Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Why Dems should hate, and the GOP should love, Elena Kagan

Imagine the outrage from the left if a Republican president nominated someone to the Supreme Court who:

  • argued that the ruling that gave Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their incarceration in federal court should not apply to those captured in other countries and shuffled off to the Bagram military prison in Afghanistan;
  • urged the Supreme Court to block a federal trial judge’s order to free into the United States Chinese Muslims who’ve been held unjustly at GITMO for nine years and can’t be returned to their homeland for fear they’d be tortured;
  • advocated for prosecution of a former administrative law judge who wants to turn a U.S.-designated terrorist group away from violence by advising it on how to use lawful and peaceful means to advance its political agenda.

For good measure, throw in the nominee’s defense of Congress’s “sensible action” in concocting a dubious land swap to allow a cross to remain in the Mojave Desert.

The howls from liberals would be deafening. Yet we’ve heard nary a peep from Democrats because the nominee who advanced these views is none other than Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court.

And Republicans – shouldn’t they be championing a nominee who has more often than not taken positions in court that mirror their own? Out of the question! Such a move would come dangerously close to a Charlie Crist-like heretical hug of the president, and that simply can’t be tolerated, especially not in the face of midterm elections.

So Democrats bide their time and bite their tongues and Republicans scramble to distort Kagan’s record at every turn. The confirmation hearing in the hands of these professional politicians isn’t nearly as much about Kagan and her qualifications as it is about shaking the pom poms of their respective teams. D-N-C! R-N-C! Sis boom bah! Pass the Pepto-Bismol.

By Eva Rodriguez  | June 27, 2010; 8:48 PM ET
Categories:  Rodriguez  | Tags:  Eva Rodriguez  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Where is Arizona? Don't ask Peggy West -- or Google
Next: The passing of Sen. Byrd and the filling of his seat

Comments

Typical Repuglican wingnut strategy, Ms. Rodriquez. If Kagan were as conservative as you suggest, you'd be bending over backwards to praise her.

Instead, you make variously decontextualized and unsupported allegations without posting even a single link.

Wish I could say nice try, but it isn't.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | June 28, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse


This is called, "muddying the waters."

She's doctrinaire liberal who will, in 9 out of 10 cases, be a reliable vote for the liberal bloc. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade.

The problem with her is that she's a mediocre choice. There are hundreds of jurists and legal minds out there who would be a better choice. But if liberals want mediocrity representing their viewpoint on the court, that's their problem.

Posted by: theduke89 | June 28, 2010 1:06 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure who's more whacked out on crack - the author of this Article that somehow thinks that someone bowing at T. Marshall's altar, aspiring to Aharon Barack's legacy, and who's legal claim to fame is being a "dean" of a law school and counseling the Clinton's on White water scam
OR
Farnaz who actually believes that the author is Right wing... Of course that would be because their aren't any links and we know how hard it is a liberal to FIND THEIR OWN FACTS.

Perhaps the Post and this author have been passing their "fact" off for so long to his kind that they figure conservatives (the 7 on the committee and voters alike) will read this and say"Oh, jeez, she support terrorist from OUTSIDE the US not being read miranda" and forget that she thinks the Constitution is defective... Yes, very conservative.

oh, wait a minute, miranda was basically amended last month, so I guess we don't have to worry about that anymore.

Posted by: orlandovjc | June 28, 2010 2:17 AM | Report abuse

orlandovjc, you mention Thurgood Marshall in a disparaging way. Do you have a problem with Thurgood Marshall, ONE OF THE GREATEST SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OF ALL TIME? Because if you do, you are unfit to be writing anything anywhere. And quit the junk about Liberals. We Liberals are the conscience of this country and most of the GREAT Supreme Court Decisions were LIBERAL decisions. So take your TORTURE Justices Alito and Roberts and go contemplate your complete lack of any moral values at all together.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | June 28, 2010 3:27 AM | Report abuse


Your next article can be entitled "The conservatism of David Weigel" while you are at it.

You are just another smarmy WaPo hack.


Posted by: screwjob16 | June 28, 2010 5:27 AM | Report abuse

HA another bubble article from inside the beltway. Good luck to Ms Kagan. She will probably be a better Hoover Ball player than the other lady justices but I will be shocked if she does not vote with them every single time.

