Never mind that the Patriot Act was never repealed, or that the current administration never destroyed the One-Ring of the Unitary Executive crafted by Cheney and Bush in the pits of neocon Hell, now President Obama has trotted out his own Yoo for the sheeple to cheer.
Elena Kagan is not a liberal, she is not even a progressive, she is more fan of the President as King than even Alberto Gonzales. And don't even get me started on how she makes even Scalia look like a softy man of the people when it comes to criminal law.
"She is certainly a fan of presidential power."
Radley Balko, Reason, May 10, 2010
http://reason.com/...
But Kagan's pro-government position extends to criminal justice issues, too. In her current position, Kagan and her subordinates have filed amicus briefs and argued the pro-prosecution, pro-law enforcement position in every criminal justice-related case to come before the Supreme Court since Obama took office. In cases where the constitutionality of a federal law was in question, you could argue that because of her position, Kagan was obligated to defend the law whether she agreed with it or not. But her office could at the very least have merely remained silent on cases like Alvarez v. Smith (a challenge to the Illinois asset forfeiture law, which is much more government-friendly than the federal law), or Alaska, District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (arguing that the states should grant post-conviction DNA testing if doing so could show factual innocence).
Kagan's office also argued against expanding the rights of the accused and wrongly persecuted when a specific federal law wasn't in question, such as when she argued that prosecutors who manufacture evidence that leads to the conviction of an innocent person should not be subject to lawsuits (Pottawatomie vs. McGhee), and that the Constitution's Confrontation Clause doesn't protect the right to cross examine forensic experts (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts). Most recently in U.S. v. Stevens, her office argued in favor of a federal law banning the sale of videos depicting animal cruelty, taking a broadly censorious position that First Amendment rights be balanced with "societal costs."
That position was rebuked as "preposterous" in an 8-1 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts. Which makes Kagan more pro-censorship than Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, or Thomas. (She also argued the pro-censorship position in Citizens United, but while no less troubling, that's less surprising.)
When you are more pro-Orwellian than Roberts, Scalia and Thomas, one should check thyself before they wreck themselves. Only our Dear Kagan knows the true societal costs that unpopular speech might have on our country. Only she truly understands what is right and wrong when it comes to free speech.
Not to mention she is always setting the standard higher and higher against citizens to prove their innocence in the court of law. Last I checked, we were all innocent until proven guilty, but not in Kagan's worldview.
In her Amerika, even if the State produces a verdict by illegal means, that does not give the citizen any redress against the State. In her vision of Freedom, the God Office of the Executive is all-knowing, all-powerful, flawless by mandate of the Divine only she can see and know.
President Obama knows he is about to battle the Supreme Court in the arena of detainee rights and secrecy, and he is sending in his ringer, Kagan, to carrying is Unitary water in a way even Cheney could not have dreamed.
New Justice to Confront Evolution in Powers
By CHARLIE SAVAGE, New York Times, May 7, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Indeed, after Mr. Obama selected her to be his solicitor general, she publicly embraced an expansive interpretation of the Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda. Ms. Kagan also took a leading role on a legal team that has sought to suppress lawsuits using the state secrets privilege and fought a ruling granting habeas corpus rights to some detainees in Afghanistan.
All those cases could reach the Supreme Court. But it is not clear that appointing Ms. Kagan would give Mr. Obama an extra vote in the White House’s favor, as she might feel pressure to recuse herself from participating.
Kagan's ego and force of will would never allow for a recuse.
I am disgusted that the Obama Administration would find her acceptable to replace Stevens, much less Scalia.
I could not be more disgusted by this:
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/...
Such claims of executive power are not limited to the current administration, nor are they limited to politicians. Take, for example, Dean Elena Kagan's rich celebration of presidential administration. Kagan, herself a former political appointee, lauded the President's ability to trump bureaucracy. Anticipating the claims of the current administration, Kagan argued that the President's ability to overrule bureaucrats "energize[s] regulatory policy" because only "the President has the ability to effect comprehensive, coherent change in administrative policymaking" . . . .
Assaulted by political forces, the modern agency is a stew of presidential loyalists and relatively powerless career officials. To this political assault comes an academic one as well, with luminaries such as Elena Kagan celebrating presidential administration an unitary executivists explaining why such theories are part of our constitutional design. This vision may work in eras of divided government, but it fails to control power the rest of the time.
Unitary Executives as part of our constitutional design? GTFO. President Obama wants Kagan on the Supreme Court so he can carry on Bush's "Good Work" for "Good Americans". It is a slap in the face of anyone left of Orrin Hatch who voted for him in 2008 and thought that as a Constitutional Law Professor that Obama had actually read the document and the Federalist Papers.
President Obama's quick powerplay to get Kagan on the Supreme Court to defend his ability to use the One Ring of the Unitary Executive is going to set this country back generations, because the Supreme Court doesn't roll over after he leaves office.
His base political ploy here so he can finish Cheney and Bush's effort for a divine executive will further erode basic civil liberties and further move us away from being a representative republic.
Anyone who actually cares about the Constitution, civil liberties and the accountability of the executive branch should oppose Frau Kagan.
Though I am sure she will get cheerleaded by some here, which will be the last sad act of the progressives as Kagan helps America progress to an Orwellian state.