Kagan in Context: Shafting Progressive Values

[Blackflag]

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]

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]

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....

[conmee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[FORD]

Joe, is that you? Shouldn't you be visiting your son?

[Susie Q]

I just wanna say one thing. I think this chick is a dude. Am I right?

[kwame k]

I just wanna say one thing. I think this chick is a dude. Am I right?

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>