Posted by: rdskinfan | June 28, 2010 6:21 AM | Report abuse

This writer is another example of narrow minded, simplistic thinking that provides little enlightenment or information for meaninful debate. She provides three examples out of context and then assumes everyone must think either left or right, liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican. She assumes no one has the intellectual capacity to see each issue alone and debate it on merit. Sad.

Posted by: logan303 | June 28, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

What a crock of twaddle. Kagen is about as conservative as Obama.

Posted by: thelaw1 | June 28, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

orlandovj

Farnaz who actually believes that the author is Right wing... Of course that would be because their aren't any links and we know how hard it is a liberal to FIND THEIR OWN FACTS.
------------------
I don't know how to tell you this, but if she's a liberal, I'm a communist, and I'm not a communist.

I've yet to see her take anything resembling what I would consider a "liberal stance." And, frankly, Kagan is a "neo-liberal," IMO.

Obama compromised with Kagan. That is what he does. Sometimes, it's the right move; sometimes, it isn't.

We shall see. Whatever she is, she isn't Roberts, which is sixty points in her favor. She's got a functional IQ, which puts her miles ahead of Thomas.

All things considered, Obama could have made a worse choice. This one should lead to a confirmation.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | June 28, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

"Nary a peep"? I suppose if the only bloggers you read write for the Washington Post, that would be true.

Posted by: uberblonde1 | June 28, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

You might want to get out more and test your theories a little in the real world where there is plenty of dissent.

Posted by: SarahBB | June 28, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Looks like Rodriguez has ruffled some feathers. But the comments do not dispute the facts she presents. Instead, they either question whether they are true (yes - you should have provided links) or say that they are taken out of context. It is difficult to take out of context the argument that detainees in Afghanistan do not qualify for habeas. What kind of context do you need for that argument?

I think that Republicans should probably accept the nomination because they won't get a better one. Kagan is not openly liberal. At most, she is a political moderate, like Obama.

If anyone should complain, the left should. Kagan is not the left answer to Alito and Roberts. While Bush appointed openly and known conservative candidates, Obama did not do so with Kagan. So, I actually agree with Rodriguez.

PS: I am very liberal - if that means anything to you.....

Posted by: darrren12000 | June 28, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

"What a crock of twaddle. Kagen is about as conservative as Obama."

Well, exactly. Obama is a actually a moderate, practical president who gets things done. Kagan is essentially a middle-of-the-roader too, and that's why it's hard to come up with any big real objections to her confirmation.

Posted by: ClarkKent1 | June 28, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I don't know the accuracy of these views on Kagan, but I do agree that the political parties don't really have any guiding principles, other than standing against anything that the other party is for. It's just ridiculous and we need to curb the power of both the GOP and the Dems. They just represent themselves, not us.

Posted by: allknowingguy | June 28, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

In nominating Elena Kagan, the president may be smarter than he looks. While most any candidate nominated to the high court is automatically suspect by the loyal opposition, based on what I know of her, I think Ms. Kagan could be a closet moderate and may well be confirmed and carried up the steps of the SC on the back of a Trojan Elephant.

Posted by: nnixon | June 28, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

This column is no doubt accurate in observing that confirmation hearings basically involve Senators serving as stand-ins for political parties in touting their own issues, without much relevance to the actual qualifications of the nominee under consideration. This column misses the mark, however, in suggesting that Elena Kagan must be conservative because she has, as Solicitor General, advocated in support of the U.S. Government's positions regarding Guantanamo detainees or the interpretation of anti-terrorism statutes. Doing so is her job. As Solicitor General, she may recommend privately against advocating for positions which she believes to be incorrect or ill-advised; and she has the option of resigning from office if she believes that she is being ordered to advocate positions which are without any credible support in law or fundamentally immoral. She is not free, however, simply to substitute any personal views she might have for the positions she is instructed by the President and the Attorney General to defend.

