Few could have imagined that voting for Obama would have resulted in moving the Court to the right, but that appears to be case with the selection of Kagan.
I knew, and I'm an idiot. I have an English degree from a state school and I knew. I am a housewife and I knew. I spent the last fifteen years making pies and reading mysteries and I knew. Because I know that authoritarians side with authority.
It's not that freaking hard.
We are so screwed.
Glenn Greenwald actually agrees with David Brooks. Somebody check the thermometers in hell.
At this point, it seems unlikely that anybody super-liberal is getting appointed as the Democrats have no stomach for that kind of fight, if they even have the inclination.
Won't see movement back to the left until Scalia/Kennedy/Thomas quit, and that'll probably be awhile.
I just don't think the situation is as dire as that. In any event we need to have a democratic president in office for two or more terms (that is, Obama, Obama, Dem) to make a dent in the long term rightward control of the court. That's just the way it is. Kagan will end up being a pretty good pick and maybe she'll be able to bring Kennedy around more. That would be good, even a great outcome.
On one level, I totally agree with you guys. This is the best we can hope for considering the circumstances. And I also believe that trying to wrestle a tiny amount of power away from the powerful is a waste of time.
But we have no evidence that Kagan is liberal. We have no evidence that she will influence others to be more liberal. All evidence shows she supports excessive presidental power and does not stick to moral principles if they become inconvenient. She might be fine but the facts do not support that view.
Does not stick to moral principles? That's just weird to me. First of all--no Supreme Court justice and no lawyer "sticks to moral principles"--they are obligated to deal with the law as it is presented to them. Lawyers are obligated to argue for their clients as best they can. And Judges are obligated to apply the law as best they can, to the cases as presented to them. They can be nice or not nice, moral or not moral, they can draw on their personal experience or not, be empathetic or not but "sticking to moral principles" is a totally empty construct. There's lots of different kind of moral principles.
Kagan is a nice jewish girl from New York, from an extremely liberal background. The chances that she's some stealth corporatist suckup, stone reactionary are literally Zero. She isn't an anarchist, or a communist, or a revolutionary but that doesn't mean she doesn't have liberal moral principles.
She said that people should answer questions during confirmation, then she said they shouldn't. That proves to me that while she says the right thing, when push comes to shove she sides with authority.
But let's assume I'm totally wrong. What evidence do we have that she will side with the powerless over the powerful?
Post a Comment