than had been previously accepted.  Kagan's 2001 law review article is what led to this from The Boston Globe when Kagan was nominated for Solicitor General:


"She is certainly a fan of presidential power," said William F. West, a professor who specializes in federal administration at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M.


Similarly -- and very revealingly -- even the moderate Neal Katyal, now Kagan's Deputy, emphatically criticized Kagan's theories in that law review article as executive overreach and even linked them to the Bush/Cheney executive power seizures.  Katyal wrote in a June, 2006 article in The Yale Law Journal (.pdf; emphasis added):


Such claims of executive power are not limited to the current administration, nor are they limited to politicians.  Take, for example, Dean Elena Kagan's rich celebration of presidential administration.  Kagan, herself a former political appointee, lauded the President's ability to trump bureaucracy. Anticipating the claims of the current administration, Kagan argued that the President's ability to overrule bureaucrats "energize(s) regulatory policy" because only "the President has the ability to effect comprehensive, coherent change in administrative policymaking" . . . .

Assaulted by political forces, the modern agency is a stew of presidential loyalists and relatively powerless career officials. To this political assault comes an academic one as well, with luminaries such as Elena Kagan celebrating presidential administration an unitary executivists explaining why such theories are part of our constitutional design. This vision may work in eras of divided government, but it fails to control power the rest of the time.


As Katyal noted, Kagan relied upon the warning from Alexander Hamilton about a "feeble executive" that was beloved by Bush/Cheney legal theorists, and she hailed "strong, executive vigor."  On the legal spectrum, Kagan clearly sits on the end of strong assertions of executive authority -- perhaps on the far end, almost certainly much further than where Stevens falls.  It's perhaps unsurprising that a President -- such as Barack Obama -- would want someone on the Supreme Court who is quite deferential to executive authority.  But given that so many of the most important legal and Constitutional disputes center on the proper limits of executive power (including ones that remain to be decided from the Bush era), and that Kagan and her rulings will likely long outlast an Obama presidency (i.e., any pro-executive-power decisions she issues will apply to future George Bushes and Dick Cheneys), shouldn't these pro-executive-power views, by themselves, prompt serious reservations (if not outright opposition) among progressives?

Kagan's record on social issues will likely be perfectly satisfactory, even pleasing, to most progressives.  She is, by all appearances, solidly pro-choice and in favor of gay equality.  But even on domestic issues, serious questions have been raised about how progressive her views actually are, as exemplified by this New York Times profile from Eric Lichtblau last year examining Kagan's prospects as a Supreme Court nominee:


"I want a Brennan or a Marshall, someone clearly on the liberal side," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, referring to liberal court icons William J. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall.

"I don’t think Kagan is at that end of the liberal spectrum," said Mr. Ratner, whose nonprofit legal group has helped lead the push for greater legal protections for prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. "Why they would put someone in who might not be a liberal anchor for the court is really bothersome, and I don’t see Kagan playing that role" . . . ..

Ms. Kagan first gained high-level notice as an aide in the Clinton White House, first as an associate counsel and then as deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council, working on issues like tobacco regulation, welfare reform, education, hate crimes and affirmative action.

"There were some important issues on which Elena took centrist or even center-right positions, but it was never clear whether she was pressing her own views or merely carrying water for her boss on the Domestic Policy Council, Bruce Reed," said Christopher Edley Jr., who worked with Ms. Kagan at the White House and is now dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley.


And even on the issues where she has been impressive -- such as her refusal to allow military recruiters to recruit at Harvard Law School due to their anti-gay discrimination -- her record is ultimately rather muddled.  After preening around for years justifying her ban on military recruiters by decrying the military's ban on gays as "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order," she quickly reversed that policy and allowed military recruiters onto campus after the Federal Government threatened to withhold several hundred million dollars in funds to Harvard (out of a $60 billion endowment).  One can reasonably argue that her obligation as Dean was to secure that funding for the school, but one can also reasonably question what it says about a person's character when they are willing to flamboyantly fight against "profound wrongs" and "moral injustices of the first order" -- only as long as there is no cost involved.

