Slashdot Mirror
Obama Will Nominate Elena Kagan To the Supreme Court
Mr Pink Eyes writes "President Obama has made his choice to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court that was left by the retirement of Justice Stevens. According to this article that choice will be Elena Kagan."
Consensus to people like Barack Obama means to reverse your opinions and agree with him.
Seriously? Well I guess that's what you get when you link to "America's Watchtower." Check out his About Me page for some clues.
Here's Reuters for some less biased sanity.
My work here is dung.
I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.
Well, hypothetically... if she is confirmed, and any RIAA/MPAA/intellectual property/copyright/file sharing/patent/wiretapping/etc. cases ever make it to the Supreme Court, this might be important. Your Rights Online and all that.
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Help and Account >> Classic Index >> Sections >> Politics >> Click checkbox corresponding to red circle with line through it >> Press Save button
Reply to That ||
Today Paris Hilton walked past an internet router.
Who the fuck is Glenn Beck?
Hi. Please turn in your internet license.
This may not be strictly technology news. However it is most definitely news that matters. In the U.S., this represents a huge deal to the political process: one-ninth of one branch of our government. You can damn well be sure this will impact many hot button topics that relate to technology.
And if you are outside the U.S. the impact is less... but the United States still sets the tone on many privacy and technology issues. It would be smart to have at least SOME idea about what is going on in this regard.
So, sorry that this isn't your third daily update on the iPad. But maybe, just maybe, this is more relevant.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Slashdot has been rundown by PolySci Majors!! RUN AWAY! Run of the hills!
Few people outside of the tech industry have as much influence on the tech industry as a Supreme Court Justice. I'd say this is meta-tech news, so it has a place here.
umm your a little wrong with posting that article and more wrong for thinking its true Obama DOESN'T have anyone who disagrees with him in his cabinet nor has he made any right wing moves hes still the socialist in chef the person Obama has nominated is all about social Justice just like wetback Sonia Sotomayor im not racist just hate illegals and socialists
I, for one, welcome our new man-suit wearing overlords.
You know, this sort of thing has always confused me...I've heard people accuse Obama of being right-wing, and I've heard him accused of being a socialist.
wtf.
Living With a Nerd
That squicking noise you're hearing is political talking heads and late night comedians the length and breadth of the nation literally creaming their pants. Warm gushes of pure joy as their jobs are secured for the next 3 months.
Synopsis of the candidate: the rule of law is like, the foundation of our society and stuff, and should totally apply to absolutely everyone except for Bad People.
Not, let me grab some popcorn before the shrieking begins from both sides. What a perfect compromise candidate - everyone will hate her.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to put Krogans in the Supreme Court. After all, they were genetically engineered as a weapon and so it might not be safe for the other members of the court. On the other hand, it might give me and Obama Paragon points that might open interesting conversation options later. What do your think?
Not that kind of Cisco.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
are political
the reason for this is that people are interested in politics, techie or not. and there's nothing wrong with a roomful of techies talking politics. you don't have to go there if you don't want. so leave us on slashdot who are obviously interested in politics (based on the most commented stories in slashdot history) to our politics, and go away
in fact, a political discussion on slashdot, theoretically, might be a more useful political discussion than a roomful of other classes of careers: as engineers, techies have minds which are designed to root out a problem and solve it. politics needs more of this, certainly
i really wish there were a class of "political engineers" sometimes when i hear certain mindless discussions: "the political engineering union has deemed this political topic pointless and, by the power vested in us, we are closing down this issue and erasing it from national attention. that is all"
well.. maybe that isn't such a great idea ;-)
but when i see some of the propaganda wallowing out there, the idea of "political engineers" becomes momentarily attractive
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's easy. If you're left-wing and anti-authoritarian then you're against unrestrained capitalism and government. From that vantage point Obama is a right-wing shill that implements the policies that benefit the health-care industry, the military industrial complex and the beltway insiders that benefit from all that.
If you're right-wing then he hasn't started lynching all the "coloreds" yet and hasn't dropped enough bombs on the non-Christian "savages" and so obviously he's the second coming of Marx.
Read/watch the link if you want to know why moderate leftists are worried that this appointment does not counteract the right-wing drift the court has taken over the years. If Obama wanted to leave a left-wing legacy then he'd have appointed a counterbalance... not a "moderate" "consensus-builder".
Why isn't this article linked to the source AP story instead of a lol-atarian blog? I wonder if the owner of the blog submitted this story hoping to jack up his page rank.
See that big bright ball in the sky? Thats the sun.
This wet stuff? It's called rain.
None of this happens in basements...
LOL at most of what you said, but I have it on extremely close and good authority she's not actually gay.
I know someone who *knows* her, if you catch my subtly inferred reference to a certain religious book and the sort of "knowing" of people contained therein...
PhysOrg.com offers REAL science and tech news, interesting science factoids etc, not just fanboi stuff. Let's see what some of today's front page headlines are...
New evidence for quantum Darwinism found in quantum dots
Masses of common quarks are revealed
Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months
QUT physicist corrects Oxford English Dictionary
Funnel vision: New info about how cells in the eye help guide light into the retina
Suppressing activity of common intestinal bacteria reduces tumor growth
Scientists create mouse grimace scale to help identify pain in humans and animals
Chemist stitches up speedier chemical reactions
Next generation hard drives may store 10 terabits per sq inch: research
I've seen far better links and discussion elsewhere already, slashdot should wait for an article that covers her views on imaginary property.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Because it's flamebait, jackass. Hell, I'd argue the comment "Apparently, for some Slashdot readers, political sanity means supporting a fully-Goldman Sachs administration." is nothing but shallow trolling... though it looks like you might actually believe it, so flamebait is probably appropriate.
The simple fact is the article is horribly, ridiculously biased. I don't give a shit if you disagree with the thesis, those are the facts. Pointing that out doesn't mean you support this administration or it's policies (whatever you believe they are). It simply means you desire journalistic integrity.
You, apparently, don't feel that way. Fine. But take your trollish flamebait elsewhere, we don't need it here.
You know, this sort of thing has always confused me...I've heard people accuse Obama of being right-wing, and I've heard him accused of being a socialist.
wtf.
Really.
It's because, from an American politics standpoint, he's actually a centrist, and that really pisses people off. To quote Stephen Colbert: We're at war, pick a side!
In the U.S., this represents a huge deal to the political process: one-ninth of one branch of our government.
One way to look at it in terms of impact. Take the US Federal budget, divide it by three(3 branches), then divide that by 9. $3.6 trillion dollars/3 = $1.2 Trillion dollars. divide by 9, and this very gross approximation of her influence is on the order of:
$130 billion per year. Assume she sits for 28 years (78 yrs old?) and somehow the US budget doesn't increase and she will have a total lifetime impact of $3.64 Trillion. Of course, she doesn't determine the budget in a way where she has at her disposal that much money, but when you consider that is how much of the government she represents, it kind of puts the weight of this appointment into perspective.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Don't let the spin fool you. It would be impossible for Obama to find someone to the left of justice Stevens. Therefore, even replacing him with a fire breathing, man-hating lesbian liberal would be a move to the right.
The linked blog suggests this will be a wonderful opportunity to obstruct getting anything else done. The presumption is, there is nothing they will agree with, their will be no common ground and they want none.
These attitudes are bad for the country. I may not like what Obama does concerning IP law (I think the whole concept of IP is a flawed construction), but other stuff needs to get done and doing nothing is fairly destructive.
Its all about balance, Your man is trying run a steady course where he doesnt have to fight and keeping his powder dry until the real fights he wants.
Good politics.
Being Mutual - Working together for a better society
Thank you. Just added that site to my morning reading list.
Glenn Greenwald has written several articles over the past few weeks detailing what information is available about Kagan.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/10/kagan/
Well pretty much everything you post is flamebait (certainly everything in this article), so you're really just the pot calling the kettle black, here.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I agree with this article, that while she may be a liberal candidate, she seems to be very willing to seriously consider alternative viewpoints.
You have to expect a liberal candidate is going to nominate someone with a liberal bent, so to nominate someone who can truly work with diverse viewpoints on an issue is, I think, a pretty thoughtful and intelligent nomination.
As to those wanting this story off Slashdot - just who do you think is going to be involved in the end-game of various copyright and FCC regulation? The largest issues will all end up in the supreme court. Like it or not, the future of what is possible with technology is intertwined with the laws that define what CAN be realistically presented to the market. In an ideal world, wouldn't you love to have her views on copyright extension, and the constitutionality of the ACTA treaty brought up?
You can chose to ignore politics and focus only on technology - but politics is in no way going to ignore YOU.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
She may well simply be just another cookie-cutter activist who may not enforce the constitution. This trend is quite disturbing.
This is of course not really worth replying to, but I'm feeling masochistic today, so:
- Kagan is the current Solicitor General of The US
- Kagan was the Dean of Law at Harvard
--> Now imagine having that on your CV and people telling you "Nah, that's not enough experience for us, sorry."
LOL at most of what you said, but I have it on extremely close and good authority she's not actually gay. I know someone who *knows* her, if you catch my subtly inferred reference to a certain religious book and the sort of "knowing" of people contained therein...
But is your friend a Lesbian trapped in a man's body? Maybe Kagan is an enlightened lesbian who can look past your friend's penis.
No wonder it takes so long to get cases heard these days!
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
i also thank you.
Snarky but excellent point. It is simplistic to say one-ninth of the judicial system... but the point remains that this is a very powerful position, one that sets the tone for how law is interpreted and to a certain extent enforced.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
prove it by not commenting on political stories. indeed: go away
however, if you comment on political stories, then you care about politics. actions speak louder than words. so admit that you care then
these are the only logically coherent choices for you:
1. continue commenting here and on political stories, i welcome you. but please admit that you care about politics
2. stop commenting here and on political stories. you thereby prove you don't care about politics. i will then admire you for your intellectual honesty
but there is no 3rd choice. when you comment, you care. there's simply no way around that fact
it is not possible to summon the desire to read a political comment, and then summon the will to type a reply, and then, miraculously, somehow claim you don't care
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Add my voice to the chorus of thank-yous. Anyone have any other suggestions for good, science-based news sources that a) aren't afraid to get technical/mathmatical and b) stay away from dreary shit like politics, copyrights and patents?
She has argued before the supreme court that if a prosecutor manufactures evidence, causing the conviction of an innocent person, that the prosecutor should not be subject to a lawsuit from the person they fucked over.
She has no interest in justice, only in power.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Oooh, thanks for the source:)
Eeewww. That's an image I didn't need this early in the A.M. thanks.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
You're being a bit disingenuous:
'Starving yogi' astounds Indian scientists
Chavez rockets to No. 1 on Twitter in Venezuela
'Happy ending' gives recyclable products higher status
Sweden pushes condom use as study hints risky sex common
All from today, May 10th. Don't get me wrong, I love physorg as well and read it daily. But to say it's not political charged or sometimes trivial is frankly misleading and disingenuous. Every news site has problems, just find what's best for you.
My work here is dung.
Patton Oswalt is giddy with glee to have a perfect lookalike nominated to the High Court.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Synopsis of the candidate: the rule of law is like, the foundation of our society and stuff, and should totally apply to absolutely everyone except for Bad People.
A better synopsis:
I am a radical leftist lesbian who doesn't have much of a paper trail because I have never been a judge, never argued a case in court before I joined the Obama administration and spent very little time as a practicing attorney. My lack of a paper trail will make it more difficult to oppose my nomination which is virtually assured anyway because the Republicans rarely put up much of a fight over nominees. As a Harvard Dean, I have demonstrated my radical bent by working vigorously to prevent military recruitment on the Harvard campus using the argument that the US military is bad because it has not been made into a propagandizing tool working on behalf of homosexual radicals. I can count on the radical left to continue to generate smoke screens by claiming that Obama is a centrist and regurgitating the Administration's talking point that I am a consensus builder who works with and persuades conservatives. This is, of course, rot. But it may be convincing to some of the American public who don't follow politics closely. Just as Obama bypassed the Senate confirmation process by simply appointing more than 50 political freaks as "czars" in his administration, including his "safe school czar" who wrote that he wanted to "queerify" America's elementary schools and his "science" advisor who once supported population control through forced sterilizations and spiking the water supply with anti-fertility drugs, Obama has nominated me, another political freak, to the Supreme Court, knowing that I will hide my views until I am actually sitting on the Court. His appointment of me as solicitor general was intended to give me at least a little court room experience so as to prevent opposition to me based on my extreme inexperience.
He, of course, knows that I am fully on board with his effort to radically transform America. My senior thesis at Princeton, I think, sums my views up well, “Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness ... Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation.
[The story of the socialist movement’s demise is] a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America ... In unity lies their only hope.”
WHOOSH!
That was actually pretty good. Sorry I'm not up on my P.H. Scripture. I had an unfortunate vision of a fat guy with a 5-day shadow, in a tutu.
Note to self: Google BEFORE posting.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
So your position is "you're either with us or you're with the conservatives". Gosh, that sort of thinking sounds familiar...
The problem is that she isn't remotely moderate, as any two minute web search will confirm. She's basically come out and stated that she doesn't believe in the rule of law, her track record is profoundly void, she doesn't care about difficult constitutional issues (even though we've had all those controversies in recent years), never spoke out against all the civil liberty and constitutional violations of the Bush era and even actually endorsed them in public once or twice. Now, after recent years I don't know what's left and right any more, but I do know that she's a horrible candidate all round. So why would Obama appoint her to a position that due to the permanency of her seat probably represents more power than the presidency? From this two things follow, in my opinion. Firstly, this wasn't the platform that Obama was elected on and this appointment is plain and simple fraud. Secondly, the fact that this situation can exist at all indicates that the way the supreme court is appointed is in dire need of reform.
Am I the only person who absolutely does not give a $hit? I'd rather hear about a homeless man finding his tooth than read this crappy news update!
caring encompasses loving the topic, and hating the topic
not caring is complete emptiness of interest in the topic
so you need to re-characterize your position more accurately: you hate american politics on slashdot. you detest it. the idea of it fills you with emotion: hatred, anger
which is fine. i understand your rationale
but recognize that you are in the succinct minority on the topic: american politics happens to find great interest here on slashdot, for better or for worse. its just the way it is. should it be this way? should it not be this way? who cares (wink, wink), its just the way it is
so stop picketing outside mcdonalds because they don't sell sweaters
(completely inaccurate allegories require only simple deflection)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I disagree. I think you need to be looking at the GDP instead of the federal budget.
Like you said, SCOTUS has relatively little impact over how money is spent by the government. In theory, that power sits with Congress, with taxation resting squarely on the shoulders of the House. The executive branch spends the money (and therefore proposes budgets).
The judicial branch, on the other hand, has an equal share in controlling the national business culture. That's why the GDP would be more appropriate.
Not only that, but I wouldn't divide by the number of branches. There's a good argument to be made that each branch has equal, 100% control by virtue of the checks-and-balances system.
Of course, that makes the impact closer to $45 trillion over 28 years -- and that number makes my head spin. Our government is huge and our economy is even larger.
So of course the appointment of someone with a 1/9th share of the power of one branch of the US government is important to everybody. People get up in arms about a single Senator (1/100 share) ... this is an order of magnitude more, and lasts a lifetime.
That is because of the way left wing and right wing have been defined in recent years. Hitler has been defined as "right wing" and Stalin as "left wing" even though the only real difference between them was that Hitler had some really weird ideas about race and wanted to conquer the world in the name of the "German people" (as defined by Hitler) while Stalin wanted to conquer the world in the name of "the proletariat" (as defined by Stalin). Other than that and that Germany was already an industrial state when Hitler took over, there really isn't any difference between the policies they implemented internally (Ok and Hitler focused his mass murders a little more tightly on Jews).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
For the job of "top 9 judges in the United States", yes, that's not enough experience.
For comparison's sake, consider that Sonia Sotomayor had been spent about 20 years on the bench before she was nominated. Diane Wood, frequently put forward as a good alternative to Kagan, has been on an appellate court for 15 years. Being a competent lawyer and being a competent judge are different skills, and I'd much rather have a pick that has demonstrated they're capable of being a judge.
In addition, there's good reason to call her competence as an attorney into question. For instance, in Citizen's United v FEC, her first oral argument of any kind, she (by her own admission) panicked when Justice Kennedy asked her about other significant First Amendment cases. (the exchange can be found on page 41)
And I'm not suggesting this rule has always been followed, but when it isn't followed, we are taking a much bigger risk that we'll end up with a justice incapable of asking a single relevant question during an oral argument for years on end.
I am officially gone from
My undergrad degrees are in History, CompSci and Geology and I tested the waters of Political Science.
The problem with PoliSci isn't that they are "left liberal elitists" nor is it because they are "edumecated and stuff" or that they come from "hippy universities", the problem is that they believe the crap they are saying and it's all political with no "science".
The only field of modern Polisci that has any relevance or worth is international relations.
That said, the Tea Party is a bunch of garbage too.
While I would agree in principal, does this kind of diatribe add anything useful to the discussion? I'm not sure that I would categorize her as a commie being her position on detainment of suspected terrorists. In fact, I tend to agree with her position there. As far as her position on gays in the military I think that stems from a passion for anti-discrimination mixed with a lack of understanding of the environment that it creates. While I'm all for fairness if I'm in the military and relying on the guy next to me I want to be damn sure he's watching out for my ass and not watching my ass. Know what I mean. People who have never been in the military fail to grasp this point. It doesn't mean she's a lesbo, it just means that she lacks an understanding of the issue.
Right-wingers tend to be Fascists (in the historical, technical sense, not the neo-Nazi genocidal version that everyone thinks of when they see the word now) while Left-wingers tend to be Communists.
They're both just variants of Socialism.
Not, let me grab some popcorn before the shrieking begins from both sides. What a perfect compromise candidate - everyone will hate her.
There are more than two "sides."
For example, the Sartorial Extremists already hate her for refusing to wear morning dress when she was arguing before the Supreme Court -- thus denying them the satisfaction of being able to point to the Solicitor General as the last outpost in American public life for the morning coat and striped trousers.
She's already killed formal daytime attire. Heavens! Who knows what will happen when she becomes a justice... you think Rehnquist's gold stripes were crazy? Look out....
Well pretty much everything you post is flamebait
No, it's offtopic (relative to the article submission, anyway). If it was flamebait, I would've, for example, called the OP a fascist partisan troll.
Why are we even creating news about this? Why does the US appointments matter enough that other judicial appointments in other countries don't get even the news space on slashdot?
"anti-authoritarian then you're against unrestrained capitalism and government"
Oh how do we restrain capitalism with a restrained governance?
The two are mutually exclusive. It takes authoritarianism to restrain anything.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with capitalism. Nothing. We aren't in a capitalistic society right now. We are in a corporatism society, which is critically flawed, in that it mostly removes personal responsibility from the capitalism equation.
You see, the "corporation" is a creation of the state, and not capitalism. Therefore if you don't like what we currently have as economic policy, it is because we are closer to fascism than most people think, and are moving closer all the time.
And fascism is closer to socialism than capitalism is by a long shot (government/corporate oligarchy). We've all become pawns of the corporations that fund our elections.
Obama is no different than GWB, except in degree.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Now imagine having that on your CV and people telling you "Nah, that's not enough experience for us, sorry."
Kagan has been Solicitor General for less than two years.
That's her entire legal experience in a courtroom. She has never been so much as a justice of the peace. Other than the handful of Supreme Court cases in which she has represented the federal government, she has never prosecuted or defended a case in a courtroom.
I don't care about her political views or her academic career or anything else -- it's irrelevant. But, her lack of experience is appalling.
There are many federal appellate judges or even federal district court judges with years of experience on both sides of the bench. I can't believe that the President couldn't find at least a few acceptable candidates from that group.
How much wronger can you be?
quote:
"My lack of a paper trail will make it more difficult to oppose my nomination which is virtually assured anyway because the Republicans rarely put up much of a fight over nominees."
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/139/jeNRsXoA4cU
or i shall wield this awesome power of mine on what you just wrote
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Personally, I would have preferred Diane Wood as well. Kagan is too anti-civil rights and too pro-corporate for my taste.
But how a single episode of temporary nerves is supposed to indicate an incompetence to ask pertinent questions, I don't get.
I imagine rising to the position of Dean of Harvward Law School is one hellishly competitive endeavor that would require the amounts of assertiveness and competence a SCTOUS nominee should have.
I'm willing to discuss (and conceivably concede) the judge vs. lawyer point though: What exactly is it that a judge has to be able to do that a good lawyer/law professor doesn't?
Goddamnit. Pay attention sheeple!
Which illustrates the main problem with the current American debate: the use of "socialism" (and sometimes "facism") as a synonym for "stuff I do not agree with".
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
SCOTUSblog has a great writeup on Kagan.
Although they ultimately come out in her favor, the writers make a great presentation of their evidence, and certainly know a thing or two about the Supreme Court.
It's definitely worth a read before sounding off on your initial gut reactions to the nomination. It's also your right and prerogative to research the case against Kagan, although you really need to comprehend and understand the context of her job as Solicitor General before jumping to any conclusions.
Personally, despite my initial unease, I'm growing to like her, and would welcome a persuasive, non-activist judge on the court.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Do you know what percentage of slashdot readers are American? If it's a majority, then it makes sense; it's the job of a news outlet to provide news that it's audience is interested in.
Kagan is more to the center than some of the other potential candidates (like Diane Wood) and certainly less liberal than Stevens. I think Obama's trying to get this confirmation process over with without too much bloodshed. The only issues I could see arise would be her lack of scholarship and her alleged lesbianism (tragically). I blogged about it earlier here, there's a bunch of good analysis linked to there.
If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
I can see how the square jaw would make you think of Batman, but if you take into account the hair cut and overall body build, you should be thinking more along the lines of Fred Flintstone, in drag.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Our society has severe discrimination against heterosexual females.
* John Roberts: Was a Republican Party operative who had been a judge for two years before being appointed to lead the Supreme Court by the same President who had given him a judgeship.
* Earl Warren: Was governor of California and that state's Attorney General, and became one of the best justices of all time.
* William Rehnquist: Was a Republican Party operative challenging the voting rights of Latino citizens in Arizona before being an Assistant Attorney General, and became one of the worst justices of all time.
* Abe Fortas: Was a Democratic Party operative and a criminal defense lawyer who won Gideon v. Wainwright.
* Harlan Stone: Was a U.S. Attorney General.
* Clarence Thomas: Was Assistant Attorney General of Missouri and a member of the EEOC and had been a judge for two years before being appointed to the Supreme Court by the same President who had given him a judgeship
* Lewis Powell: Was the American Bar Association President and a Tobacco Institute lawyer.
* Arthur Goldberg: Was a union lawyer and Secretary of Labor.
* Byron White: Was a running back and an Assistant U.S. Attorney General.
* John Harlan: Was judge for one year before being appointed to the Supreme Court by the same President who gave him a judgeship.
* Felix Frankfurter: Was a Zionist activist and co-founder of the ACLU
* William Douglas: Was a member of the Securities and Exchange commission
* Robert Jackson: Was a U.S. Attorney General
I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot. I come here for tech news that has some bearing on the world. This story is specifically about American politics and should have no place on this site.
Elena Kagan at fifty would be the youngest judge on the Court.
Justice Stevens is ninety.
Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court cast a very long shadow.
"If confirmed, Kagan will be the fourth woman justice in the history of the Supreme court, the eighth Jewish justice to sit on the court, and the first nominee since 1972 with no prior experience as a judge." Court Nominee Elena Kagan
The U.S. Supreme Court is the court of the Constitution:
It has become fashionable for Supreme Court nominees and sometimes the Justices themselves to deflect controversy and play down their own importance by suggesting judicial decision-making involves nothing more than the simple application of clear, undisputed rules. Perhaps with Obama's selection of a woman, we won't be subjected to the baseball metaphor that Chief Justice John Roberts has used, but however the idea is couched, it's pure bunk. There is no rulebook for constitutional interpretation. In trying to give meaning to inherently elastic constitutional concepts like "equal protection of the laws" and due process, and in interpreting federal statutes that are often less than precise, Supreme Court Justices inevitably make subjective value judgments that are colored by their individual views about right and wrong, fair and unfair, wise and unwise.
In voting against confirming John Roberts, then Senator Obama explained that he was opposing the conservative Roberts because of how he would decide the slim "5%" of cases in which the law really is ambiguous and a Justice's values will inevitably shape his or her views. Our law-professor President got the concept right but the percentage wrong. Cases rarely reach the Supreme Court level when the right answer is clear. Most of the time, the Supreme Court hears cases only after lower federal courts have reached conflicting answers on vexing legal questions.
In short, there is a reason that Justice Harry Blackmun, a man whose grandfathers had fought for the Union in the Civil War and who idolized Abraham Lincoln, opposed the states' rights movement and was a passionate liberal voice on issues of race. There is a reason that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a pioneer of the fight for women's legal equality, takes an expansive view of the equal-protection clause. There is a reason that Roberts, who came of age as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, has a voting record that matches the old Reagan agenda. And there is a reason that Clarence Thomas, who grew up resenting the racial preferences that took him up the educational ladder to Yale Law School, reads the Constitution as imposing absolute colorblindness on government actors.
Conscientious judges understand that the law is much more than a reflection of their own personal preferences. But in the hard cases, the political cases, the cases tinged with moral judgment, where constitutional language and history provide no single irrefutable answer, a judge's formative experience matters -- family, geography, mentors and heroes -- they cleave liberal from conservative and ineluctably insinuate themselves into the law.
Four Enduring Myths About Supreme Court Nominees: 3. Supreme Court Justices Are Umpires
She's not a lesbian. The smears have started already!
http://twitter.com/Dezzish/statuses/13709105297
I'm not so sure of that. I mean, if I were to assume your synopsis of here judicial philosophy were accurate, I'd have to say most politicians and political commentators of both sides would agree with her 100%.
conceding an argument, deep in a thread, rather than digging in your heels and shouting "no, YUO!!!" in blind stubbornness
is this the internet? intellectual honesty and integrity on an internet forum? you have just asploded my mind
much respect sir
for the record, i'm as bothered by endless american navel gazing as you are: it makes americans self-absorbed and shallow to be so unaware and unconcered with the wider world. but its not up to me to stop that, its up to you
leave and start your own australian/ ukian/ canadian/ kiwian/ etc centric slashdot. unfortunately, as a simple rule of the network effect, it won't have the same size userbase. and so you are forced to go to america-centric forums, and suffer through american navel gazing to get larger doses of the tech talk you desire
for the america-centrism, i apologize. but its a function of history and the network effect, no malice. don't hate us, enough of the world already does
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you're going to put politics up on the front page, don't select slanted articles from known biased sources. What are you going to do next? Follow it up with a response by the KKK?
risk that we'll end up with a justice incapable of asking a single relevant question during an oral argument for years on end.
I was napping through the first part of your comment. With this last part, you were referring to Thomas, right? the justice who famously decides the case before oral arguments are even made, and thus has no use to ever ask any questions? And you are probably hoping that Kagan will be as astute and informed as he is?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/09/us/politics/20100409-stevens-candidates.html
Sounds like someone Bush/Cheney would have nominated.
Well, hypothetically... if she is confirmed, and any RIAA/MPAA/intellectual property/copyright/file sharing/patent/wiretapping/etc. cases ever make it to the Supreme Court, this might be important. Your Rights Online and all that.
Then, hypothetically, those specific concerns should be mentioned in the summary. e.g. She's patent-friendly; she's a known net-neutrality supporter, etc. I have no idea which actually applies to her, nor do I care of course. And actually that's exactly the point: there's nothing in the headline or summary that tells me why, as a nerd, I should care. As posted though it's just a plain old boring political news item that I could have read anywhere else, except for some reason it's on the Slashdot main page.
She's not a lesbian. The smears have started already!
She may not be a lesbian, but one look at her face will turn men into homos.
It's a man, baby!
For my first three years as a blogger I posted under my alter-ego, Mr. Pink Eyes, but now I have come out of the closet (so to speak) and post under my real name.
Nice. He actually managed to get quite a few hits from that link from slashdot. I can't believe that an article that only has two links to radical right-wing blogs managed to get on the front page of Slashdot. I have the nagging suspicion I know how the next few elections are going to turn out...
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Both links in the summary lead to hysterical right wing sites. Really Taco, can't you click before you post?
Congress is about the way "most American's live."
Most Americans are apparently lawyers and/or successful businessmen, then.
Tweet, tweet.
I can't believe that an article that only has two links to radical right-wing blogs managed to get on the front page of Slashdot.
Really? This isn't even the worst submission this week. You must be new to these parts.
Cool, thanks for the link. I was just thinking I needed to up the science reading, rather than getting into all the useless political discussions (he says, while sifting through a political article he clicked on).
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Yeah, from what I've read so far, I think I like her.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Seeing the type of people he normally nominates, she must be something like a convicted armed bank robber.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
FTFA:
Yeah, she kind of does.
Somebody mod this up please.
New evidence for quantum Darwinism found in quantum dots
...
Next generation hard drives may store 10 terabits per sq inch: research
Boring!
Slashdot politics... Priceless.
That is all.
That section was a dig at Justice Thomas, but I'm fair about applying that principle: if Obama nominates and confirms someone who's just as mute, I'll condemn that.
And I sincerely hope that you were going for a Funny mod, because I'm definitely not hoping that Kagan will behave like Thomas.
I am officially gone from
Why Flamebait?
Because it's not radically left-wing. One thing (one of the many) that democrats can't handle is a critical look at their world views. It looks like reddit users have discovered slashdot. Sigh...
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
The simple fact is the article is horribly, ridiculously biased.
An by "biased", you mean, "not horribly, ridiculously left-wing."
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
It's hard to be sure, but I think we were making similarly obscure snarky comments. Let's not argue, let's be friends.
That still doesn't prove you right. Because the Republicans have said "I Object" to all 100+ nominations, with no reason, just "I'm going to object on that one".
The only way they can get their nominations in (and how many of Bush's nominations got in after 1 year..?) is by saying "It's my decision as president, this is what's happening"
If you're on the right you're for less government, if you're on the left you're for more government. People get confused because every politician is on the left so they start coming up with new artificial distinctions (like war and social issues) to define the two sides. Bush was one of the biggest socialists/fascists this country has every seen until Obama came along, but he called himself conservative, so now everyone blames the problems of big government on the right.
The truth is that there is no substantive difference between Bush and Obama, so people throw these terms around to express their hatred for the other side, but they're really just reflecting the self-loathing they have for their own side's hypocrisy. The Republican / Democratic split doesn't represent the true divide in this country. The true divide is between (small l) libertarians and statists.
For the job of "top 9 judges in the United States", yes, that's not enough experience.
The Supreme Court is the Court of the Constitution.
You can spend a lifetime in the lower courts and come no closer to understanding what the Supreme Court is all about than the Gray Line bus tour.
You can't fool me, that's John Lovitz in drag!
Thomas has said that he refrains from asking questions because it allows him to devote the fullest possible attention to the oral arguments. If he desires to pick apart the positions presented he can do so equally well after the fact.
I am not a huge fan of Thomas' jurisprudence, either, but that doesn't mean I can't see the merit in his rationale here.
As a sort-of-libertarian, sort-of-Objectivist who identifies with the Right -- you're absolutely correct. They piss me off too.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Listening to the radio this morning, I was under the impression that the job of the solicitor general is to argue on behalf of the government. Basically an employee of the current Presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Solicitor_General
The radio show mentioned that a solicitor can object and not argue the case if they find it morally or legally wrong, but that this is rare. I imagine if you do that, you are fired and a more compliant solicitor is installed.
1 more liberal supreme court during the Gore vs Bush presidential race would have meant (bunch of maybe's ahead) Bush not being president, no war with Iraq, no war with Afghanistan, no oil spill in the Gulf, etc. etc. etc..
A single judge in the US supreme court can very much influence the entire world.
Since you were being snarky, we're pals. If you'd seriously been suggesting that Thomas was the smartest guy on the court, I'd have asked you who your connection was so I could get hold of whatever you were smoking.
And the scary thing is, these days I wouldn't have been surprised to find out that you had in fact been serious.
I am officially gone from
The Solicitor General has a nickname: "The 10th Justice".
She is very well qualified. She also clerked for a justice.
Yes, I was mostly being a wag.
My criticism of that style is that if justices can adequately decide cases without hearing arguments or asking questions, then why, according to him, do courts have proceedings?
So, okay, it's true I guess I think his style is less good than the normal style. But, I wouldn't say I'm informed enough about it to criticize him strongly -- mildly, perhaps (as I have), but not strongly.
By the way, you all are going to love the President's choice for a new solicitor general to replace her...
No, I just mean ridiculously biased. As in, not reporting the facts, but rather reporting a hyperbolic, partisan spin on it. Any idiot can see that, given loaded phrases like "Consensus to people like Barack Obama means to reverse your opinions and agree with him."
And yes, I'm saying that if you can't see this is a moronic post from a partisan hack, you are, in fact, an idiot.
My understanding was that he believes it is better not to distract himself with finding pointed questions to ask when he can more readily get to the core of an argument by simply listening. To him, the hearing is in fact too important to muddle with it by attempting a dialogue with the speaker.
Our positions don't differ by much, then. Were I were in his position, I too would favor asking questions over sitting mute, but I am willing to overlook his behavior as simple personal preference.
I'm sure Thomas finds most of the questions he might have are eventually raised by another justice, anyway. I would definitely have a problem if all the justices on the court as passive as he is, however.
I think she may be Kevin James' twin sister. :)
Separated at birth perhaps?
With reference to net neutrality, Kagan appears to be arguing on behalf of cable companies in private writings when saying: that the "Buckley principle" states that government may not "restrict the speech of some elements of our society [think: powerful corporations] in order to enhance the relative voice of others [think: average individuals]." Her viewpoint on the Buckley principle is almost the opposite of what Obama said: "powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.". Kagan suggested that the Buckley principle "could summarize the view" of the Turner dissenters, who sided with the cable companies. This also would seem to at odds with the president's public statements in support of net neutrality.
More info here: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-elena-kagan-disagree-with-justice.html
Good thing we've got Clarence Thomas on the Court. He's asked a handful of questions in his whole Court career, even though the entire Court procedure is based on justices asking questions during the arguing of cases before them. He's the worst justice of your lifetime, and he's your gold standard.
Along with Roberts. Evidently, the more extreme Republican they are, the more you like them. Hardly an example of "real world" connectedness.
--
make install -not war
Come on Obama, i'm the perfect choice.
I don't have religous beliefs, I don't like demo's or repubs.
I did a lot of drugs and have a criminal history (felony free though).
I'm a poor white person.
Oh ya, and I don't like corporations all that much. they have too much power.
Sheesh, the media will be having a field day over me, that they'll forgot anything else your doing. And I can handle the pressure.
"Mr. Nyder, is it true you sold herion in the 90's?"
"Damn straight. had the best stuff you could get, till the stupid recession made business harder. had to switch to politics."
"Mr. Nyder, is it true you don't believe in god?"
"Ya, but I don't believe in the easter bunny either, so?"
"Mr. Nyder, is it true..."
"sure, it's all true. look, if your going to go on about my past, lets smoke this joint first."
But seriously, I'd have the best interests of people. Not the corporations, and not any political parties. And i'm used to people not liking me, or what I'm saying.
I mean, seriously, can we have someone who wasn't born before 1960?
You know, someone who's in touch with reality of the modern era.
Be seeing you...
Were it not for GOP obstructionism during the Clinton years, there's a chance the woman would have had a decade on the Federal court.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
"She would be the third Jewish justice along with six Catholics. With Stevens' retirement, the court will have no Protestants, the most prevalent denomination in the United States."
How Jewish and how Catholic? Is this religious designation by parental attributes or by deep involvement in the positions of the various churches.
Is it not time to have someone who is identified as atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Confucian or who simply claims to be a rationalist? Does no one find it disturbing that justice is being represented (claimingly) by two religious viewpoints know to be steeped in the old testament? Is a religious claim necessary for public life?
im not racist just hate illegals and socialists
And grammar.
And spelling.
And punctuation.
And logic.
AND NICE RED UNIFORMS!
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The law isn't "it is written"
The law is "it is as I an appointed official not an elected official says it is because this is democracy and I say so, or else here come the storm troopers"
How the fuck is this redundant?
Nonsense. There's also "communism" and a few other isms.
What I'm really trying to say is that your post is fascist.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
As I said before, she's evil.
Before you use her participation in support of the Pottawattamie prosecutors to extrapolate her entire character,
I recommend reading the Pottawattamie County v. McGhee article over at SCOTUSWiki. Among other things, you'll find out that even the McGhee and Harrington side of the case agrees that prosecutors "enjoy immunity when they knowingly introduce false testimony during trial" based on the 1976 SCOTUS decision in Imbler v. Pachtman. All the legal wrangling was over drawing lines across contiguous situations, like whether or not that immunity extends to pre-trial conditions. The central idea of immunity for prosecutors during trial apparently wasn't even really being questioned, because much of the lawyering world believes that if you open prosecutors to liability, it'll have a "chilling effect" on them.
Now, from an ethical and liberty-focused perspective, I completely agree that a lot of this is ridiculous. I think that fabricating evidence is flat-out simply beyond the job description of any state officer, and so by definition, whether or not it happened pre-trial or during the trial, it's outside of official prosecutorial duties and can and should incur criminal and civil liability. But there are beings who walk the earth who see court cases very differently than a normal citizen does, who don't operate directly on matters of ethics and policy and justice and liberty, but instead on the law as the instrument which serves those matters, and who apparently see a prosecutors role as such an important one in actually pursuing justice that it's deserving of considerable latitude. I disagree and I think there's a cultural problem here that needs to be addressed by legal means: we're apparently going to need a law stating that fabrication of evidence is explicitly outside any public duty and that no immunity of any kind applies.
I'm unimpressed by Kagan's advocacy, and think everybody should contact their Senator -- particularly if they've got one that's on the judiciary committee -- to highlight this issue, but flogging her in particular for it isn't going to address a systemic problem.
Tweet, tweet.
... in 6 months, Obama will be kiddnapped and rendered to Saudi Arabia, where he will be stripped, butt-fucked with a NYPD knight-stick, and left for dead amongst the sand dunes.
A befitting end to such a horrid criminal. Lets hope that he and his kin never return to haunt us (i.e. kill all the kin).
I don't entirely disagree with you, but any free-market will result in monopolies and de-facto states unless there is a societal decision that these are undesirable.