Elena Kagan does not appear to be either the extreme liberal portrayed by Republicans and conservatives or the conservative portrayed by those in the left wing of the Democratic Party. She is, instead, a principled moderate, willing to analyze cases based on the Constitution and their individual merits rather than simply hewing to a politically-motivated decision. She is far more capable than her critics are willing to concede. Not one of the Republicans who has criticized her lack of judicial experience has been willing to acknowledge that she lacks such experience precisely because Republican senators blocked consideration of her prior nomination to serve as on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit without ever giving her a public hearing or offering any justification for their refusal to do so.

It will be interesting to watch her confirmation hearings unfold. It would be refreshing to see more than just the usual rehashing of doctrinaire partisanship in these comments, though. Our country deserves more, and so does Solicitor General Kagan as the nominee.

Posted by: 02Pete | June 28, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

With all due respect, isn't the first day of confirmation hearings a little early to judge this nominee? Also, I really dont like it when people I dont know tell me how I should be feeling about someone. Question....does any reporters or journalists actually leave the office or do investigative journalism before they write these bs stories anymore? This paper is becoming a real "rag."

Posted by: ruthella10 | June 28, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

to ruthella10: Rag? Undeserving for such a grand old dame. Do you understand the differences between reportage, editorials, and opinion?

Posted by: nnixon | June 28, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

NyRunner raises several points, among them, that liberals are the conscience of the country. Respectfully, I would disagree. The Congress, representing, and answering to, The People should be our conscience.

The proper role of a justice, is to apply the law, not to substitute their opinion for Congress' opinion (however well intentioned).

In that vein I would like Ms Kagan to enlighten us to:

*what is the role and the limits of the judiciary in the context of the Separation of Powers among the co-equal branches of Government?

*what is the limit of the Federal Government in the context of enumerated powers?

*Is there any limit to the exercise of the Commerce Clause? Or does it run Federal Authority to the ends of the earth?

Posted by: historyStudent1 | June 28, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Rodriguez appears to have no understanding of the difference between a lawyer's representing a client and expressing her own views. When someone who lacks such elementary knowledge gets a column in in WaPo, it's easy to despair of the civics education people get in the USofA.

Who is this Rodriguez woman, anyway? And why does the Post seem bent on destroying the credibility of its Op-ed page?

Posted by: turningfool | June 28, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

What garbage. Kagan was representing the U.S. when she argued those points to the Supreme Court. It was her duty to do so. If she didn't do so she should have resigned. The argument re constitutional rights not applying to those foreign citizens captured in foreign countries reminds me of the foolish Americans who continue going to Mexico, getting arrested by Mexican authorities for violation of Mexican laws, then turn around with a look of amazement when they are informed they have no Miranda rights. Get over it my fellow Americans. Some people actually like to run their own countries.
PS: I like the fact that neither party's crazies like Kagan. She'll probably be a great Justice.

Posted by: Fergie303 | June 28, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

If Kagan had an ounce of conservative blood in her the lefty media would be up in arms. I suggest getting an "I don't believe the liberal media" sticker for your car.

Posted by: fastaire | June 28, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I seem to recall an article in yesterday's WP stating that the left is concerned that Kagan's views were too conservatives.

Posted by: browneri | June 28, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

To be honest, as a left leaning moderate Democrat, I really don't care if Kagen is confirmed or not. I really don't like her as a choice. I think the President should pick someone more liberal. But, whatever.

Posted by: denise4925 | June 28, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

When even the Tea Party winner Scott Brown confirms Elena Kagan? That should tell many of her nonsupporters that she is a good Candidate. The same old naysayers are being their usual hypocritical obstructionists. Who care more about money, power, and their lobbyists than the American People. I so wish folks would wake up, and realize this. As for her not being a Judge? So what? We've had many great Justices who were never a Judge prior to confirmation. What a lame excuse, and pathetic to use it not to confirm General Kagan. Do you not care what's been put into law so far? Good grief, why, because you should be terrified of the decisions Roberts has managed to get barely passed in many cases.


Kagan will make a great Supreme Court Justice, and I fail to understand why these goofs are against her? I loved the way many took Justice Roberts to task. Since he has ruled the Court, he's proven he is not for the People of this Country, but like most Republicans, several other Justices, he is in the pockets of Corporations, and not for the Citizens.

Hopefully, Kagan will bring fair, and just decisions for a change. We need an advocate in this Court, and I see more destruction to our Country as long as we continue to allow losers like Roberts to run our highest Court. We have little hope with him, and several others who are afraid to go against anything Roberts may want. To vote against Kagan as usual, is a vote against President Obama, most rational thinking people know this, because many are still intent on his failure, regardless of the harm to this Country. They're just so full of hate, hypocrisy, and arrogance. I'm sick of them all, and the pleasure they give to our enemies. They give the best reasons of why this Nation needs Term Limits. That's the only way to legitimize our elections due to Corporations now being able to buy our elections!

I hope, and pray Kagan can get Term Limits on the docket, and passed to void out some of the greedy hopefuls. Also, pass a law that they must receive Social Security at 65 with a very small pension like every other Citizen. That's all they deserve. They should not be able to give themselves raises every 6 months, and never give the Nation a cost of living raise! The People should vote on any raises given, and only given if deserved. Just a few laws I would like to see confirmed! This is just the tip of the iceberg of changes needed in this Highest Court!

Posted by: sheilahowison | June 28, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Sold me. But I'm not a Senator. I don't really have much say do I?

Posted by: Gover | June 28, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Even when a Tea Party winner such as Scott Brown confirms Elena Kagan? That should prove to many of her nonsupporters that she is a good Candidate. The same old naysayers are being their usual stubborn hypocritical obstructionists intent on getting their way. Who care more about their campaigns, money, power, and greedy lobbyists than the American Citizens. I so wish folks would wake up, and realize the damage they're doing. As for her not being a Judge? So what big fat deal? We've had many great Justices who were never sat on a bench as a Judge prior to confirmation. What a lame excuse, and pathetic to use it not to confirm General Kagan. Do you not care what's been put into law so far? Good grief, why, because you should be terrified of the poor, and dangerous decisions Roberts has managed to get barely passed in many cases.


Kagan will make a great Supreme Court Justice, and I fail to understand why these goofs are so against her? I loved the way many took Justice Roberts to task today in the hearings. Since he has ruled the Court, he's proven he is not for the People of this Country, but like most Republicans, some Democrats, some Independents, and several other sitting Justices? Roberts is in the pockets of Corporations, and not for the Citizens, nor can he relate to the serious problems we all face.

We the People need an advocate in this Court, and I see more destruction to our Country as long as we continue to allow aggressive, and arrogant far right extremists like Roberts to run our highest Court. We have little hope with him, and several others who are afraid to go against anything Roberts may want. To vote against Kagan as usual, is a vote against President Obama, most rational thinking people know this, because many are still intent on his failure. They should realize the harm they're causing to this Country. They're just so full of hate, hypocrisy, and arrogance. I'm sick of them all, and the pleasure they must give to our enemies hating President Obama. They give the best reasons of why this Nation needs Term Limits. That's the only way to legitimize our elections again, due to Corporations now being able to buy them, and the Candidates!

I hope, and pray Kagan can get Term Limits on the docket, and passed to void out some of the greedy hopefuls. Also, pass a law that they must receive Social Security at 65 with a very small pension like every other Citizen. That's all they deserve, and some don't deserve that much. They should not be able to give themselves raises every 6 months, and never give the Nation a cost of living raise! The People should vote on any raises given, and only given if deserved. Just a few laws I would like to see confirmed! This is just the tip of the iceberg of changes needed in this Highest Court to repair the damage already incurred.

Posted by: sheilahowison | June 28, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Conservative judges now own the "Activist" label. I'm not sure there ever was a case of activism by a liberal judge, just sound reasoning. Something the right has never had and never will because conservatism is inherently illogical.

Posted by: atroncale1 | June 28, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

The fact that anybody in this day and age still admits to being conservative or right-wing is a great mystery to me. It's the most nonsensical, cowardly, stick-in-the-mud, intolerant, fairy-tale believing and ridiculous ideology (in every age) ever to be a blight upon mankind. Anyway, progress can't be stymied forever. Not even by the most strident of these bozos. Soon their ilk will all be gone and the world can proceed to proceed.

Posted by: chert | June 28, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Hate or love.Nothing in between.That is the state of the nation.

Posted by: vismorge | June 28, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

The only sitting justice that does not vote the party line of the president that appointed him or her is Justice Stevens, and he is retiring. On occasion, Justice Kennedy surprises us. So for all the pinheads out there whining about Kagan - Get over it! You have as much intellectual honesty as I expect she will have - absolutely none. Your only gripe is Obama won, so he gets to appoint the next judicial ideologue. If you gave it an actual, real and objective thought, you would understand we all lose as this crap goes on. We have judges playing politics (and not just Democrats - remember Bush v. Gore and all the politically motivated decisions we saw in the last year)and the nits are happy about it.

Posted by: kermit5 | June 28, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

This is called, "muddying the waters."

She's doctrinaire liberal who will, in 9 out of 10 cases, be a reliable vote for the liberal bloc. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade.

The problem with her is that she's a mediocre choice. There are hundreds of jurists and legal minds out there who would be a better choice. But if liberals want mediocrity representing their viewpoint on the court, that's their problem.

_________________________________________

If Kagan had an ounce of conservative blood in her the lefty media would be up in arms. I suggest getting an "I don't believe the liberal media" sticker for your car.

__________________________________________
__________________________________________

The above two opinions are exactly why conservatives are struggeling so hard to find something wrong with her. The media/Obama/Democrats et al are liberals = socialist and out to destroy the country. Terrified paranoics. I wonder how they get through the day without wetting themselves constantly?

Posted by: kchses1 | June 28, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Quite a knee slapper Rodrigez!!!

Posted by: j751 | June 28, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Incredibly thoughtless article. We cannot let conservatives, wreckers of the country in the last decade, ever come to power again.

Posted by: dudh | June 28, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Could she be bipartisan. Oh no Mister Bill!Say it isn't so.

Posted by: whocares666 | June 28, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I do hate this pick and I am a (former) Democrat. But most Amercian do not because we are a nation of racists and fools.

President Obama is a sellout and Repubican! He has continued ALL of the bush policies. Yet Republicans that LOVED Bush, Hate Obama - WHY???

We have some of the smartest people on earth in America. However, in groups, Americans, not just Democrats, are complete morons.

I pray Hillary challenges this weak clown in 2012.

Posted by: question-guy | June 28, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

This is an example of writing a "story" about what hack reporters want people to believe... An attempt to create a belief in readers as misdirection to get someone appointed who is the exact opposite of what the hack claims her to be...

Classic fascist propaganda... When were you bought and paid for Ms. Rodriguez?


Posted by: 2010Rout | June 28, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

What else you can expect from Obama. This guy takes pains to admit he is a Democrat. We elected a Trojan horse but we can correct this by challenging him at the presidential primaries.Yes we can.

Posted by: rappahanock | June 28, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

This makes perfect sense -- except to the deranged right.

Posted by: jimsteinberg1 | June 28, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Why don't I trust this toxic lying liberal?

Posted by: carlbatey | June 28, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Why don't I trust this toxic lying liberal?

Posted by: carlbatey | June 28, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Such idiotic nonsense. This WaPo hack thinks she can convince moderates into thinking Kagan will really really be a moderate-to-conservative judge. Be serious.

Kagan is the individual who sued the federal government over the clear policy: If you take federal money, you must let U.S. military recruiters on campus. Kagan's lawsuit was denied 9-0 by the Supreme Court.

That means not one justice, not even one of the four liberals, thought Kagan's lawsuit had any merit. And the Dems want us to believe that Kagan is an intelligent moderate. No thanks.

Senators, vote no on this one and let's get someone with a little experience being a real judge.

Posted by: RonKH | June 28, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Any progressive Democrat knows that Kagan is right of center.

Duh.

Don't you in the MSM?

STOP WATCHING THE LIARS AT FAUX NEWS!

Posted by: WillSeattle | June 28, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

I just read the headline - and wonder what kind of propaganda you're trying to spew - the "we know best" type, or the usually B.S. type, "I know best", and this opinion falls into the latter.

Then I read the word "opinion" above the article.

I hope EVERYONE who reads this also sees this is one woman's warning - and I don't spend/waste much time on a one-woman opinion anyway.

What's with the press - thinking that they can do my thinking for me? Is this the last-ditch effort of an increasingly irrelevant, highly opinionated press.

Don't tell me how to think, ma'am.

Posted by: pgibson1 | June 28, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Chert, you need to come out of your cave. The latest Gallup poll showed (again) that about 40% of Americans are conservative and about 20% are liberals, with about 30% saying they are moderates, and 10% not choosing.

Seems to me that you don't really read anything except the left-wing media. Good luck contemplating your navel. And don't talk to yourself too long; you're liable to start believing yourself.

Posted by: RonKH | June 28, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

I have supported Elena Kagan as most of my readers know from day one. I merely ask all members of the Judiciary Committee to give her an appropriate examination on the major issues and precedents of the law. When Dean Kagan assures her listeners she will be impartial I am convinced of both her sincerity and veracity. She will be a great justice. I support her confirmation.

AGP

Posted by: ctw46 | June 28, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse


I guess she may be a modern-day Trojan Horse (no, this is not a comment on her looks), but her history certainly does not paint her as anything other than a flaming liberal...albeit an opportunistic, pragmatic liberal who is willing to lose a few rather than derail her career.

Face it, she is no worse than the Commie she is replacing, so let's be done with the hype and issue her the robe.


Posted by: JCM-51 | June 28, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

I hate to interrupt your fun, but even you most dimwitted readers realize that Elena Kagan was OLC. Your column is all about Obama's worldview, not Elena Kagan's.

Yes, we are very disappointed with Barack Obama.

Posted by: fzdybel | June 28, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

What this article fails to note is that Kagan argued these positions not because they were hers, but because they were Obama's. If liberals want to howl, they should howl at the president who, as a candidate, promised to be liberal, but who has turned out to continue and further many of the same Bush policies and strategies that had half of America so angry and up in arms two or three years ago.

This is a nice try, though, at drumming up Republican support for Kagan. In reality, we all know that she will align with the liberal wing of the court, but trying to convince conservatives that she is conservative is a nice try.

When you actually try to get Democrats to vote against Kagan and convince some of them to do so, then I'll have way believe that these comments are genuine.

Posted by: blert | June 28, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyone at the Post who is more interested in real reporting -- instead of saying snarky things that garner cool DC party invitations? Do people at the Post really think that writing like this will cause rational adults to subscribe to the paper?

BTW, the Post doesn't even understand the internet, in the sense that none of these benighted nobodies (they're nobodies because they've never done anything except get a job at the Post) ever has the integrity to interact in the comments section.

I'll take a look at the Post now because it's free. Twenty years ago, in dead winter, I'd walk across the road to pick up my copy at 5:00 a.m., to read before I went to work (in order to do something?). This is comically stupid, what these people are doing to a great business.

Yes, Ms. Rodriguez, you are amazingly clever. Kagan is a conservative. She also flies extraterrestrial spacecraft from alternative galaxies.

Are there any adults in residence?

Posted by: IowaHawkeye | June 28, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

The post obviously hires writers not because they're good but because they fill some sort of quota system.

Everybody should hate Kagan because she is a political partisan. It's one thing to disagree with a person based on honest differences of opinion, but Kagan rules based on what her bosses are telling her to rule on.

Maybe you like that while Obama's in office, but when he's gone, who is her political master? Who will she side with?

She's the worst kind of nominee.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | June 28, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Three examples, all related to the issue of terrorism, does not amount to nominee Kagan agreeing with Republicans "more often than not." Even the Obama administration has been stymied by reality in fulfilling its campaign rhetoric of closing Guantanamo. Suggesting Democrats should oppose Kagan, knowing they would never do that to the administration, while urging Republicans that Kagan's really on their side, is a nice try, but transparent argument.

Posted by: pilotjim99 | June 28, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Nomination of Kagan by Obama/Dems is yet another evidence as how there is little real
difference between Obama & Bush or Democrats and Republican lunatics. That is Kagan is yet another Jewish
person graduated from Harvard or Yale, as were almost all the candidates that Bush named
to the supreme court.

So WHY are there so many Jews in US Supreme court? Are there not similar number of qualified non-Jews! Also how many non-Jews are on the Israeli supreme court? NONE. ZERO. So why should 33% of US Supreme court be Jews when ZERO percent of Israeli supreme court is non-Jews!
I mean this is nothing against Jewish people, they are of course overall very rich and connected compared to the typical noon-Jewish American who
is generally poor and struggling to pay the bills, but this does not mean that the Supreme court of US should be filled with this privileged class.


For more examples of that Obama/Democrats prove how right-wing Democrats are, which means how they act for the benefit of Rich and Big corporations (Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Military, Big Banks, aka Wall Street gang) and Israel and NOT for the benefit of American people (Middle class) and thus what Utter Complete Lunatics Republicans are who are even to the right of the Dems, check out here:
http://RealNewsPost.com?n=think.33758

Posted by: ThinkDeep | June 28, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Obama - and I don't think Kagan is a good choice. Her ability to favor a liberal elite over a conservative one is just the flip side of the same coin.

Obama has disappointed me in his inability to champion -- heck, to just teach about -- the traditions of civil liberty that we have so arduously built since the First World War.

The tradition of liberalism and civil liberty didn't begin when Joe McCarthy left office, and a leftist oppressor is no more fun than a rightist.

The GOP have contempt for the common people, and prefer capitalists to artisans and laborers. The Democrats have developed a contempt for everyone else. Heck of a way to run a republic.

Posted by: practica1 | June 28, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

The only scary candidate for Justice was Harriet Miers who was only a clerk who brought her law license and degree. Now one Senator who no President would consider is Senator Sessions. Sessions is so mad he hates it every time a Justice has to be replace. Sessions is jealous and unqualified plus we can't allow a kkk member on the Supreme Court. Kagan is more qualified for the job then Alito, Roberts and Thomas. Harriet Miers couldn't pass Law 101 but Republicans with no brains would have voted for Miers and Wow one of the dumbest people would be sitting on the Court. Sessions would be the first KKK member who he were ever given the chance for the job.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | June 28, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

honest to god, i read this article twice and i still have no idea what this rodriguez woman is trying to say.

Posted by: dlopata | June 28, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Really, for this appointment I wanted a seething, fire-breathing liberal. An unapologetic, "in your face," "I'm gonna overturn Scalia and Thomas," "choke on manure you bastard conservatives," type of liberal. Someone who would get up there and right before the TV cameras, studiously tell both Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn that they are smarmy racist pricks. But I guess we will just have to settle for him being the Senator from Minnesota, since he's not a lawyer.

Posted by: seve2yoo | June 28, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Neither the three afore-mentioned stances supprted by Kagan, nor any of what happens in the hearings (barring some unforseen moment of craziness) will give us a clue to Kagan's leanings. When she supported these stances, it was because it was her job to give guidance as to how to proceed. They give o more of an indication ofher own feelings than would a defense lawyer's submissions to the court give an idea of his true feelings. She was simply doing the job she was hired for. We won't know where sh stands on most of these issues until they come before the court. The most such hearings can do is give an indication of the way in which she makes decisions. On that matter, the Repubs who attacked Thurgood Marshall as a way of getting to her must have been on crack. Of course, the right wingers have always hated Marshall, because he did more than anyone to help erase racism and help the down and out in this country. I hope Kagan turns out to be another Marshall. We could use some brains and common decency on the court for a change.

Posted by: garoth | June 28, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

As Solicitor General, Kagan is obligated to defend the administration's policies, not her own political agenda.

This column was apparently designed to make it seem like Kagan isn't what she is, and is what some want her to be.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | June 29, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Positions that Kagan defended as Solicitor General are no basis to assess her where SHE stands (even on those same issues).

The Solicitor General is a lawyer representing the United States, in courts that employ our "adversary system" of litigation. In that context, her own opinions on any legal point are utterly irrelevant to the arguments she MUST make on behalf of her client... she cannot permit her own values, preferences or opinions to take precedence over the interests of her client.

The author of this article surely knows all this, so her fundamental arguments are disingenuous. For that reason, I am inclined to think that Farnaz Mansouri (first comment posted after the article) is onto something here, even if his critic (orlandovjc) can't see it.

Besides orlandovjc's own argument relies on the assumption that Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee read the Washington Post, a dubious presupposition, at best.

Posted by: Iconoblaster | June 29, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

This Lady sucks so much it's shocking. She tries to sound funny, it fall flat. she tries to be crafty with language, it's tideous to read. Put her in the style section. Oof, she has no style. Sorry.

Posted by: besobeso5577 | June 29, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company