This is in response to the Politico Link by McJoan earlier today. It looks like Obama is floating this trial balloon over the weekend to see how people respond to a decision on Elena Kagan as the next supreme court justice to replace John Paul Stevens (JPS).
I'm not a lawyer, but I am a progressive, and from what other people say who are much smarter than me, I think there is cause to worry.
As an obamabot, my first instinct is to trust the President in his selection of a staunch liberal defender for the court. However, Elena Kagan does not appear to be that person.
Much has been made of her hiring decisions at Harvard and the lack of diversity. I tend not to place too much stock into what the ivy league does and doesn't do, and this certainly isn't surprising to me, but its not all together an indictment given we don't have the full context on the candidates and positions. However, Glenn Greenwald brings up a good point, published about a month ago:
After preening around for years justifying her ban on military recruiters by decrying the military's ban on gays as "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order," she quickly reversed that policy and allowed military recruiters onto campus after the Federal Government threatened to withhold several hundred million dollars in funds to Harvard (out of a $60 billion endowment). One can reasonably argue that her obligation as Dean was to secure that funding for the school, but one can also reasonably question what it says about a person's character when they are willing to flamboyantly fight against "profound wrongs" and "moral injustices of the first order" -- only as long as there is no cost involved.
You should really read the entire piece, it was good when it came out and now its even more apropos.
Glenn goes on to list a number of other important arguments, including:
- Lack of track record
- Fervent support of the unitary executive
- Plenty of more suitable candidates
Glenn got some pushback from that article, and responded here. I wouldn't want to ruin the sport for you, but...
If Dellinger's article is all there is to say about Kagan's supposedly "progressive" approach to these issues, that is probably a stronger indictment of her nomination than anything I've said so far.
I agree with Glenn. There is no need to take this on faith. This is a supreme court seat held by an unabashed "liberal" (I put in quotes only because I doubt JPS sees himself that way), and is being replaced during an ostensibly liberal administration. There are plenty of candidates floated before during the Sotomayor hearings which are just as acceptable now, but instead we're asked to trust a stealth candidate whose positions on the constitution are scarily similar to the neocons.
But there's more. From USA today via Digby
Solicitor General Elena Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute, according to the financial disclosures she filed when President Obama appointed her last year to her current post. Kagan served on the Goldman panel from 2005 through 2008, when she was dean of Harvard Law School, and received a $10,000 stipend for her service in 2008, her disclosure forms show.
What I read from the comments earlier was that it was unfair to question her progressive bonafides a priori. I would argue that those questions are not unfounded, but serious and critical now.
Look, we get the first choice of a liberal in this case, we don't have to hope and pray that our #1 draft pick might become the next Earl Warren or JPS. We can actually take the best progressive on the board.