What makes the prospect of a Kagan nomination so disappointing is that there are so many superior alternatives -- from the moderately liberal and brilliant 7th Circuit Judge Diane Wood and former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears to the genuinely liberal Harold Koh (former Yale Law School Dean and current State Department counselor) and Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan.  If progressives aren't willing to fight Obama for the Supreme Court, what are they willing to fight him for?

* * * * *

Most of the research presented here was done by Daniel Novack, a second-year law student at NYU School of Law.  Novack, who works with me on many posts I write, also contributed several substantive points.


UPDATE:  Two related notes:

(1) I was on Democracy Now this morning discussing Elena Kagan, as well as the (related) death of Dawn Johnsen's nomination as OLC Chief.  That discussion can be viewed here.

(2) Scott Lemieux argues in The American Prospect for a Stevens replacement in the Brennan-Marshall mode and notes:  "Elena Kagan, while an attractive candidate in some respects, has a record on civil liberties and executive power that strongly suggests she would not be a liberal in this mold either. This would be bad for the development of progressive constitutional values."


UPDATE II:  Several commentators -- including former Clinton Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, legal analyst and author Linda Monk, and Akin, Gump lawyer Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog -- have responded to what I've written here.  My reply to them is here.


UPDATE III:  My response to Larry Lessig's defense of Kagan is here.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2010, 12:01:46 pm »
The most disturbing part about Kagan is that I would bet a huge amount that she is a cousin to Robert Kagan and Frederick Kagan and Donald Kagan, their NEOCON FATHER. Before reading the oped article I posted above, this was my first thought when I saw the  name KAGAN. If they are related, this is nothing but more "putting friends in high places" and it's not based on her intellect.   >:(

The people selected for the Supreme Court should be a brillant legal mind, as the first qualification, and nothing else! Then look at other factors!

Read more about the NEOCON KAGAN CLAN, who helped influence the Iraq War (Frederick) and the PNAC ideology:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=242

Neocon Weekly Standard endorses her (of course they do):
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/elena_kagan_the_weekly_standar.html?wprss=right-now

More associations:
http://groups.google.co.bw/group/sci.space.station/browse_thread/thread/5655cb16ba3717da

Is she realted or not?

She looks related, that is for sure.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-do-they-hate-elena-kagan.html

I know why I do.  She's connected to Goldman Sachs.

Sunday, May 9, 2010
Why Do They Hate Elena Kagan?
The left-wing blogosphere hates Elena Kagan. Really. The venom percolating up from the depths of the nutroots is getting pretty toxic.

For the most part, the right-wing blogosphere is sitting back and enjoying how people like Glenn Greenwald are tripping all over themselves to attack Kagan before right-wingers get a chance to do so:
Digby examines what a Kagan selection would reveal about Obama, and she particularly focuses on Kagan's relationship to Goldman Sachs. That relationship is relatively minor, but it is illustrative in several ways and will certainly be used by Republicans to advance their attacks on this administration as being inextricably linked with Wall Street.
But by far the most noxious attack on Kagan is the charge that Kagan was not committed to diversity because she did not hire a single tenured or tenure-track minority law professor. I addressed this charge in my prior post, So Why Am I Already Defending Elena Kagan?

Wouldn't a Kagan on the Court add to diversity? After all, we would get another female Justice and possibly the first gay Justice, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Shouldn't that be enough to justify Kagan's nomination in the estimation of those who attack Kagan's diversity record at Harvard? Or by "diversity" do these people really mean liberal ideological purity by proxy of skin color? In which case Kagan may not fit.

Having Kagan on the Court also would mean we wouldn't have to fill one of the Jewish Seats on the Court when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires. Which also means we might get a Protestant on the Court the next time around. Another plus for diversity. (Sarcasm intended.)

