Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

The words do not have to be perfect.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Second rate reporter says what?

Come on, man.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

You are here: Home / Like a Parody, But Real

Like a Parody, But Real

by | 166 Comments

This post is in: ,

Ed Whelan’s first real salvo is up, and if this is all they have, I now understand why the political wing of the WH supports Kagan. At any rate, Whelan’s first attack contained this gem:

Kagan’s exclusion of military recruiters from the Harvard law school campus promises to draw considerable attention precisely because—as Peter Beinart, the liberal former editor of the New Republic, has written—it amounted to “a statement of national estrangement,” of Kagan’s “alienating [her]self from the country.”

Even the liberal new Republic! It’s almost like that phrase is a running joke!

Reader Interactions

166Comments

  2. 2.

    LarsThorwald

    Everyone is going to annoy me this week, aren’t they? Greenwald, The National Review, fuck, even Lost is going to disappoint, isn’t it?

  3. 3.

    Remember November

    I swear these people have no idea what a fact-check is. Kagan disallowed ALL recruiters who were anti-gay, not just Mil. These guys must be all migrant immiegrants for all the low-hangin fruit they pick.

  4. 4.

    Zifnab

    How soon till we find out she’s a lesbian? When do we get to meet her “Bill Ayers”?

  6. 6.

    Clark

    Alienating herself from the country? It’s almost as if when Kagan looks at the land, she doesn’t even see the nation.

  7. 7.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    Reality: Kagan consistently followed the law, and Harvard students had access to military recruiters during her entire tenure as dean. Throughout Kagan’s tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters — either through Harvard’s Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association.

  10. 10.

    Mike Kay

    well, if they’ve got nothing, then Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III might as well call greenwald to testify against Kagan.

  11. 11.

    Culture of Truth

    Lost sucks!1!

    Update I:
    Lost Rulz this week!

    Update II:
    Oooh the man is black is baaad!

  12. 12.

    Will

    Alienating herself from the country? It’s almost as if when Kagan looks at the land, she doesn’t even see the nation.

    She really can see Russia from her house.

  13. 13.

    Shygetz

    don’t worry, John, they’re just getting warmed up. If they don’t find anything real on Kagan, they’ll just make shit up. There’s too much fundraising money in it for them not too. Ain’t nuthin’ slowin’ down this crazy train, baby!

  14. 14.

    ellaesther

    I believe the “liberal” here appears to be “the former editor” not “The New Republic.”

    Just, you know: Clarifyin’.

  15. 15.

    slippy

    I am so manufactured-outrage fatigued I can’t even get worked up about this one. A bunch of spittle-flecked screeds from the right are going to ensue as they will every time Obama has an opportunity to impact the political future of this nation. Countertops will be investigated, teh Ghey will be feared, and the only real thing the Right is saying anymore is this:

    “OH MY GOD, SHE’S NOT A WHITE MAN!”

    Which alternates with

    “OH MY GOD, HE’S NOT A WHITE MAN!”

    Fuck their outrage sideways with something hard and sandpapery.

  16. 16.

    Will

    I wish she was Hispanic. Or black. Or openly gay. The crazy is just gonna be so weak without any of that going on.

    Or transgendered. Why can’t she be transgendered?

    Hell, how about a midget? I wanna hear their crazy problems with midgets.

  17. 17.

    D-Chance.

    Yet another long, drawn-out, boring Supreme argument?

    Oh, I forgot… this is the most important Supreme Court nomination battle since… since… who the Hell did they stick in there just a couple of months ago that no one remembers now?

  18. 18.

    Punchy

    I’m just waiting for Kagan’s Whitey Tape, in which she declares her favorite ice cream flavor to be vanilla, causing Greenwald to explode in a 12,300 word treatise/rant exposing the danger of nominating someone so willing to overlook the value of chocolate or coffee-colored ice cream.

  19. 19.

    LarsThorwald

    Congratulations. Ed Whelan’s just been selected to receive a $1000 Wal*Mart gift card.

  21. 21.

    Mike Kay

    I hear kagan is a trekie.

    I wonder if she can speak Vulcan?

    I wonder if she can speak to Obama in Vulcan or by merely using the Vulcan-mind-meld.

  24. 24.

    Zifnab

    @D-Chance.: That’s kinda the joke. I’m still waiting for Kennedy or Scalia to kick it. Or maybe Alito to get hit by a bus. By then, the SCOTUS shit fit will be so time warn as to be almost rote. They’ll be able to outsource the outrage to China – maybe get some low priced foreign labor to deliver all their screeds.

  25. 25.

    slippy

    @JK: There’s a Judicial Crisis Network?

    Is this something formed in response to the looming spectre of the Supreme Court’s demographic makeup somewhat reflecting that of the actual United States?

    Edited to add: Oh. I followed the link and saw I was on Pat Robertson’s website. Say no moah!

  26. 26.

    Ash Can

    Never mind the “liberal New Republic” bit; that whole blockquote makes no fucking sense.

  30. 30.

    Elisabeth

    @JK:

    Next they’ll be going with the Chicago-style thuggery meme. Plouffe, Axelrod, Emmanuel, Kagan…slowly but surely Obama is bringing in all his soshulist Chicago buddies to take over DC.

  31. 31.

    Bob L

    You got to admit it is impressive how many ways they can paraphrase “she is not a white man”.

  32. 32.

    Culture of Truth

    but David Brody is apparently digging up every rock to find a critic of Elena Kagan.

    “Progressive” twitter feed

  34. 34.

    Culture of Truth

    She is from the part of North America abutting the Atlantic Ocean! Clearly her interpretation of the Constitution must be flawed!!!!

  35. 35.

    Corner Stone

    @JK:

    the Judicial Crisis Network

    I love the fact that this organization exists.
    More proof that they are all just grifters. Every one of them.

  36. 36.

    Adam Collyer

    Like clockwork, this clown appears on MSNBC. His primary complaint? “She exhibited policy preferences,” during her time as the dean of HLS. She tried to prevent the military from on-campus recruiting while allowing access to firms who were contributing pro bono work for Guantanamo detainees.

    Never mind the fact that the two are completely unrelated. Many prestigious firms do pro bono work on a variety of cases. The military issue had less than nothing to do with Guantanamo and everything to do with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Everyone in the legal field knows this. But wouldn’t you know it, whoever the woman hosting on MSNBC is refused to call him out on it.

  37. 37.

    Comrade Dread

    I’m curious, if ‘the liberal New Republic’ agrees with Republicans enough for the phrase to become an internet meme/joke, at what point does the establishment finally stop calling the magazine liberal?

    If it quacks like a duck, and all…

  38. 38.

    gwangung

    Never mind the fact that the two are completely unrelated. Many prestigious firms do pro bono work on a variety of cases. The military issue had less than nothing to do with Guantanamo and everything to do with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Everyone in the legal field knows this. But wouldn’t you know it, whoever the woman hosting on MSNBC is refused to call him out on it.

    This assumes that she knew about that. That might be over-estimating talking heads….

  43. 43.

    Adam Collyer

    @gwangung:

    This is why I don’t watch cable news on even a semi-regular basis anymore, and why I found the BBC coverage of the British elections to be far more thought provoking than anything that’s been on American TV news in years. Over there, it seemed like they actually had journalists on TV. Here, we have attractive people with nice voices. Maybe she would have challenged Whelan on his nonsense had she known it. The problem is that her job (a TV NEWS ANCHOR) doesn’t require that level of detail.

    @General Egali Tarian Stuck:

    Pretty sure I heard that too. Now, he may be right, but I’m not sure that disqualifies her as a public servant. Maybe her and Charlie Crist (circa 2007) should hang out…

  46. 46.

    JK

    More cool reaction quotes to Kagan’s selection

    Orrin Hatch: “I will examine Ms. Kagan’s entire record to understand her judicial philosophy. My conclusion will be based on evidence, not blind faith. Her previous confirmation, and my support for her in that position, do not by themselves establish either her qualifications for the Supreme Court or my obligation to support her. I have an open mind and look forward to actively participating in the confirmation process.”

