About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sen Tom Coburn is trying to get her to say that there is no right to state mandated health care but Kagan can't have it both ways. If she says that the state can't tell you what to eat then the state doesn't have the right to mandate health care.
 
Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

 


Post 1

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 2:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here are some of the points that I hope the Senate holds in focus while trying to understand her:

1. We know so very little about about her - she has so little record for someone with her career path that she has clearly gone to extremes to keep her view hidden. It is NOT possible to assess her for this position based upon her record.

2. There is an absolute commonsense requirement that the Senate not confirm someone when they don't have EVIDENCE of the person's positions - just answers to their questions is not adequate.

3. She has acknowledged that she advocates the "living constitution" theory of interpretation, even though in the hearings she disavows the phrase "living constitution".

4. She is on record as advocating strong and broad executive privileges, both under Clinton who wanted more power relative to a Republican congress, and under Obama who wants more control over regulatory issues.

5. She has advocated positions very contrary to habeous corpus (okay to pick up someone and hold them indefinetly as an enemy combatent even if the detainee is nowhere near a battlefield and is not armed. Like snatching someone out of England because they are reputed to have contributed financial aid to a terrorist organization).

6. She wrote a college thesis on socialism that worried about socialismís demise, and a masterís thesis praising the activism of the Earl Warren Court. The master's thesis said that it was not necessarily wrong or invalid for judges to try to mold and steer the law to achieve social ends, but warned that such rulings must be rooted in legal principles to be accepted by society and endure.

7. She worked for the Michael Dukakis for President campaign, and took a leave as a law school professor to help Joe Biden get liberal Justice Ruth Ginsburg confirmed.

8. Those few bits of historical evidence that are negative, she denies in one fashion or another. She either equivocates, or she disavows it as something from when she was younger, or that in light of more experience she now sees things differently. But the result is that the Senate is being asked to throw out all of the bits of evidence just on the basis of her testimony. Nominee Sotomayor stated during her confirmation hearing that she would never make use of foreign laws (excepting treaties we are party to) in the interpreting of the constitution... but since then she has already done just that now that she is on the bench.

Post 2

Thursday, July 1, 2010 - 6:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Her first inclination of course is to ridicule the idea of passing such a law. She calls it "senseless". Yet according to liberal ideology it shouldn't be considered senseless at all. Liberals have already passed a law mandating individuals buy a product because they think it is for their own good, i.e. health insurance. Likewise, they should consider eating three servings of vegetables and fruits a day as being for your own good as well. If the justification is that the state can mandate personal behavior because individuals can't be trusted on their own, they have no justification in feigning incredulity at Sen. Coburn's proposal the government mandate healthy eating.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Thursday, July 1, 2010 - 6:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Points 3 - 8 would seem to contradict point 1.

Post 4

Thursday, July 1, 2010 - 6:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Coburn should have let her continue to flounder until she gave an answer.

Post 5

Thursday, July 1, 2010 - 7:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter,

You are correct. It is too late to edit that post (I tried) but if I could I'd add this to the end of the last sentence in post #1: "...(unless you are a strict originalist, as I am, and as I believe we should all be).

Item #2 would then function, as I intended it to... as the reason why those who aren't strict originalist shouldn't confirm her.

Item's #3 and #4 are enough for me, because I work from a strict originalist framework, but then I'm not on the confirmation committee. Item #5 just scares the Hell out of me, and Items #6 and #7 makes me suspicious that her political views aren't compatible with our nation as seen by the founders. And item #8 just speaks to her lack of integrity.

They are mostly just a grab-bag of things to not like about this nominee.
--------

Newt Gingrich chided the Republicans for not postponing the hearings until the justice department delivered all of the documents requested from her service in the Clinton administration. I agree. They seem to think that because she is replacing a progressive justice, it is okay if she is progressive. That's nuts!

These pitiful republican senators swore to uphold the constitution and that means not confirming someone they believe will make bad constitutional case law.




Post 6

Thursday, July 1, 2010 - 7:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
SW: ...  We know so very little about about her - she has so little record for someone with her career path that she has clearly gone to extremes to keep her view hidden. ... 
2. There is an absolute commonsense requirement that the Senate not confirm someone when they don't have EVIDENCE of the person's positions - j
3. She has acknowledged that she advocates the "living constitution"
6. She wrote a college thesis on socialism that worried about socialismís demise, and a masterís thesis praising the activism of the Earl Warren Court.
7. She worked for the Michael Dukakis for President campaign, and took a leave as a law school professor to help Joe Biden get liberal Justice Ruth Ginsburg confirmed.
8. Those few bits of historical evidence that are negative, she denies in one fashion or another.

Have you tried Google?   These are among the hits I got when I put "Elena Kagan" in the search field.
From the Harvard Law School Faculty Directory. Her bibliography.
  • Kagan, Elena. "Presidential Administration," 114 Harvard Law Review 2245 (2001).
    Kagan, Elena & David Barron. "Chevron's Nondelegation Doctrine," 2001 Supreme Court Review 201 (2001).
  • Kagan, Elena. "When A Speech Code Is A Speech Code: The Stanford Policy and the Theory of Incidental Restraints," 29 University of California at Davis Law Review 957 (1996).
  • Kagan, Elena. "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," 63 University of Chicago Law Review 413 (1996).
  • Kagan, Elena. "Confirmation Messes, Old and New," 62 University of Chicago Law Review 919 (1995) (book review).
  • Kagan, Elena. "For Justice Marshall," 71 Texas Law Review 1125 (1993).
  • Kagan, Elena. "A Libel Story: Sullivan Then and Now," 18 Law and Social Inquiry 197 (1993) (book review).
  • Kagan, Elena. "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," 60 University of Chicago Law Review 873 (1993).
  • Kagan, Elena. "The Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality: R.A.V. v St. Paul, Rust v Sullivan, and the Problem of Content-Based Underinclusion," 1992 Supreme Court Review 29 (1992).
From the US Department of Justice, her biography when she became Solicitor General.
Kagan clerked for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1986 to 1987. The next year, she clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the United States Supreme Court. She worked as an associate in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1989 to 1991.
Kagan received her bachelorís degree, summa cum laude, from Princeton in 1981. She attended Worcester College, Oxford, as Princetonís Daniel M. Sachs Graduating Fellow, and received an M. Phil. in 1983. She then attended Harvard Law School, where she was supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated magna cum laude in 1986.

"However, there was one obvious hole in her resume before landing the Obama administration job: she has never sat on the bench as a judge, though Presidet Clinton nominated her in 1999 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. But Kagan never got a hearing from theGOP-dominated Senate Judiciary Committee"

Kagan has donated $12,050 since the 2000 election cycle, all to Democratic candidates. She donated to Hillary Rodham Clintonís 2000 Senate campaign but supported Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential primary.

 
Key Associates
 Lawrence H. Summers - Head of the National Economic Council (since January 2009)
 Neal Katyal -Principal Deputy Solicitor General (since February 2009)
 Daniel Meltzer - Principal Deputy White House Counsel (since January 2009)
 Gary Grindler- Acting Deputy Attorney General (since February 2010)
 Samantha Power - Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs, National Security Council (since January 2009)
 Cass R. Sunstein - Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (since September 2009)

http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Elena_Kagan
("Who Runs Gov" is a website publication of The Washington Post. -- MEM)
In a few weeks, the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas , will release thousands of documents pertaining to Kagan, including memos she wrote when working in the Clinton administration beginning in 1995. The memos might reflect advice she gave as an attorney in the White House Counsel's office and later the Office of Domestic Policy.
ABC News Website here
Among those is the "Abortion Memo" read it as a PDF here.

As for the other points...
3.  I believe that the US Constitution is a living document. Do you think that it is dead?
6.  I have written several papers in college, cognizant of the fact that they might be quoted later, but that is what college is for, especially for younger people, but for all, really, to explore ideas. Are you quoting the actual paper itself, or did you get that from a conservative blog?
7.  Of course she worked for Democratic Party candidates.  She's a Democrat.  As for that, if you actually listen to that YouTube clip you posted, you will realize that it was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who pressed Counselor Kagan on the danger to books from FEC rules about cinema.  It seems that the liberal, Democratic Justice Ginsburg has her principles in place, not totally unknown among liberals and Democrats, just as there are conservatives who are honorable, even though they worked for Republican candidates.
8.  Are you saying that Elena Ginsburg denies contributing to the Clinton campaign, or that like Peter denying Jesus, she said she never heard of Larry Summers?

Really, Steve, if you want to list Elena Kagan's deficiencies, why not actually read the papers she wrote?  Or did you avoid that effort by watching Glenn Beck?


Post 7

Thursday, July 1, 2010 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam Erica wrote: "Sen Tom Coburn is trying to get her to say that there is no right to state mandated health care but Kagan can't have it both ways. If she says that the state can't tell you what to eat then the state doesn't have the right to mandate health care."
Sam, I, too am sorry that the clip you posted truncated the tet-a-tet.  Perhaps we should read the entire transcript.  The Commerce Clause has been interpreted to give broad powers to the federal government.
 
From the LA Times opinion page today here
"Politico picked up where the clip left off, offering a partial transcript of the mini-debate. Kagan noted that courts would question whether ordering people to eat fruits and vegetables had a substantial connection to interstate commerce. After all, she observed, non-economic activity is beyond the reach of the Commerce clause. Throwing the ball back in Coburn's court, she said, "We can come up with sort of, you know, just ridiculous-sounding laws, and the principal protector against bad laws is the political branches themselves."
And here is that opinion essay  from Politico which includes debate between Coburn and Kagan.

You know, of course, that the White House vetted Elena Kagan with the Republican leadership.  This is all for show. I could be wrong.  It could be like Robert Bork, but, basically, it will be no more raucous and pointless than the Clarence Thomas hearings.




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Thursday, July 1, 2010 - 9:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Try going a little deeper. Actually read some of the papers she wrote - they tell us very little in the area we need.
----------------

The Clinton Library isn't going to release the papers in time for the nomination confirmation - Gee, what a surprise! And the justice department chose not to release most of her papers... another big surprise! NOT.
----------------

You wrote, "I believe that the US Constitution is a living document. Do you think that it is dead?"

At a Harvard seminar, Kagan asked Scalia the exact same thing - same words. Are you plagerizing her, or did you come up with that on your own? He said it isn't dead, it endures.

I'd say it lives through it's amendment process, and that liberal interpretation is the fastest way to kill it. But progressives don't want to use the amendment process, they want to be an elite and "interpret" social justice by changing what the text meant to the founding fathers. And the death of the original meaning of a limit on power is their end goal.
----------------

You wrote, "...if you actually listen to that YouTube clip you posted, you will realize that it was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who pressed Counselor Kagan on the danger to books from FEC rules..." Oh, I listened, Michael. And it scared me to hear that Kagan was arguing for a position that scared the liberal and conservative wings of the court.
----------------

Michael wrote, "The Commerce Clause has been interpreted to give broad powers to the federal government."

That's right. And the resulting drive our government has made towards statism is to a large degree due to that "interpretation" you advocate. That's your constitution seen as a "living document."

We should start calling Michael an Anarchist-Statist if he thinks that we should have a liberally interpreted commerce clause :-)
----------------

Michael,

You wrote, "After all, she observed, non-economic activity is beyond the reach of the Commerce clause."

Yes, she said that, but it is totally wrong. Check out the Supreme Court opinion where a farmer was not to grow more wheat than the government alloted, even though it was for his own use. The reasoning was that he would not be purchasing wheat, since he had grown his own, and that would change the balance of supply and demand which might have an effect on interstate commerce!!!!

Again, the evils of allowing that "living constitution" view that lets the left or the right implement ideology from outside the constitution.
----------

Here is a quote from the Politico op-ed you linked to:

"While it's true that Kagan never definitively answered Coburn's question, the pair spent nearly 10 minutes discussing the issue."

That sums up most of her part in the confirmation - NOT ANSWERING.

"Coburn later modified his hypothetical to assert that there would be an economic impact. 'What if I said that eating three fruits and three vegetables would cut health care costs 20 percent? Now, weíre into commerce. And since the government pays 65 percent of all the health care costs, why isnít that constitutional?' he asked"

"I feel as though the principles that Iíve given you are the principles that the court should apply," Kagan said at that point."

But she hadn't answered. When he talked about forcing people to eat veggies, she said it wasn't the business of the supreme court to shoot down senseless laws.

When he mention the use of the commerce clause, she said wasn't used that way in non-economic areas, but it is.

When he modified his hypothetical to include commercial aspects and tied it to ObamaCare, she says she has already spoken to the principles, when she hadn't.
------------

I have no love for the Republicans - For the most part, I don't see many of them doing their jobs.
------------

I can't see what you like about Kagan.

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Friday, July 2, 2010 - 1:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A year ago, the USSC added Justice Sotomayer -- a Princton U. instructed radical Ivy Leaguer.

Now, for some variety on the court, Obama is injecting Kagan -- a Princeton U. instructed radical Ivy Leaguer.

This is some diverse nation. You'd think Obama had married a Princeton U. instructed radical Ivy Leaguer.

2/9ths of the Supreme Court are going to come from the same clueless inbred radical square block of academic DisneyLand in new Jersey.

Two cookie-cutter radicals inserted onto the USSC in less than a year, because one wasn't enough to represent the capitalist hating disconnected elitist, paternalitic megalomaniac bloc in America.

Princeton grooms about a 1000 new acolytes a year. Is there really no other acceptable source of instructed left wing radicals in the nation?

Nobody is concerned about this blatantly singular inbreeding of thought, simply on the basis of Miss Repeat being Miss Repeat?



Post 10

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 - 5:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Major Premise:  Elena Kagan is a progressive.
Minor Premise: I hate progressives.
Conclusion: Elena Kagan is unqualified to serve on the US Supreme Court


Elena Kagan born April 28, 1960, New York City
A.B. Princeton University, history, summa cum laude
master of philosophy, Oxford in 1983.
Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, at Harvard Law School in 1986
law clerk for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
1987
for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988;
assistant professor University of Chicago Law School 1991 -1995
1995 to 1999, Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic
Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council.
nominated 1999 by Clinton, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch scheduled no hearing
1999 visiting professor at Harvard Law School, full professor 2001
Dean of the Law School 2003
[Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_kagan accessed July 7, 2010 0800 EDT]

So far, no one here has quoted any of her publications.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.