And why compare Kagan to Harriet Miers? Kagan's record hardly justifies such a comparison. Doesn't this reflect an implicit sexism, similar to how Hillary Clinton was treated?

There is nothing in Kagan's background to suggest that she will be anything other than a fairly reliable liberal on the Court.

Why all the hate from the left? True hostility, or simply bait so that Kagan will appear more moderate?
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-supreme-pick-connected-to-larry-summers-goldman-sachs-cass-sunstein/

Obama’s Supreme Pick Connected to Larry Summers, Goldman Sachs, Cass Sunstein
                
NJ.com
May 10, 2010
Editor’s note: If Elena Kagan sits on the Supreme Court it will be business as usual for Wall Street and the New World Order.
This apparent Obama nominee is unusual. She’s never been a prosecutor or attorney general, or defense attorney or Legal Aid litigator or sitting judge. In fact, she’s never been a lawyer in a trial…. never. Until her appointment as Solicitor General last year, she hadn’t argued before a court; so her very first, maiden argument, was before the United States Supreme Court last year!

Kagan’s connections to Summers are interesting. She was a professor there when Summers arrived from his work at Treasury, under Bill Clinton, to deregulate banks and derivatives to get the gambling moving…guaranteed by the taxpayer. As President Summers of Harvard from 2001 to 2006, Kagan thrived. She was made a full professor, then Summers tapped her to be the Dean of Harvard Law. Her pet peeve there was to keep the American military and ROTC off campus because she disputes the “don’t ask, don’t tell” provisions put in place by Clinton. In 2008, Kagan got money as an advisor to Goldman Sachs global investment house. Meanwhile, she made Cass Sunstein, who is now an advisor to Obama too, a full professor at Harvard. He has suggested the concept of marriage be discontinued. He also has argued that dogs and cats should have “standing” to sue in court.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

ImmortalTRUTH

  • Guest
Inhofe Says He'll Oppose Kagan Nomination

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/05/10/us/politics/AP-US-Kagan-Inhofe.html?ref=aponline


WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Republican senator from Oklahoma says he has decided to oppose Elena Kagan's  nomination to the Supreme Court.

GOP Sen. James Inhofe indicated he will vote against Kagan because of her ''lack of judicial experience and her interpretation of the Constitution.''

Inhofe is the first senator to say publicly that he will oppose Kagan, who was nominated Monday to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Inhofe also voted against Kagan's nomination to be solicitor general.

The Oklahoma senator criticized her for attempting to bar military recruiters from the Harvard Law campus while she was dean. He also said he thinks she has ''contempt'' for the Senate confirmation process and a ''lack of impartiality'' for those who disagree with her positions.

Online jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,753
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2010, 03:25:40 pm »
Is she realted or not?

She looks related, that is for sure.


IMO, she is related and it's more cronyism! Still looking for proof!
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,814
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2010, 03:39:30 pm »
Basically, both int he courts and academia, she has been passed on/inserted despite her lack of direct experience.  She is a plant, like Soetoro himself, and she is a staunch supporter of state power.  Don't be deceived.

BUMPED+

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #31 on: May 10, 2010, 04:10:58 pm »
Basically, both int he courts and academia, she has been passed on/inserted despite her lack of direct experience.  She is a plant, like Soetoro himself, and she is a staunch supporter of state power.  Don't be deceived.

agree with you and chris!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html

Signed in year 1215 AD

(38 ) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline RabidSheep

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,085
Written Questions of Chairman Patrick Leahy
For Elena Kagan
Nominee to be Solicitor General of the United States

http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/111thCongressExecutiveNominations/upload/Kagan-QFRs.pdf

Offline TheProxy

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
    • Invalidcookie.net
Why Elena Kagan? Heres why..
« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2010, 08:04:54 pm »
Quote
Lawrence Summers appointed Kagan the first female dean of Harvard Law School in 2003.[13] She succeeded Robert C. Clark, who had served as dean for over a decade. The focus of her tenure was on improving student satisfaction. Efforts included constructing new facilities and reforming the first-year curriculum, as well as aesthetic changes and creature comforts, such as free morning coffee. She has been credited for employing a consensus-building leadership style, which surmounted the school's previous ideological discord. In the words of Walter Dellinger, "Thoughtful conservatives are drawn to her not for her policy views but because of the qualities she brings to discourse and decision." Dellinger adds,

Her engaging personality will make her a lot of fun for her fellow justices. Although she's no Jon Stewart, she does have a pretty decent sense of humor. And she unfailingly treats all of those she encounters, regardless of their station in a life, with respect.[14]

In her capacity as dean, Kagan inherited a $400 million capital campaign, "Setting the Standard," in 2003. It ended in 2008 with a record breaking $476 million raised, 19% more than the original goal.[15] Kagan made a number of prominent new hires, increasing the size of the faculty considerably.

During her deanship, Kagan supported a long-standing policy barring military recruiters from campus, because she felt that the military's Don't ask, don't tell policy discriminated against gays and lesbians. According to Campus Progress,

As dean, Kagan supported a lawsuit intended to overturn the Solomon Amendment so military recruiters might be banned from the grounds of schools like Harvard. When a federal appeals court ruled the Pentagon could not withhold funds, she banned the military from Harvard’s campus once again. The case was challenged in the Supreme Court, which ruled the military could indeed require schools to allow recruiters if they wanted to receive federal money. Kagan, though she allowed the military back, simultaneously urged students to demonstrate against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.[16][17]

In October 2003, Kagan transmitted an e-mail to students and faculty deploring that military recruiters had shown up on campus in violation of the school's anti-discrimination policy. It read, "This action causes me deep distress. I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy." She also wrote that it was "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order."[18]

From 2005 through 2008, Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute.[19]

Solicitor General
I bring a message Those who would try to take our freedom... Pray.
-----------------------------------------
http://invalidcookie.net

Offline TheProxy

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
    • Invalidcookie.net
Re: Why Elena Kagan? Heres why..
« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2010, 08:08:42 pm »
  Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute

'nuff said. another Puppet. :|
I bring a message Those who would try to take our freedom... Pray.
-----------------------------------------
http://invalidcookie.net

Offline wfy9621

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Why Elena Kagan? Heres why..
« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2010, 08:25:46 pm »
Yes, Summers and Kagan both have Goldman Squid connections.

I am an American citizen, not an "American consumer".

Online jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,753
Re: Why Elena Kagan? Heres why..
« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2010, 08:34:57 pm »
Kagan Sat on Goldman Sachs Board
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/04/27/kagan-sat-on-goldman-sachs-board/

Quote
Solicitor General Elena Kagan previously served on an advisory board for Goldman Sachs, a position that could complicate her nomination if she is selected to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, USA Today reported Tuesday.

Kagan served on Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute from 2005 to 2008, according to financial disclosures she filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee when she was nominated as Solicitor General last year. She received $10,000 stipend in 2008 for her service.
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline jeremystalked1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,317
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2010, 10:25:44 pm »

  These judges are getting HEAVIER AND HEAVIER.  Makes me wonder if they have a minimum weight requirement.  At least , because of health reasons, they won't serve until they're 90.

Let's say that there were some sort of technology to induce heart attacks or strokes remotely... you'll have to agree that when the target is obviously unhealthy, these kinds of attacks are pretty deniable.

Unhealthy public officials are compliant public officials.

(noting that Ron Paul is thin and vigorous for his age...)

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: What is Elena Kagan's background?
« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2010, 10:58:58 pm »
Let's say that there were some sort of technology to induce heart attacks or strokes remotely... you'll have to agree that when the target is obviously unhealthy, these kinds of attacks are pretty deniable.

Unhealthy public officials are compliant public officials.

(noting that Ron Paul is thin and vigorous for his age...)


look up "pace makers are hackable"
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately