PDA

View Full Version : Kagan in Context: Shafting Progressive Values



FORD
05-10-2010, 02:55 PM
May 10, 2010

Norman Solomon

Posted: May 10, 2010 05: 06 AM

Kagan in Context: Shafting Progressive Values

If President Obama has his way, Elena Kagan will replace John Paul Stevens -- and the Supreme Court will move rightward. The nomination is very disturbing, especially because it's part of a pattern.

The White House is in the grip of conventional centrist wisdom. Grim results stretch from Afghanistan to the Gulf of Mexico to communities across the USA.

"It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills," President Obama said in support of offshore oil drilling, less than three weeks before the April 20 blowout in the Gulf. "They are technologically very advanced."

On numerous policy fronts, such conformity to a centrist baseline has smothered hopes for moving this country in a progressive direction. Now, the president has taken a step that jeopardizes civil liberties and other basic constitutional principles.

"During the course of her Senate confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan explicitly endorsed the Bush administration's bogus category of 'enemy combatant,' whose implementation has been a war crime in its own right," University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle noted last month. "Now, in her current job as U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan is quarterbacking the continuation of the Bush administration's illegal and unconstitutional positions in U.S. federal court litigation around the country, including in the U.S. Supreme Court."

Boyle added: "Kagan has said 'I love the Federalist Society.' This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society."

The departing Justice Stevens was a defender of civil liberties. Unless the Senate refuses to approve Kagan for the Supreme Court, the nation's top court is very likely to become more hostile to civil liberties and less inclined to put limits on presidential power.

Here is yet another clear indication that progressives must mobilize to challenge the White House on matters of principle. Otherwise, history will judge us harshly -- and it should.

For more than 15 months, evidence has mounted that President Obama routinely combines progressive rhetoric with contrary actions. As one bad decision after another has emanated from the Oval Office, some progressives have favored denial -- even though, if the name "Bush" or "McCain" had been attached to the same presidential policies, the same progressives would have been screaming bloody murder.

But enabling bad policies, with silent acquiescence or anemic dissent, encourages more of them. At this point, progressive groups and individuals who pretend that Obama's policies merely need a few tweaks, or just suffer from a few anomalous deficiencies, are whistling past a political graveyard.

At the same time, with less than six months to go before Election Day, there are very real prospects of a big Republican victory that could shift majority control of Congress. Progressives have a huge stake in averting a GOP takeover on Capitol Hill.

The corporate-military centrism of the Obama administration has demoralized and demobilized the Democratic Party's largely progressive base -- the same base that swept Nancy Pelosi into the House Speaker's office and then Barack Obama into the White House. National polls now show Democrats to be much less enthusiastic about voting in November than their Republican counterparts.

The conventional political wisdom (about as accurate as the claim that "oil rigs today generally don't cause spills") is that when a Democratic president moves rightward, his party gains strength against Republicans. But Democrats reaped the whirlwind of that pseudo-logic in 1994 -- after President Clinton shafted much of the Democratic base by pushing through the corporate NAFTA trade pact against the wishes of labor, environmental and human-rights constituencies. That's how Newt Gingrich and other right-wing zealots got to run Congress starting in January 1995.

For progressives, giving the Obama administration one benefit of the doubt after another has not prevented matters from getting worse.

At the moment, U.S. troop levels are nearing 100,000 in Afghanistan.

Massive quantities of oil are belching into the Gulf of Mexico.

The White House has signaled de facto acceptance of a high unemployment rate for several more years, while offering weak GOP-lite countermeasures like tax breaks for businesses.

Nuclear power subsidies are getting powerful support from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, while meaningful action against global warming is nowhere in sight.

The Justice Department continues to backtrack on civil liberties.

And now, if the president's nomination of Elena Kagan is successful, the result will move the Supreme Court to the right.

Progressives should fight the Kagan nomination.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/kagan-in-context-shafting_b_569659.html

Blackflag
05-10-2010, 03:01 PM
As predicted - you can't generate an opinion of your own.

Bravo.

jhale667
05-10-2010, 03:16 PM
As predicted - you can't generate an opinion of your own.

Bravo.

What are you crying about? The article tends to support your position - something you were incapable of doing on your own, btw...

Blackflag
05-10-2010, 03:21 PM
Of course it does. How could it not?

But fucking come up with your own opinions one way or the other, people. Don't just xerox somebody else's.

That article doesn't even scratch the surface why she sucks.

FORD
05-10-2010, 03:23 PM
As predicted - you can't generate an opinion of your own.

Bravo.

Actually, that article pretty much IS my opinion. Solomon just articulated it with less 4 letter words than I would have.

It's a shitty choice on many levels.

The Supreme Court should not be made up of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews.

The Supreme Court should not have three justices from New York City (or any other one location)

The Surpeme Court should not have only graduates of so-called "Ivy League" schools.

As far as rumors of Kagan being gay, I have no problem with a Lesbian on the Supreme Court, I just would rather it wasn't a "Log Cabin Republican".

But then, there's reason to believe Opie Roberts already fits that description.....
http://img.wonkette.com/images/couldn't be gayer if they were in chaps.jpg

jhale667
05-10-2010, 03:25 PM
Don't be a dumbass. Nothing wrong with people posting pieces like this one to inform people so they CAN make an accurate decision. Hopefully no one's getting ALL their info from here, but it's certainly not hurting anything.

So again - quit crying. :D

Blackflag
05-10-2010, 03:27 PM
Actually, that article pretty much IS my opinion.

Of course it is. All your opinions come from the internet.

Why don't you take a look at her qualifications and forget about her religion or orientation, clown.

jhale667
05-10-2010, 03:27 PM
Actually, that article pretty much IS my opinion. Solomon just articulated it with less 4 letter words than I would have.

It's a shitty choice on many levels.

The Supreme Court should not be made up of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews.

The Supreme Court should not have three justices from New York City (or any other one location)

The Surpeme Court should not have only graduates of so-called "Ivy League" schools.

As far as rumors of Kagan being gay, I have no problem with a Lesbian on the Supreme Court, I just would rather it wasn't a "Log Cabin Republican".

But then, there's reason to believe Opie Roberts already fits that description.....
http://img.wonkette.com/images/couldn't be gayer if they were in chaps.jpg


Whoa, were they on their way to a Village People show or some shit?

LoungeMachine
05-10-2010, 03:28 PM
But fucking come up with your own opinions one way or the other, people. Don't just xerox somebody else's.

That article doesn't even scratch the surface why she sucks.

:lmao:
:lmao:
:lmao:

Compared to this:?????

Elena Kagan.
I think she's a horrible choice.

Discuss.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100510...20100510024833


STFU until you can practice what you preach, hypocrite.

:gulp:

Blackflag
05-10-2010, 03:29 PM
Nothing wrong with people posting pieces like this one to inform people so they CAN make an accurate decision.

Hmm...what exactly are you deciding, Hale?

We decide nothing, we just throw around opinions. So if one is incapable of forming one, it's kind of a liability.

Blackflag
05-10-2010, 03:30 PM
Compared to this:?????

She is a horrible choice.

You disagree, fag?

LoungeMachine
05-10-2010, 03:40 PM
I don't diasagree you're horrible.
I don't diagree you're a fag.

I have't read enough to form an opinion on her yet.

:gulp:

I'm just constantly amazed at your blatant troll-like hypocrisy.

Blackflag
05-10-2010, 03:43 PM
A discussion is a give-and-take. It's not posting shit from the internet.

Starting a discussion is hypocrisy?

LoungeMachine
05-10-2010, 03:45 PM
No, you're posting shit on the internet.....

:gulp:

And that's all it is, too. shit

chefcraig
05-10-2010, 03:58 PM
The thing I'm having difficulty with is the woman's experience as a judge. OK, Dean of Harvard Law School sounds pretty impressive, but I understand that before that she only served as a clerk. Now I get that she has a bunch of degrees, but doesn't practical application of this knowledge have to be displayed someplace? I mean otherwise, doesn't this more or less make her a theorist?

Think about this...a person goes to broadcasting school to learn about being a baseball announcer. Having studied the game for years, this person then learns what is expected in the art of calling play by play. After getting a few jobs working for some minor league teams, the announcer gets hired to broadcast Yankees games. Now, is that any reason for the manager of the Yankees to hire the announcer as a first baseman?

Blackflag
05-10-2010, 03:58 PM
You already admitted you have no opinion. So why are you here? Just to bust my balls?

Go read "huffington post" and get your opinion.

Blackflag
05-10-2010, 04:01 PM
The thing I'm having difficulty with is the woman's experience as a judge.

Dude, she has virtually no legal experience. I'm not hung up on having a judge. Like Rehnquist spent his career as a prosecutor and never a judge. That's cool.

But this lady is the least qualified person on the Court I can think of. I can't remember anybody this lame. Like I said in the previous thread that some cocksucker deleted - this is like Harriet Myers.

This lady isn't qualified to handle a dogbite case - let alone be a judge - let alone a Supreme Court Justice. WTF.

MAX
05-10-2010, 04:04 PM
The thing I'm having difficulty with is the woman's experience as a judge. OK, Dean of Harvard Law School sounds pretty impressive, but I understand that before that she only served as a clerk. Now I get that she has a bunch of degrees, but doesn't practical application of this knowledge have to be displayed someplace? I mean otherwise, doesn't this more or less make her a theorist?

Think about this...a person goes to broadcasting school to learn about being a baseball announcer. Having studied the game for years, this person then learns what is expected in the art of calling play by play. After getting a few jobs working for some minor league teams, the announcer gets hired to broadcast Yankees games. Now, is that any reason for the manager of the Yankees to hire the announcer as a first baseman?

I really find that to be an excellent analogy Craig and I also agree. :)

However, why in the fuck did you have to include the rotten skankmees in your post?

chefcraig
05-10-2010, 04:19 PM
However, why in the fuck did you have to include the rotten skankmees in your post?

Mainly because when thinking of soullessly corrupt and evil empires, they were the first team that sprang to mind.

bueno bob
05-10-2010, 08:02 PM
Of course it does. How could it not?

But fucking come up with your own opinions one way or the other, people. Don't just xerox somebody else's.

That article doesn't even scratch the surface why she sucks.

Lemme guess - you gave her a "Thumbs Down" and we should "Discuss", right?

bueno bob
05-10-2010, 08:09 PM
The thing I'm having difficulty with is the woman's experience as a judge. OK, Dean of Harvard Law School sounds pretty impressive, but I understand that before that she only served as a clerk. Now I get that she has a bunch of degrees, but doesn't practical application of this knowledge have to be displayed someplace? I mean otherwise, doesn't this more or less make her a theorist?

William Rehnquist, who was appointed to the Court by President Nixon in 1971, and he didn't have any judicial experience. Rehnquist had been a law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson (in addition to being an assistant U.S. attorney general). Lewis Powell was another Nixon appointee, who had been president of the American Bar Association and was also the President of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He didn't have any, either.

Out of the nine justices named by Roosevelt, Douglas, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson and Byrnes all lacked judicial experience also. It's not uncommon.

Blackflag
05-10-2010, 10:25 PM
William Rehnquist, who was appointed to the Court by President Nixon in 1971, and he didn't have any judicial experience. Rehnquist had been a law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson (in addition to being an assistant U.S. attorney general). Lewis Powell was another Nixon appointee, who had been president of the American Bar Association and was also the President of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He didn't have any, either.

Out of the nine justices named by Roosevelt, Douglas, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson and Byrnes all lacked judicial experience also. It's not uncommon.

As I said above - lacking judicial experience is not a problem. Lacking legal experience is a problem.


This is just blatant cronyism. She's part of the clique, so she got appointed. She wasn't qualified to be solicitor general, and she's definitely not qualified for this.

Add to that her stance on military recruiting, lack of any record one way or the other, and her stance on enemy combatants, and it's a horrible pick.

FORD
05-10-2010, 10:34 PM
Opie Roberts was appointed "Chief Justice" by the Chimp after a whole two years on the bench. His "legal experience" prior to that appointment was as a BCE lawyer playing second banana to Ken Starr, Ted Olson, James Baker and the rest of that crowd.

Blackflag
05-10-2010, 10:43 PM
Opie Roberts was appointed "Chief Justice" by the Chimp after a whole two years on the bench. His "legal experience" prior to that appointment was as a BCE lawyer playing second banana to Ken Starr, Ted Olson, James Baker and the rest of that crowd.

Before he was a judge for two years, he was in private practice for 15 years. Before that, he was a lawyer for the government for 5 years, including an assistant U.S. attorney.

And it would be impossible for him to be "second banana" to Starr or Olson, when they worked for the government and he was in private practice.

There may be various reasons to dislike him, but lack of experience isn't one of them.

Dumbass.

chefcraig
05-10-2010, 11:26 PM
William Rehnquist, who was appointed to the Court by President Nixon in 1971, and he didn't have any judicial experience. Rehnquist had been a law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson (in addition to being an assistant U.S. attorney general). Lewis Powell was another Nixon appointee, who had been president of the American Bar Association and was also the President of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He didn't have any, either.

Out of the nine justices named by Roosevelt, Douglas, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson and Byrnes all lacked judicial experience also. It's not uncommon.

First off, thanks for the insight. I was unaware that the seat of supreme justice in the U.S. was so open to such a low threshold of judicial experience. I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly did not know that the seating was held to such non-judiciary levels. Yet the initiate practice still strikes me as haphazard in nature. I maintain that it's like giving the controls to a complicated railroad system to the hands of a teen aged kid that happened to run an H.O. scale model train system that ran in circles in his basement for a few years. I seriously do not believe that the highest court in the land should be benched by people looking to get "on the job" experience.

Blackflag
05-10-2010, 11:37 PM
To be fair, Bob named 7 justices out of 111. I wouldn't call that common.

FORD
05-11-2010, 12:05 AM
. I maintain that it's like giving the controls to a complicated railroad system to the hands of a teen aged kid that happened to run an H.O. scale model train system that ran in circles in his basement for a few years. .

Or a monkey.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYkRGTTgUpg

conmee
05-11-2010, 12:28 AM
Brethren and Sistren,

I knew Charlie Weis would land on his feet, but not sure he's a good choice for the highest court in the land...unless an offensive coordinator in drag is good for democracy...

Discuss.

That is all.

Icon via iPhone

BigBadBrian
05-11-2010, 06:49 AM
The thing I'm having difficulty with is the woman's experience as a judge. OK, Dean of Harvard Law School sounds pretty impressive, but I understand that before that she only served as a clerk. Now I get that she has a bunch of degrees, but doesn't practical application of this knowledge have to be displayed someplace? I mean otherwise, doesn't this more or less make her a theorist?



Agreed. I believe a SCOTUS appointee should have Federal judicial experience. Kagan does not, but neither did Rehnquist.

I'll have to read more about her to form an opinion. Therein lies another problem: she has had relatively few papers or articles published.

Right now, she's probably as good a candidate as any. I reserve the right to change my mind, however. :gulp:

Nickdfresh
05-11-2010, 10:38 AM
Of course it does. How could it not?

But fucking come up with your own opinions one way or the other, people. Don't just xerox somebody else's.

That article doesn't even scratch the surface why she sucks.

Then why don't you "scratch the surface" and offer something more than your typical two lines of jerkoff ad hominem?

Blackflag
05-11-2010, 12:21 PM
Then why don't you "scratch the surface" and offer something more than your typical two lines of jerkoff ad hominem?

1. She has a grand total of about 3 years of legal experience. One of those years was in a position she didn't deserve and wasn't qualified for - solicitor general. Again, unqualified for that job, and the people working for her (and undoubtedly doing all the work) had better qualifications than her. Somebody said she's never actually stood in front of a judge. I don't know if that's true, but with 3 years of experience (2 years?), it probably is. (Nice work on Citizens v. FEC, by the way.)

2. She supported Bush/Obama's indefinite detention policies.

3. The only other position she seems to be on record with is her trying to exclude military recruiters from Harvard. You can speak out against the military, you can tell kids not to join the military, say you disagree with their policies, but when you say they can't recruit anymore - I think that's unamerican, and you should forget about holding any government office.

4. She has no record at all. And that could just as easy cut again him as for him. She could be a complete fucking moron, and probably is. She could do shit you don't expect, like Souter, but at least Souter was a surprise. She's just a wildcard, because you don't know what you're getting.

5. The only reason you'd appoint somebody with no legal experience and no record is just because she's part of the inner circle. Harvard/University of Chicago Obama bullshit. Nobody gives a fuck about the actual job, or the Court, or qualifications, or who can serve best - it's just always about incompetent people scratching each other's back, and I'm fucking tired of it. I can't remember anybody in the history of the Court with this little qualifications.

There was something else, but I can't remember what it is right now.

Jagermeister
05-11-2010, 12:29 PM
1. She has a grand total of about 3 years of legal experience. Somebody said she's never actually stood in front of a judge. I don't know if that's true, but with 3 years of experience, it probably is.

2. She supported Bush/Obama's indefinite detention policies.

3. The only other position she seems to be on record with is her trying to exclude military recruiters from Harvard. You can speak out against the military, you can tell kids not to join the military, but when you say they can't recruit anymore - I think that's unamerican, and you should forget about holding any government office.

4. She has no record at all. And that could just as easy cut again him as for him. She could be a complete fucking moron, and probably is. She could do shit you don't expect, like Souter, but at least Souter was a surprise. She's just a wildcard, because you don't know what you're getting.

5. The only reason you'd hire somebody with no legal experience and no record is just because she's part of the inner circle. Harvard/University of Chicago Obama bullshit. Nobody gives a fuck about the actual job, or the Court, or qualifications, or who can serve best - it's just always about incompetent people scratching each other's back, and I'm fucking tired of it. I can't remember anybody in the history of the Court with this little qualifications.

There was something else, but I can't remember what it is right now.

She's gay?

FORD
05-11-2010, 04:25 PM
She's gay?

Let's put it this way....

She went to the doctor, she went to the mountains
she looked to the children, she drank from the fountain....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUgwM1Ky228

conmee
05-11-2010, 05:51 PM
I'd rather have a MALE ideologue on the bench than another WOMAN!!!! In fact, give me a GAY PUERTO RICAN AFRO AMERICAN POLLOCK with any number of handicaps or 'challenges' over this....this....WOMAN!!!!

I am sick of women domesticating and emasculating liberal AND conservative men.... Time to take our country back from this vaginal scourge!!! We put women back in the kitchen and we'll put men to work, solve race and immigration issues and restore American prestige worldwide. Iran and Saudi Arabia know how to take care of their women, we should follow suit.

Today's Misogynist rant sponsored by Blackflag and Vagicaine... (Note: sponsored by does not mean agree with, condone, or support).

I'm just the messenger. Discuss.

Icon via iPhone

kwame k
05-11-2010, 06:51 PM
Must really piss off all the, "Obama's a left wing radical", when he acts like the Centrist he's always been.

Haven't really vetted her/it myself but it seems Obama doesn't want a fight and is picking a path of least resistance.

Nickdfresh
05-11-2010, 07:42 PM
I don't know enough about her to state an opinion one way or another, but...


1. She has a grand total of about 3 years of legal experience. One of those years was in a position she didn't deserve and wasn't qualified for - solicitor general. Again, unqualified for that job, and the people working for her (and undoubtedly doing all the work) had better qualifications than her. Somebody said she's never actually stood in front of a judge. I don't know if that's true, but with 3 years of experience (2 years?), it probably is. (Nice work on Citizens v. FEC, by the way.)

She has more than three years of experience. She served three years in the Clinton White House as council...Previous to that she had been a clerk and was in private practice for a firm in addition to her extensive academia background...

As for Solicitor General position, it is not unusual for her to have never argued a case at that level neither Ken Starr nor Robert Bork who held the job previously...

The other stuff I'm not going to argue because I'd rather form my own opinion...

Blackflag
05-11-2010, 07:49 PM
She has more than three years of experience. She served three years in the Clinton White House as council...Previous to that she had been a clerk, in private practice for a firm in addition to her extensive academia background...

What counts for a judge is litigation experience, or judicial experience. Being counsel doesn't add anything - that's what Harriet Myers was. Being a clerk is a nice cherry on top of other experience, but isn't much in itself. Being head of a law school counts for nothing.

She worked for a firm for two years after she clerked, and she was solicitor general for one year. What a joke. My balls have more experience than she does.

Compare it to anybody else on the Court and you'll see what I'm saying.

Cocksucking cronyism bullshit motherfuckers.

Nickdfresh
05-12-2010, 07:47 AM
What counts for a judge is litigation experience, or judicial experience. Being counsel doesn't add anything - that's what Harriet Myers was. Being a clerk is a nice cherry on top of other experience, but isn't much in itself. Being head of a law school counts for nothing.

Well, I'm not defending her as Obama's pick. But she has more than three years experience, and her credentials are far from questionable...

But, don't sell me the notion of judges having immense life experience or of being any more qualified than anyone else to voice an opinion. I've known judges, and a lot of them are clueless jackoffs in a paid prestige position hiding behind a gavel and magistrate. I mean, look at Clarence Thomas. He had all sorts of experience, and he clearly has the intellect of a masturbating frat boy..

Blackflag
05-12-2010, 01:30 PM
Well, I'm not defending her as Obama's pick. But she has more than three years experience, and her credentials are far from questionable...

But, don't sell me the notion of judges having immense life experience or of being any more qualified than anyone else to voice an opinion. I've known judges, and a lot of them are clueless jackoffs in a paid prestige position hiding behind a gavel and magistrate. I mean, look at Clarence Thomas. He had all sorts of experience, and he clearly has the intellect of a masturbating frat boy..

To put it in perspective, the person she's replacing was a litigator for 15 years, and a judge at a federal court of appeals for 12 years. (and he taught law school for a while, not that anybody gives a fuck.) We're not talking about "life experience," we're talking about legal experience.

If you want somebody with no real knowledge of jurisprudence or the legal system, just to voice a lay opinion, that's cool...but ignorant. Put her at the local superior court. At least she could be reversed by an appeals judge who knows what they're doing. You don't pull that shit at the Supreme Court.

You know her sweet experience as head of Harvard doesn't make her the best qualified person in the country for this job, and you know this position is too important to just be about cronyism and connections.

You can't seriously say that a lawyer who has never stood in front of a judge should be a Supreme Court Justice. Clueless or trolling. I wonder if you defended Harriet Myers, too?

Guitar Shark
05-12-2010, 05:15 PM
Well, I'm not defending her as Obama's pick. But she has more than three years experience, and her credentials are far from questionable...

But, don't sell me the notion of judges having immense life experience or of being any more qualified than anyone else to voice an opinion. I've known judges, and a lot of them are clueless jackoffs in a paid prestige position hiding behind a gavel and magistrate. I mean, look at Clarence Thomas. He had all sorts of experience, and he clearly has the intellect of a masturbating frat boy..

I side with Blackflag on this. Although the Constitution technically does not require ANY legal or judicial experience to serve as a SC justice, Senate confirmation is required and this is still the "Supreme" Court we're talking about here. I want that Court to be stacked with the brightest legal minds available, and ideally, they will also have significant experience practicing law. I'm not saying Kagan isn't qualified, but she's likely not the best available choice, either.

FORD
05-12-2010, 06:21 PM
Hey, I finally found something positive about Kagan. Apparently she's no friend of the "intellectual property" Nazis....

Why Hollywood should be very nervous about Elena Kagan
Mon May 10, 2010 @ 09:31AM PST

By Eriq Gardner


Hollywood may have some reason to be nervous about President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Not a whole lot is known about Kagan's judicial philosophy, which in some ways, makes her the perfect pick to win confirmation by the Senate. Her record on issues the industry cares about, though, isn't entirely opaque.

Hollywood's biggest worry about Kagan might be her philosophy on intellectual property matters. As dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, she was instrumental in beefing up the school's Berkman Center for Internet & Society by recruiting Lawrence Lessig and others who take a strongly liberal position on "fair use" in copyright disputes.

Most notably, during those years, Professor Charles Nesson at the Berkman Center represented accused file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum in the defense of a lawsuit by the RIAA. Professor Nesson led his cyberlaw class in alleging that "the RIAA is abusing law and the civil process" with excessive damage claims in piracy cases. It was Kagan herself who wrote a personal letter to the U.S. District Court to help certify the students.

Ironically, the Obama administration later weighed in on the side of the RIAA in the case. But it was before Kagan was fully confirmed as U.S. Solicitor General. At the time, Professor Nesson expressed some doubts about whether Kagan would back the government's amicus brief and also called her "enlightened" on these issues.

Kagan got her biggest opportunity to showcase her feelings on IP when the U.S. Supreme Court asked her, as U.S. Solicitor General, to weigh in on the big Cablevision case.

Hollywood was upset when Cablevision announced its intention to allow subscribers to store TV programs on the cable operator's computer servers instead of a hard-top box. The introduction of remote-storage DVR kicked off furious litigation, and the 2nd Circuit overturned a lower court ruling by saying that the technology wouldn't violate copyright holder's rights. The studios appealed to the Supreme Court.

In Kagan's brief to the high court, she argued the justices shouldn't take the case and trumpeted fair use. She went against broadcasters there and even criticized Cablevision for limiting the scope of its arguments.

Of course, this isn't quite enough evidence to predict what kind of U.S. Supreme Court justice she will be. At Harvard, she was famous for ingratiating herself to professors of all political stripes, so who knows if Nesson has a good read on her? Working in the Obama administration, she also surrounded herself with entertainment industry advocates, including as her assistant, Ginger Anders, who worked on an amicus brief in the Cablevision case for a coalition that included the RIAA.

And finally, Hollywood's got at least one reason to cheer. Her history in academia suggests she'll be an extreme supporter of free speech under the First Amendment.

http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/kagan-supreme-court-hollywood.html

Doesn't make up for some of the other bad shit that she IS in favor of, but it's certainly ONE major point in her favor

Blackflag
05-12-2010, 06:28 PM
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:U404AJ4Qn35r4M:http://healthcare.viralprints.com/system/photos/1270/large/BigFuckingDeal.png

FORD
05-12-2010, 06:57 PM
Joe, is that you? Shouldn't you be visiting your son?

Susie Q
05-13-2010, 10:21 PM
I just wanna say one thing. I think this chick is a dude. Am I right? :umm:

kwame k
05-13-2010, 10:29 PM
I just wanna say one thing. I think this chick is a dude. Am I right? :umm:

Gotta agree.......That's a man, baby <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WgOIEGz7o_s&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WgOIEGz7o_s&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

ELVIS
05-14-2010, 09:49 AM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LM0Vb3afG3k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LM0Vb3afG3k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


:elvis: