Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Confirmation hearing for Elena Kagan

1235

Posts

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Grombar wrote: »
    Ender, if you're interested to see, here's a comprehensive tally of all Obama's campaign promises, which ones he's kept, and so on. So far, 118 of them have been completed, and another 248 are seeing progress. Not bad.
    Sign a "universal" health care bill

    Hmmmm, they're really giving him the benefit of the doubt on that one calling it a promise fulfilled. They're saying that because you now have to buy insurance or suffer a penalty that that's universal health care.....pretty narrow interpretation if you ask me.
    Is it actually worth watching? I figured it would be a bunch of bull shit grand standing by the senators and Kagan not actually answering anything that would give us even a glimpse into how she would vote on the bench.

    Yahoo published a pretty gushing story about her confirmation this morning, it sounds like most of the blowhards showed up the first day for the cameras (and ended up coming off rude and abrasive), and since then less and less people are showing up.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Kaboom. An obviously timed attack. There goes Kagan's confirmation...

  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Oh there's grandstanding by senators of course.

    There was a moment that I listened to last night where one of the Republican senators basically said: "So in your college thesis, you wrote that the courts should engage in advancing social justice from the bench!" (Or something along those lines)

    Kagan: "Before you continue, let me just say that I wrote that when I was an undergraduate, before I entered Law School. Law School taught me a great deal. I wrote that paper because I was interested in law. I wanted to see if it was something I wanted to pursue. I did not have legal training when I wrote that paper."

    Republican senator: "Well you just cut short my five minutes of grilling!"

    Kagan: "Sorry about that."

    Republican senator: "I'm going to go ahead and grill you anyway."

    Kagan: "Sigh..."

  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Grombar wrote: »
    Ender, if you're interested to see, here's a comprehensive tally of all Obama's campaign promises, which ones he's kept, and so on. So far, 118 of them have been completed, and another 248 are seeing progress. Not bad.
    Sign a "universal" health care bill

    Hmmmm, they're really giving him the benefit of the doubt on that one calling it a promise fulfilled. They're saying that because you now have to buy insurance or suffer a penalty that that's universal health care.....pretty narrow interpretation if you ask me.

    Uh... Huh? You are required to buy insurance, they are required to cover you, and you are required to be subsidized if you can't afford to purchase it.

    Sounds pretty damned universal to me. But hey, you don't like it so that completely invalidates the fact that in the next few years I'll have medical coverage for the first time in 6 years

    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Kaboom. An obviously timed attack. There goes Kagan's confirmation...

    Hmm, comes across like quite a bit of of axe grinding by a Bush administration lawyer for what amounts to basically the refining of a policy statement.
    Uh... Huh? You are required to buy insurance, they are required to cover you, and you are required to be subsidized if you can't afford to purchase it.

    Sounds pretty damned universal to me. But hey, you don't like it so that completely invalidates the fact that in the next few years I'll have medical coverage for the first time in 6 years

    Yeah, I know that technically that's what it is, but given the context of his campaign promises and initial health care push, I would instead argue the public option is really what mattered. What this site has done is given him a check mark for universal health care and an x for a public option. Where I think in reality that universal health care and public option should be combined and called a compromise, because that's exactly what it fucking was.

    Look, I'm not trying to say the guy is an utter failure, I get the distinct feeling that unlike Bush he gets up in the morning and tries to do right by this country, he's done some good yes, but he's also done some bad. Some of you seem completely unwilling to take a hard look at what he's done and instead keep trying to come up with excuses for him. Oh, the senate is fractured, it's too hard to pass bills and so on. And yes, those things are somewhat true, but while you give him the benefit, on the other side of that argument seems to be a reliance on blaming the congress for the administration's inability. Obama has influence, buttloads of it, and yet we really haven't seen him leaning on people at all.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Kaboom. An obviously timed attack. There goes Kagan's confirmation...

    Hmm, comes across like quite a bit of of axe grinding by a Bush administration lawyer for what amounts to basically the refining of a policy statement.

    It doesn't matter; in fact, the author has already written a follow-up that is much more circumspect. But the original article is the one that is going to be read; and it's written to hit all the notes to rile up the usual groups. It's got Clinton, Democrats and charges of hypocrisy, a way to shake off the Republican stain of science manipulation, plays to the traditional suspicion that the scientific establishment are actually liberal partisans, and of course abortion!!!1!one.

    And, well, the timing of publication is hardly subtle.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Posted on NRO? Oh well then, I'll make sure to ignore it.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Sadly, a lot of people won't, and would indeed cheerfully extrapolate it.

  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Specter has a stick up his ass. He asks questions he knows she can't answer and then gets in a tizzy when she doesn't answer them. "But I'm one of the parties--" "ANSWER ANYWAY DAMMIT! I SENT YOU A LETTER!"

    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Doesn't really matter. Given all the oppo research that goes on and the speed with which it commences, if we haven't heard anything controversial by now on the news networks, it just doesn't exist. Kagan's going to get through.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Doesn't really matter. Given all the oppo research that goes on and the speed with which it commences, if we haven't heard anything controversial by now on the news networks, it just doesn't exist. Kagan's going to get through.

    Arguably she always was, it was a canny decision to pick her, the lack of history has really helped her along in this confirmation.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Sadly, a lot of people won't, and would indeed cheerfully extrapolate it.

    It won't derail the confirmation though, it's pretty baseless as is from what I read of the initial article. It's basically quoting a different part of the same paper and going "you misinterpreted it!", which can be a debate topic. But it's not enough to have all the senators block the nomination on: if any of them bring it up in the hearings they're pretty much going to get destroyed by logic in return.

    It'll be a fox news talking point for the next week or two, and give everyone who thinks Liberal is a dirty word the ability to pre hate Kagan, which is what everyone's been missing so far. She's really tame, so people just mildly dislike her for various reasons, but can't really find anything to vehemently dislike.

  • edited June 2010
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Doesn't really matter. Given all the oppo research that goes on and the speed with which it commences, if we haven't heard anything controversial by now on the news networks, it just doesn't exist. Kagan's going to get through.

    Arguably she always was, it was a canny decision to pick her, the lack of history has really helped her along in this confirmation.

    Ironically, this is one of the only valid reasons to refuse an appointment and it will be a significant reason she isn't refused.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I've said this before: you don't filibuster Supreme Court nominees because it's a personality story and the media might actually cover it.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    kildy wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Sadly, a lot of people won't, and would indeed cheerfully extrapolate it.

    It won't derail the confirmation though, it's pretty baseless as is from what I read of the initial article. It's basically quoting a different part of the same paper and going "you misinterpreted it!", which can be a debate topic. But it's not enough to have all the senators block the nomination on: if any of them bring it up in the hearings they're pretty much going to get destroyed by logic in return.

    It'll be a fox news talking point for the next week or two, and give everyone who thinks Liberal is a dirty word the ability to pre hate Kagan, which is what everyone's been missing so far. She's really tame, so people just mildly dislike her for various reasons, but can't really find anything to vehemently dislike.

    Yeah, from what I can tell, the guy is griping because she apparently suggest ACOG put the
    may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.
    bit in, when in the majority of cases it may not be.
    Howevers, there's still the minority of cases (the "particular circumstance") so banning the procedure outright harms them. What a waste of electrons.

    steam_sig.png
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Graham is just flat out saying he wants activist judges who agree with him.

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    kildy wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Sadly, a lot of people won't, and would indeed cheerfully extrapolate it.

    It won't derail the confirmation though, it's pretty baseless as is from what I read of the initial article. It's basically quoting a different part of the same paper and going "you misinterpreted it!", which can be a debate topic. But it's not enough to have all the senators block the nomination on: if any of them bring it up in the hearings they're pretty much going to get destroyed by logic in return.

    It'll be a fox news talking point for the next week or two, and give everyone who thinks Liberal is a dirty word the ability to pre hate Kagan, which is what everyone's been missing so far. She's really tame, so people just mildly dislike her for various reasons, but can't really find anything to vehemently dislike.

    Yeah, from what I can tell, the guy is griping because she apparently suggest ACOG put the
    may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.
    bit in, when in the majority of cases it may not be.
    Howevers, there's still the minority of cases (the "particular circumstance") so banning the procedure outright harms them. What a waste of electrons.

    [strike]I didn't read it that way. If she really replaced “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” with “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” that is a pretty big difference.

    Read the 2nd paragraphy under section 2 http://cdn.nationalreview.com/pdf/DPC_Box_069_Folder_008_009.pdf

    This sounds pretty bad to me and seems like Bush Era tactics where they changed the meaning of scientific reports from the EPA and numerous other agencies. :?[/strike]

    Edit: Upon further review of that memo the replaced statement may be scientifically correct but may also be misleading since the cases are often very rare and there are usually other options.


    Edit2: After reading the post ronya made below, this sounds fucking stupid and the NRO article is misleading. Nevermind.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Quoting a commenter here:
    The full, final ACOG statement appears to be available here (see pages 6 and 7 of the linked PDF). I think it is worth taking a look at for anyone interested in this question because the final statement is omitted by the PDF that NRO provides.

    The final version of the ACOG statement contains the statement: “A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” That was the language present in the draft that Kagan reviewed, and it was present without change in the final.

    What changed was the following sentence. In the draft that Kagan reviewed, it read: “Notwithstanding this conclusion, ACOG strongly believes that decisions about medical treatment must be made by the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances.”

    After the revision, the draft instead read: “An intact D & X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances can make this decision.”

    Even by the standards applicable to a written statement by an expert witness to be presented to a courtine, this seems to me to be routine sharpening and polishing of the kind an ethical lawyer would do and an honest witness would accept.

    The view expressed in the original version was that the doctor should make the decision after consulting with the patient based on the particular circumstances. That implies, but does not directly state, that in some circumstances the doctor could determine that intact D&X was the best or most appropriate option (since if the doctor could never make that decision, why should the decision be left to the doctor?). The final version makes that position express.

    And all that, of course, is assuming the applicability of witness-type standards, which (as several people have pointed out) neither Kagan nor ACOG were actually subject to here.

    In related news, some senators have noticed.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I think Sullivan printed four or five stories where it was necessary back when he was doing his "huh, maybe blanket opposition to abortion isn't the best position" series after Tiller was murdered. I suspect the surrounding paragraphs in the initial report makes things look much less bad for Kagan, but if you rip a sentence out (and eliminate the middle of it conspicuously) it might look bad.

    EDIT: Hey look, they do!

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    ronya wrote: »

    In related news, some senators have noticed.

    Hatch's responses are pretty much the meat of the problem: her review of the document and wording changes were in the spirit of the body's determinations. Hatch's objection is that he knows some people that are members, and they don't like the procedure. Which is.. not the same as "you made the group change it's opinion!" or anything else silly like that. She doesn't claim that the procedure should be common, just that per the doctors, in some cases it may be the medically best option.

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited June 2010


    Edit2: After reading the post ronya made below this sounds fucking stupid and the NRO article is misleading. Nevermind.

    Yeah, the author is really grasping for straws, but tries to hide it by being overly technical and wordy. Still, the kind of people who want to read a conspiracy into it will unfortunately.

  • DragonPupDragonPup Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I admit, I chuckled

    "I was there, I was there, the day Horus slew the Emperor." -Cpt Garviel Loken

    Currently painting: Slowly [flickr]
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck you must go on i cant go on ill go onRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    So wait, cliff notes:

    What are the current reasons that Elena Kagan is satan?

    obF2Wuw.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Republicans: She was nominated by Barack Obama.
    Liberals: She was solicitor general arguing some crappy policies, we otherwise don't know much about her views

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    So wait, cliff notes:

    What are the current reasons that Elena Kagan is satan?

    She might be a lesbian, misleading NRO article that makes it seem like she changed an independent science boards paper on partial birth abortions, she has no bench time, she has barely published any sort of academic essays or opinions on anything of note in the past 2 decades, she worked in the Clinton White House, she is not Diane Wood, and she went to Havard.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Her name sounds like Kegel, which is a thing of primary concern to women, and Elena is a woman, so she's a lesbian!

    rodq.jpg
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Right: She's to the left of Karl Marx!
    Left: She's to the right of Bush!

    Really, there aren't any hard reasons to go more than "meh" about her. She's a qualified candidate who is answering pretty much any question properly. These have to be the most boring confirmation hearings ever. And that's an impressive feat.

    I mean honestly, she's being mauled for supporting judicial activism at the same time as supporting the idea that congress can do no wrong and the judicial shouldn't overrule them. There's no clear line of attack, so at this point we're basically making shit up or trying to make campaign pledges on senate time instead.

  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Septus wrote: »
    Her name sounds like Kegel, which is a thing of primary concern to women, and Elena is a woman, so she's a lesbian!

    Don't forget that she plays softball and wears frumpy clothes.

  • edited June 2010
    So wait, cliff notes:

    What are the current reasons that Elena Kagan is satan?

    She might be a lesbian, misleading NRO article that makes it seem like she changed an independent science boards paper on partial birth abortions, she has no bench time, she has barely published any sort of academic essays or opinions on anything of note in the past 2 decades, she worked in the Clinton White House, she is not Diane Wood, and she went to Havard.

    While I think most judicial challenges are silly asshattery by the challenging party, these two points concern me more than a little.

  • BackstopBackstop Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    By the time something gets to the SC, isn't it pretty much being argued on the finest academic interpretations of the grammar and intent of the law? I don't think actual bench time handing out speeding tickets and busting crack dealers would really matter.

  • Drain-ODrain-O Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Grombar wrote: »
    Ender, if you're interested to see, here's a comprehensive tally of all Obama's campaign promises, which ones he's kept, and so on. So far, 118 of them have been completed, and another 248 are seeing progress. Not bad.

    No. 433: Sign a "universal" health care bill
    The Promise:

    "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president ... ."

    Promise kept


    What?

    I have access to history books, so watch out.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Backstop wrote: »
    By the time something gets to the SC, isn't it pretty much being argued on the finest academic interpretations of the grammar and intent of the law? I don't think actual bench time handing out speeding tickets and busting crack dealers would really matter.

    District/Circuit court bench time.

    And yes, that was a universal health care bill, Drain-O.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Drain-O wrote: »
    Grombar wrote: »
    Ender, if you're interested to see, here's a comprehensive tally of all Obama's campaign promises, which ones he's kept, and so on. So far, 118 of them have been completed, and another 248 are seeing progress. Not bad.

    No. 433: Sign a "universal" health care bill
    The Promise:

    "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president ... ."

    Promise kept


    What?
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    Uh... Huh? You are required to buy insurance, they are required to cover you, and you are required to be subsidized if you can't afford to purchase it.

    Sounds pretty damned universal to me. But hey, you don't like it so that completely invalidates the fact that in the next few years I'll have medical coverage for the first time in 6 years

    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    bum and shushnik: Kagan has as much bench time as Brandeis and Warren.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Oh, I know, I'm just saying that's the argument, not that it was somebody in criminal court.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • edited June 2010
    bum and shushnik: Kagan has as much bench time as Brandeis and Warren.

    Successful navagation of a poor idea in the past is not proof that execution of the same poor idea is wise.

    Honestly, there's a reason why this office is subject to scrutiny by the only body the founding fathers trusted to lead the country. I'm not saying Kagan will end up being a bad justice, but I mislike the idea of appointing a lifetime appointment to the highest court when we really have little idea of how she will truly react when she has the appointment.

    Maybe she'll be great, or maybe she'll make some crazy assed decisions that have no bearing on the constitution or freedom. I doubt the latter will happen, but without much of a record on anything it's very hard to tell with any true certainty. Right now the court is a bit short on people who truly believe in the ideals of freedom, IMHO. I'm hesitant to feel good about pulling a wildcard at this point.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Shushnik wrote: »
    bum and shushnik: Kagan has as much bench time as Brandeis and Warren.

    Successful navagation of a poor idea in the past is not proof that execution of the same poor idea is wise.
    However, you have yet to provide any evidence that not having been a judge is an inferior experience to becoming a Supreme Court Justice than service on a district or circuit court. You've stated it, but with no backup.

    It's kind of like executive experience for the Presidency: we've got plenty of examples for all four combinations, so it's pretty hard to conclude that experience really makes much difference.

  • Drain-ODrain-O Registered User
    edited June 2010
    bum and shushnik: Kagan has as much bench time as Brandeis and Warren.
    If anyone has a bone to pick with Kagan's experience it shouldn't be the fact that she has no experience being a judge (as you point out, it has happened before), it should be the fact that she had no real experience being a lawyer until she became solicitor general just last year.

    http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6155/elena_kagan_and_the_supreme_triangulations_of_barack_obama/

    I have access to history books, so watch out.
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Shushnik wrote: »
    bum and shushnik: Kagan has as much bench time as Brandeis and Warren.

    Successful navagation of a poor idea in the past is not proof that execution of the same poor idea is wise.
    However, you have yet to provide any evidence that not having been a judge is an inferior experience to becoming a Supreme Court Justice than service on a district or circuit court. You've stated it, but with no backup.

    It's kind of like executive experience for the Presidency: we've got plenty of examples for all four combinations, so it's pretty hard to conclude that experience really makes much difference.

    I don't think his problem is solely based on her lack of bench experience. I think his problem is we don't know anything about her even from her academic experience. I share similar feelings.
    (look up and see the post that Shushnik quoted me and look at the section he/she limed)

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Associate White House Counsel doesn't count? And being an associate at Williams and Connolly?

Sign In or Register to comment.