    Big Bad John Cornyn: “There is no doubt that Ms. Kagan possesses a first-rate intellect, but she is a surprising choice from a president who has emphasized the importance of understanding ‘how the world works and how ordinary people live.’ Ms. Kagan has spent her entire professional career in Harvard Square, Hyde Park, and the DC Beltway. These are not places where one learns ‘how ordinary people live.’ Ms. Kagan is likewise a surprising choice because she lacks judicial experience. Most Americans believe that prior judicial experience is a necessary credential for a Supreme Court Justice

    David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society and former congressman from Indiana:
    “I’m deeply disappointed that President Obama has chosen to nominate an individual who has demonstrated a lack of adherence to the limits of the Constitution and a desire to utilize the court system to enact her beliefs of social engineering. Solicitor General Kagan has been nominated with no judicial experience, a mere two years of private law practice, and only a year as Solicitor General of the United States. She is one of the most inexperienced nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court in recent memory. Ms. Kagan’s public comments should be highly disturbing to all Americans as they show what kind of a Justice she will be. She has been a vocal opponent of military recruiters on the Harvard Law School campus, placing political correctness above national security in a time of war. Ms. Kagan abandoned the will of the American people and the Congress by challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, proving she will merely rule based on her personal political preferences and not the law. President Obama has, once again, nominated an individual who places a higher premium on political progressivism than adherence to the set of laws that have made this country strong and free. For someone tragically inexperienced and activist, Ms. Kagan represents President Obama’s ideal of transforming the Supreme Court into a vehicle for social reform and judicial affirmative action.”

    h/t http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/05/10/first-reactions-to-kagans-nomination

  47. 47.

    Citizen_X

    @Will:

    I wish she was Hispanic. Or black. Or openly gay. The crazy is just gonna be so weak without any of that going on.

    Well, she is a Jew. And they’ve been finally coming out of the closet about all the other types of hate lately, so they might as well start getting obvious about that one.

    The Right’s new theme has become “Drop the dog whistle.”

  48. 48.

    Rick Taylor

    It will probably work, but I can’t say I’m happy with a strategy of choosing a justice for the supreme court with a thin record.

  49. 49.

    Joseph Nobles

    Apparently Kagan’s Bill Ayers is Thurgood Marshall.

    Kagan quoted from a speech Marshall gave in 1987 in which he said the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.” She quoted him as saying the Supreme Court’s mission was to “show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged.”

    “Does Kagan Still View Constitution ‘As Originally Drafted And Conceived’ As ‘Defective’?” the RNC asked in its research document. “And Does Kagan Still Believe That The Supreme Court’s Primary Mission Is To ‘Show A Special Solicitude For The Despised And Disadvantaged’?”

    So Kagan has met my entertainment litmus test…

  51. 51.

    Citizen_X

    @JK: Wow, I have to give this McIntosh fellow props: she’s both without experience as a judge and a judicial activist!

    Hey David McIntosh: Congratulations! You’ve been selected to receive a $1000 Self-pwnership card!

  52. 52.

    Xenos

    @stuckinred: FDL redeemed itself a bit this morning with Attaturks post title “Unleash the Kagan!”. Good for a laugh at 5:00 am, and not much is.

  53. 53.

    cat48

    When do we get to meet her “Bill Ayers”?

    Well there’s her bankster friends at Goldman’s that she met with one day a yr which makes her part of the dreaded oligarchy, per Whelan.

  54. 54.

    Xenos

    @Joseph Nobles:

    “Does Kagan Still View Constitution ‘As Originally Drafted And Conceived’ As ‘Defective’?” the RNC asked in its research document.

    These people are not looking for judges, they want priests, and fundamentalist ones at that.

  57. 57.

    MikeJ

    @Citizen_X:

    Wow, I have to give this McIntosh fellow props: she’s both without experience as a judge and a judicial activist!

    She *would* have been a judge had the republicans ever got around to confirming her when Clinton nominated her.

  58. 58.

    Llelldorin

    “Does Kagan Still View Constitution ‘As Originally Drafted And Conceived’ As ‘Defective’?” the RNC asked in its research document.

    Well, even at the most superficial level, I can think of 27 reasons to think so (well, 25, if you cancel out NO BOOZE).

    The most depressing thing is how very much support these guys seem to draw despite having one of the stupidest collection of arguments in recorded history. I keep flashing back to the old 1988 SNL sketch in which their version of Dukakis began his rebuttal in a debate with “I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy!”

  59. 59.

    chopper

    @Llelldorin:

    i’m imagining the fact that kagan enjoys the right to vote today is proof that the constitution as originally conceived was in fact defective.

  60. 60.

    MikeJ

    I wonder if 3/5ths of Michael Steele will publicly say the constitution as drafted wasn’t defective.

  62. 62.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Apparently Kagan’s Bill Ayers is Thurgood Marshall.

    Hmmm. I am reliably informed she is a secret Republican, and that once again Barack O-Bush is using the fiction of an intransigeant and unaccountable Republican filibuster to advance his secret Republican agenda (for the record, I much preferred Diane Wood).

  65. 65.

    Stroszek

    I cannot accept this invitation, for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever “fixed” at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite “The Constitution,” they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago.

    Not-so-breaking-news: the RNC denounces 11th through 27th amendments!

  66. 66.

    Joseph Nobles

    @me:

    Well, it’s true that the 3/5 compromise can be found in the 3rd century versions of the Constitution, but I’ve always preferred the Codex Plymouthrockicus.

  68. 68.

    NobodySpecial

    I have to ask, what happens if she’s appointed and is not the smooth operator that will have Justice Kennedy in the liberal camp more often than not? Because the gamble is that she’ll be able to do that, not if she’s going to become Scalita.

    The difference between Wood and Kagan is not as large as described, but that’s not what we should be worried about.

  69. 69.

    homerhk

    The right hate her for the usual oddball reasons. GG hates her for some reason which I still haven’t really worked out properly after reading approximately 500 columns on her that he’s written in the past few weeks.

    Someone who gets the right wing and GG up in arms? Perfect choice in my view.

  72. 72.

    homerhk

    Perhaps it’s better put this way:

    The right hates her because Barack Obama nominated her;

    GG hates her because people who support her support her because Barack Obama nominated her.

  75. 75.

    Ash Can

    Probably what gripes me most about the RNC’s criticism is that they can’t even give the Founding Fathers credit for the right thing. The genius of the FFs wasn’t in drafting a perfect document — they didn’t, obviously — but in devising a framework of government flexible enough to withstand and adapt to centuries of change. That was no small feat.

    Of course, to these disingenuous shits, this is a bug rather than a feature.

  76. 76.

    frankdawg

    Advance copy of her opening statement to the hearing:

    “Senators, if you are kind enough to not ask me about the money I get from Goldman Sachs I will be kind enough not to ask you the same question.”

    Come on, that’s funny – I’m trying to lighten up.

  77. 77.

    You Don't Say

    Andrew Sullivan wants her to come out of the closet, *if* she’s in it. Blech.

  78. 78.

    gizmo

    If Whelan thinks that Kagan doesn’t have enough real-world legal experience, then what was his position on the Clarence Thomas nomination?

  81. 81.

    asiangrrlMN

    @jeffreyw: And what a tasty easter egg it is, too. Nom nom nom.

    @frankdawg: That’s funny. Much more of that is going to be needed.

    So, am I just gonna piss off everybody by saying that while Wood is a strong candidate, and I would have happily supported her, so far, I have no issues with Kagan, either?

    By the way, I didn’t realize she would be the third Jew. Now some people are having a hissy fit because there are no Protestants on the Court. Good times….

  83. 83.

    Cacti

    @asiangrrlMN:

    By the way, I didn’t realize she would be the third Jew. Now some people are having a hissy fit because there are no Protestants on the Court. Good times….

    no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

    They forgot to put the * at the end of this clause and the explanation at the bottom

    Except for Jews

  87. 87.

    asiangrrlMN

    @Cacti: To be fair, many people think 6 Catholics is too many as well.

    @stuckinred: Neat! However, I am holding out for an agnostic/atheist. Ha!

    @Johio: Can’t wait for someone to ask Chairman Steele about the 3/5ths human thing.

  88. 88.

    Johio

    Oh My God. He did it. Steele actually came out with a statement criticizing her for saying the Constitution as originally written was defective. Are we really really totally sure Steele isn’t an incredibly wry Democrat?

  89. 89.

    IndieTarheel

    Yeah, well let’s get the important questions out of the way: what are her countertops made of, and where does she get her doughnuts?

  90. 90.

    ericblair

    @Culture of Truth:

    She is from the part of North America abutting the Atlantic Ocean! Clearly her interpretation of the Constitution must be flawed!

    ‘Sright! The Founding Fathers would never have let anyone from New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, or any of those other Upper Right Hand Corner states to have anything to do with writing the Constitution!

    Oh, wait.

  91. 91.

    Socraticsilence

    Can I just cross my fingers and pray the GOP attacks her on the Thurgood Marshall tie the Hill has hinted at- I mean nothing will make the GOP appear in touch like attacking someone for being tied to the most well-known and respected Jurist of the last century- I mean he said the original conception of the constitution was defective (talking about the 3/5ths compromise) I just want to see one Senator, hopefully a Southerner like Jefferson Beauragard Sessions attacks her on this- I mean there’s two brilliant counters (though I wouldn’t say both at one time):
    1) Senator, you honestly think the 3/5ths compromise was perfect?
    2) Senator- you’re own namesakes disagreed with the conception of the constitution and unlike Marshall commited treason to prove their point.

  92. 92.

    4tehlulz

    @Johio: Link or it didn’t happen.

    Edit: Disregard that.

    CNN

    Jesus what an idiot. Should his statement count as 3/5 of a comment?

  94. 94.

    Annie

    @stuckinred:

    ssssh…it was a joke. I am an academic, and I do have a life — at least between the months of May and mid-August..

  97. 97.

    eemom

    @stuckinred:

    “bmaz” is an arrogant, ignorant little Greenwald-wannabe twat. He’s there so Marcy Wheeler doesn’t get nailed for the unauthorized practice of law.

  102. 102.

    Randy P

    @Corpsicle: Not that looks are relevant one way or the other, but attractive is a subjective thing. Haven’t we figured that out as a species yet?

    Personally, (1) I like smart women and (2) Besides being smart, I think she has kind of a Bette Midler thing going on.

  107. 107.

    JK

    @arguingwithsignposts:

    Neither one. Just preferable to absolutely any nominee that would be selected by Raging Nut John McCain, Sarah Mooseburger Helper Palin, or Beefcake Bimbo Scott Brown.

  108. 108.

    flukebucket

    Michael Steele is paralyzed from the neck up.

    I love the man more with each passing day.

  109. 109.

    ericvsthem

    Shorter Glennzilla: Kagan is an ideological cipher that could turn out for Obama/Democrats/liberals how Souter turned out for George HW Bush/Republicans/conservatives. Too much of a risk on an appointee that is relatively young when there are other potential nominees with clear progressive ideologies.

    From Wikipedia: “Souter was seen as a “stealth justice” whose professional record in the state courts provoked little real controversy, and provided very little “paper trail” on issues of U.S. Constitutional law. President Bush saw this lack of a paper trail as a positive for Souter, because one of President Reagan’s nominees, Robert Bork, had recently been rejected by the Senate partially because of the availability of his extensive written opinions on controversial issues. Bush nominated Souter on July 25, 1990, claiming that he did not know Souter’s stances on abortion, affirmative action, or other issues.” […] “At the time of Souter’s appointment, John Sununu assured President Bush and conservatives that Souter would be a “home run” for conservatism.”

    …yeah, we all know how well that turned out for conservatism.

  110. 110.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    @Comrade Dread:

    I’m curious, if ‘the liberal New Republic’ agrees with Republicans enough for the phrase to become an internet meme/joke, at what point does the establishment finally stop calling the magazine liberal?
    If it quacks like a duck, and all…

    Never.

    Camille Paglia has been a crypto right-wing insane raving lunatic since the day she appeared on anyone’s radar including mine and the incomparable Molly Ivins who wrote about her “Sheesh, what an asshole!” back in 1991, and ever since then and right to the present day, she’s called “A big liberal” and “The only liberal who agrees with me” by people like Rush Limbaugh and others, and of course referred to that way by nearly anyone on TV or in print.

    It’s one thing I won’t ever forgive Salon.com for, even if they also publish Greenwald and Tom Tomorrow.

    These must be a certain part of the food chain or something, that biologists will discover serve some purpose, Potemkinus Liberalus, or something, since they seem to crop up and take root and then it just never, ever changes.

  111. 111.

    FlipYrWhig

    @arguingwithsignposts: I think it’s that everyone who thinks she’s a great nominee is a corporate sellout and/or in the thrall of Dear Leader, and everyone who doesn’t think she’s a great nominee is a firebagger, purity troll, and/or GlennBot. Those are the only two choices.

  113. 113.

    asiangrrlMN

    @IndieTarheel: Yes, but I think I did that over at TBogg, if I’m not mistaken, about Douthat. I had to check my comments here three times to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating!

    @JK: Not. Gonna. Happen. At least not in our lifetimes, sad to say. Then again, I didn’t think a black man would be elected president in my lifetime, so who knows?

  114. 114.

    MikeJ

    “I urge everyone not to say that the confirmation of the nominee is inevitable,” Levey tells activists on the call, “even if we think it is.” At another point, he suggests that a court fight can serve “broader goals such as just distracting Obama from other items on his agenda … the tougher the fight, the less capital and time and resources and floor time in the Senate there is to spend on immigration and climate change, etc.”

    Weigel

  115. 115.

    robertdsc

    Can she go to her left and hit the pullup j?

    Even better, what’s her time in the 40?

  116. 116.

    asiangrrlMN

    FYWP for not allowing me to edit my own comment.

    @JK: By the way, did you see I gave you a big ol’ shout-out in an earlier thread for turning me on to Cat Stevens’ Father and Son? Steeplejack had linked to the Maverick’s cover of Here Comes My Baby, which led to much linkage of other covers and a link to the original by Cat Stevens Great, great song.

  118. 118.

    Ash Can

    “Bush nominated Souter…claiming that he did not know Souter’s stances on abortion, affirmative action, or other issues.”

    I think this one sentence tells us all we need to know about the difference between Kagan and Souter — or, more specifically, the difference between the likely outcomes of their nominations.

    @Bill E Pilgrim: How did anyone, even someone as wacked-out delusional as Rush Limbaugh, ever get the idea that Camille Paglia was in any way “liberal”? As far as I can tell, she’s never been anything but a right-wing attention whore who adopts various degrees of outrageousness depending on how badly she craves attention at the time. Sort of like Ann Coulter.

  119. 119.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Cacti: To be fair, I think Greenwald’s real issue is not so much that she _is_ dismayingly conservative but that activists on the left should demand some proof that she _isn’t_ rather than taking the bland assurances of the administration.

  121. 121.

    jl

    I do not support Kagan with same enthusiasm I did Sototmayor nomination, due my concerns about Kagan’s stance on civil liberties wrt to current national security paranoia.

    In particular, I would like to see concerns raised by Greenwald and others addressed.

    Of course, that would be the last issue reactionaries would bring up. If Kagan is soft on civil liberties, that might be a reason for them to support her.

    Too bad the debate is already turning into an ideological freakshow.

  124. 124.

    Dork

    @eemom: So only half the shit on this blog can be funny/snarky/stupid, and you’re the arbiter of such determinations? STFU. If you really think I actually care what she looks like, you dont belong on this blog, as your snark detector sucks.

  125. 125.

    jl

    @FlipYrWhig: I agree. I can’t say I oppose Kagan. But I think there were people who would be just as good nominees, and have clearer positions on civil liberties and national security issues.

    But, so far, looks like we are going to get sexual preference witch hunts, debates about how soon you have to learn to drive to be a real American, and now much Kagan’s geographical residence has alienated her from the real America. Good times coming, another chance to be proud of our national opinion and public intellectual leadership, right?

    Right.

  126. 126.

    mr. whipple

    @frankdawg:

    are the ravings of that noted Firebagging moron & goofball Professor Jonathan Turley:

    Let me guess before reading: Turley is ‘troubled‘ and ‘deeply concerned.’

    What did I win?

  128. 128.

    ericvsthem

    @Cacti: the pertinent question from Glenn’s overbearing analysis isn’t whether or not she’s a stealth winger, but why take the risk that she is to the right of the John Paul Stevens?

    Given the importance of the position and that it is a lifetime appointment, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable question at all.

    Other than that issue, she seems very well qualified.

  129. 129.

    MikeJ

    @jl: Do you think the “debate” over any other nominee would be elevated to some lofty plane? Obama could nominate ZombieChe himself and people would complain he wasn’t far enough left. Obama could nominate ZombieReagan and the Republicans still wouldn’t like it.

  130. 130.

    stuckinred

    “Elena is open-minded, pragmatic and progressive,” said Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration who is close to both Ms. Kagan and the White House. “Each of those qualities will appeal to some, and not to others.

    “Her open-mindedness may disappoint some who want a sure liberal vote on almost every issue. Her pragmatism may disappoint those who believe that mechanical logic can decide all cases. And her progressive personal values will not endear her to the hard right. But that is exactly the combination the president was seeking.”

  131. 131.

    frankdawg

    @mr. whipple:

    A good squeezing? :)

    Yes, and he articulates why he is concerned and troubled – the same points CG has made in the past that so many people here seem to have not gotten from reading his stuff.

    Her past comments etc. indicate that she has no problem with indefinite detention, and infinite executive power. Many of those cases have been decided 5-4 in favor of constraint. She could easily make that 5-4 in favor of more power to the next Boy Blunder they elect.

  132. 132.

    Dork

    Stock market looks good today. Dammit. Stock market appears healthy again. F#ck. Stock market up.

  133. 133.

    mr. whipple

    @frankdawg:

    Turley lives in a constant state of troubled concern. He’s MSNBC’s very own concern troll, on call 24/7 for all the concern needs of the concern demographic.

  136. 136.

    jl

    @MikeJ: No, I do not. My complaint about the coverage was a general ventation and whine, and I do not consider it to be a specific problem with the Kagan nomination. Sorry for any distress and confusion caused by that ambiguity.

    Actually, the nominees that I think better would probably create a bigger nonsensical fuss.

    I agree with front pagers that the first salvos from the reactionaries, being so silly, are good signs for success of nomination. Which is good, if you think Kagan is best choice.

    I am with ericvsthem @127 regarding Kagan nomination and the moderate and liberal skeptics’ analysis of it.

  137. 137.

    frankdawg

    @MikeJ:

    Wrong – even that evil bastard Greenwald has mentioned more acceptable candidates.

    The problem is on a 5-4 court Obama is replacing a known liberal with an avowed right-of-center. A lot of those 5-4 rulings are not going to go the way of the individual against power. Take a look at some of the shit that Boy George lost 5-4 on & imagine him winning 5-4.

  139. 139.

    Tonal Crow

    @MikeJ:

    I wonder if 3/5ths of Michael Steele will publicly say the constitution as drafted wasn’t defective.

    Win!

  140. 140.

    Punchy

    The problem is on a 5-4 court Obama is replacing a known liberal with an avowed right-of-center

    Lolwhutz? Kagan is right of center? Links to this?

  141. 141.

    eemom

    @Dork:

    maybe, but my asshole detector doesn’t…..and when someone makes a moronic comment like that, it sounds more like juvenile assholery than snark.

    So. Fuck off.

  143. 143.

    Zach

    I knew Kagan was going to be the nominee once the obligatory TNR hit piece on her was released.

  145. 145.

    chopper

    now that i think about it, kagan’s best response to the charge that she feels that the constitution as originally written is ‘defective’ is, why the hell would anybody want to be on the supreme court if it they felt otherwise? the whole concept of judicial review is markedly absent from the constitution.

    if you felt the constitution as originally envisioned didn’t need ‘fixing’ you don’t believe the scotus has the right to decide the constitutionality of anything at all.

  146. 146.

    jl

    @4tehlulz: That is good news.

    But you are uncool, big thing now is that Kagan quoted Thurgood Marshall to effect that original Consitution was ‘defective’. Kagan quoting Marshall shows that Kagan is unAmerican, obviously.

    You know, that election of 1800 went so well, I wonder why the people who wrote it went went all commie and tinkered with perfection.

    This nomination will be fun.

  147. 147.

    ksmiami

    Ben Effin Franklin knew the original constitution was a deeply flawed but better than nothing document and he knew that leaving the slave question unresolved would lead to civil war later. It was one of his biggest personal regrets. /back to bitching silently mode

  148. 148.

    binzinerator

    @gizmo:

    If Whelan thinks that Kagan doesn’t have enough real-world legal experience, then what was his position on the Clarence Thomas nomination?

    Or on Harriet Miers’?

    Sheesh these people are fucking stupid.

    Or maybe they simply assume enough of America is fucking stupider.

    Unfortunately, so far they haven’t gone completely bust for underestimating the percentage that aren’t.

  149. 149.

    Stroszek

    @frankdawg: Assuming that Kagan is more conservative than Kennedy is an awfully big assumption to make and not one grounded in any readily available evidence. I suppose one could be reasonably concerned (on the basis of a lack of specifics about Kagan’s ideological perspective) that some decisions that went 5-4 in the conservatives’ favor could go 6-3 with Kagan, but this isn’t the same thing as making the Court “more conservative” in a holistic sense. The Court is only ever as liberal or conservative as its 5th vote.

  150. 150.

    wrb

    I used to be a regular reader of and infrequent commenter at FDL but hadn’t been there for awhile.

    I figured I’d mosey over to see how this Kagan thing was playing.

    The comment thread under Elena Kagan Will Be The Most Unqualified Justice in History is a wonder to behold. Some serious derangement. Utterly indistinguishable from the dedicated PUMA sites.

    Soon they will be ending their posts with “RROOWRRR!!”

    PUMA HAKA

  151. 151.

    binzinerator

    @chopper:

    i’m imagining the fact that kagan enjoys the right to vote today is proof that the constitution as originally conceived was in fact defective.

    Ah, but to a winger this is bitter proof that as originally conceived it was perfect. Womens and the dark-skinned utterly disenfranchised was a feature not a bug.

  152. 152.

    chopper

    @wrb:

    i love it. the fact that kagan was part of the clinton administration and probably would have been nominated by president hillary is meaningless in the face of the obama-hate.

  155. 155.

    JK

    @mr. whipple: Concern trolls are people too.

    Jonathan Turley is a 3rd string, junior varsity concern troll. David Gergen is the concern troll champion.

  156. 156.

    Amanda in the South Bay

    Well, barring military recruiters from Ivy League schools is a dumbass policy that only Harvard lawyers would like-it does nothing to repeal DADT, and it fucks over the officer corps even more than it is now. There are simply too many officers who went to bumfuck southern universities, and not enough who went to coastal/urban/northeastern schools, the kind of schools that have gotten rid of ROTC in the past 30 years. What’s better for making the military a more diverse institution-Harvard JAGs or lawyers from fucking southern universities?

  157. 157.

    FlipYrWhig

    @mr. whipple:

    Turley lives in a constant state of troubled concern.

    I used to think I was the only one who noticed this. His two favorite words, I said in one of the other threads, are “disturbed” and “disturbing.” When he’s on to discuss an issue, _inevitably_ he will say that he finds something disturbing. It’s like Old Faithful.

  159. 159.

    cat48

    Hmm, Eliot Spitzer loves him some Kagan–“one of his friends–known her for decades–she will be excellent–she has been consistent in her const views over the yrs.” This is reassuring. Poor Marcy Wheeler was eviscerated by Spitzer just now.

    BTW, Spitzer has been very critical of anything bank related that the “Obummer” admin. does so don’t call him a bot.

  160. 160.

    Cacti

    @cat48:

    Hmm, Eliot Spitzer loves him some Kagan—”one of his friends—known her for decades—she will be excellent—she has been consistent in her const views over the yrs.”

    All she needs now is a John Edwards endorsement and she’ll have the “progressive” gold seal of approval.

  161. 161.

    robertdsc

    @wrb:
    Sometimes I wonder what’s going in Firebag land but since I took them off my list, I’ve resisted going over there. I’m glad you’ve shown why that resistance was a good idea, lol.

  162. 162.

    JMY

    @jl:

    You have to remember that as Solicitor General, she defends the federal government, even if she doesn’t agree with the policy or statue. That the basic crutch of GG’s argument. She was asked during her confirmation hearings for SG, if al-qaeda members could be indefinitely detained during wartime and she said yes. Dawn Johnsen, answered the same question, the same way as she did. I never heard GG say anything about that.

  164. 164.

    asiangrrlMN

    Because I read the whole damn thing, so you people can do it, too. A link I stole from WaMo, from MediaMatters, fact-checking the Kagan myths.

    I am happier with the nomination after reading the link.

    P.S. She was saying there is a law in place that could indefinitely detain Gitmo prisoners–not that she agreed with that law.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks