First Reactions to Kagan’s Nomination

Clearly, President Obama’s choice of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court came as no surprise to many. Reactions flooded my inbox before Obama was even done speaking. Here are some excerpts – in order that I received them – of statements reacting to Kagan’s nomination. Some interesting highlights: Mitch McConnell notes her “brief litigation experience,” John Podesta says she’ll be “a much-needed progressive voice on a Court dominated by conservatives,” and Orrin Hatch says his vote for her to be Solicitor General by no means guarantees his support for her nomination to the bench.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a GOP member of the Judiciary Committee:
“Solicitor General Kagan has a strong academic background in the law. I have been generally pleased with her job performance as Solicitor General, particularly regarding legal issues related to the War on Terror. I look forward to meeting her again, this time to discuss her qualifications to sit on the highest court in the land.
“As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I intend to be fair and firm in my questioning of the nominee. The hearings can be a valuable public service as they give us a window into the nominee’s judicial philosophy and disposition. I hope we will have a meaningful opportunity to explore the qualifications, judicial temperament, and judicial philosophy of Ms. Kagan.”

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee:
“I congratulate Elena Kagan on her nomination to the United States Supreme Court. I welcome President Obama’s decision to nominate someone to be the first Supreme Court justice from outside the judiciary since former Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Lewis Powell. Ms. Kagan’s confirmation in 2009 as the first woman to become Solicitor General was an historic moment for our nation. As Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan has served the nation ably. Considering the impact the Supreme Court has on our country, I take very seriously my responsibility as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to evaluate a nominee. I look forward to reviewing thoroughly Ms. Kagan’s record, meeting with her and questioning her during what I hope will be a productive and informative confirmation process.”

Texas Senator John Cornyn, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee:
“There is no doubt that Ms. Kagan possesses a first-rate intellect, but she is a surprising choice from a president who has emphasized the importance of understanding ‘how the world works and how ordinary people live.’ Ms. Kagan has spent her entire professional career in Harvard Square, Hyde Park, and the DC Beltway. These are not places where one learns ‘how ordinary people live.’ Ms. Kagan is likewise a surprising choice because she lacks judicial experience. Most Americans believe that prior judicial experience is a necessary credential for a Supreme Court Justice.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele:
“Over the past year, the American people have been witness to President Obama’s massive expansion of the federal government into our daily lives. To assure the American people, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, will need to demonstrate that she is committed to upholding the vision of our Founding Fathers, who wrote a Constitution meant to limit the power of government, not expand it.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
I am particularly pleased President Obama has chosen a nominee from outside the judicial monastery. I believe that through her confirmation process, Elena Kagan will demonstrate that her primary allegiance is to fairness, justice and the rule of law, not ideology. When Solicitor General Kagan is confirmed, the Supreme Court will have three sitting female Justices for the first time – a historic occurrence that is long overdue.

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee:
“I will examine Ms. Kagan’s entire record to understand her judicial philosophy. My conclusion will be based on evidence, not blind faith. Her previous confirmation, and my support for her in that position, do not by themselves establish either her qualifications for the Supreme Court or my obligation to support her. I have an open mind and look forward to actively participating in the confirmation process.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
“As we did with Justice Sotomayor last year, Senate Republicans will treat Ms. Kagan fairly. She has been nominated for a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court, and we will carefully review her brief litigation experience, as well as her judgment and her career in academia, both as a professor and as an administrator. Fulfilling our duty to advise and consent on a nomination to this office requires a thorough process, not a rush to judgment.
“The American people expect judges to apply the Constitution and laws of the United States fairly and impartially—as they are written, not how they could have been written but were not. Even though the President who nominates them has personal policy preferences, judges must not be a rubberstamp for any administration. Judges must not walk into court with a preconceived idea of who should win. Their job is to apply the law ‘without respect to persons,’ as the judicial oath states; it is not to pick winners or losers.”

John Podesta, head of the Center for American Progress:
“As a friend and colleague of Elena Kagan for more than 20 years, I applaud her nomination to the Supreme Court. General Kagan is a first-rate intellect, a passionate legal scholar and a dedicated public servant—and she is both well-prepared and well-suited to serve on the nation’s highest Court.
“As my colleague in the White House, Elena Kagan worked tirelessly to expand opportunity for all Americans willing to work hard and play by the rules. She understands that the law imposes obligations on all Americans, and she will have no patience for well-heeled interest groups who believe that their wealth and influence should grant them immunity from the law.
“In this sense, Kagan is a welcome contrast to the narrow, conservative voices which dominate today’s Supreme Court. General Kagan forged a bipartisan consensus in favor of regulations preventing tobacco companies from marketing their products to children. Despite this consensus, a conservative 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court adopted an implausible reading of federal law to declare such regulations invalid in 2000. Unlike these conservative justices, Kagan understands that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what a powerful industry says it should be.
“In other words, General Kagan will be a much-needed progressive voice on a Court dominated by conservatives who believe in one set of laws for the powerful, and another set of laws for ordinary Americans. She will make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice.”
Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“With this nomination, Elena Kagan follows in the footsteps of her mentor, Thurgood Marshall, who also was nominated to the Supreme Court from the position of Solicitor General. Ms. Kagan broke the glass ceiling when she was appointed as the first woman to serve as Solicitor General and also previously when she became the first woman to serve as dean of Harvard Law School. Her historic accomplishments and the way she has conducted herself in these positions has earned her a place at the top of the legal profession.
“Elena Kagan’s nomination will bring to the Supreme Court a diversity of experience missing since Justice O’Connor retired in 2006. I have urged President Obama to look outside the judicial monastery to identify qualified nominees who will bring a diversity of life experience to the Court. Elena Kagan is just such a nominee.”

Human Rights Campaign:
“We applaud President Obama for choosing Elena Kagan to become our nation’s next U.S. Supreme Court Justice,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “The U.S. Supreme Court decides cases that intimately affect the lives of all Americans. We are confident that Elena Kagan has a demonstrated understanding and commitment to protecting the liberty and equality of all Americans, including LGBT Americans.
“Issues that are critical to the LGBT community may reach the Supreme Court in the next few years, including issues related to marriage equality, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the new federal hate crimes law. When issues like these come to the Supreme Court, it is vital that we have fair-minded judges to rule on these cases.”

David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society and former congressman from Indiana:
“I’m deeply disappointed that President Obama has chosen to nominate an individual who has demonstrated a lack of adherence to the limits of the Constitution and a desire to utilize the court system to enact her beliefs of social engineering. Solicitor General Kagan has been nominated with no judicial experience, a mere two years of private law practice, and only a year as Solicitor General of the United States. She is one of the most inexperienced nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court in recent memory.
“Ms. Kagan’s public comments should be highly disturbing to all Americans as they show what kind of a Justice she will be. She has been a vocal opponent of military recruiters on the Harvard Law School campus, placing political correctness above national security in a time of war. Ms. Kagan abandoned the will of the American people and the Congress by challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, proving she will merely rule based on her personal political preferences and not the law. President Obama has, once again, nominated an individual who places a higher premium on political progressivism than adherence to the set of laws that have made this country strong and free. For someone tragically inexperienced and activist, Ms. Kagan represents President Obama’s ideal of transforming the Supreme Court into a vehicle for social reform and judicial affirmative action.”

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, head of American’s United for Life:
“Elena Kagan has strong ties to abortion-advocacy organizations and expressed admiration for activist judges who have worked to advance social policy rather than to impartially interpret the law. Americans United for Life will oppose President Obama’s attempt to reshape the Court as an activist, pro-abortion institution through which unelected judges will work to impose an out-of-the-mainstream social agenda upon the American people.”

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: Congress, elena kagan, nomination, reactions, Barack Obama, Congress, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Senate, Supreme Court, White House
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • 53_3

    Well, I would say that Roland Martin has astounded me:
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/10/Martin.kagan.Supreme.court/index.html

  • nflfoghorn

    Responses: Predictable, except for what Fitty referred to in #1.

  • kevin

    I don’t get this criticism at all. As Nate Silver notes, Harvard looks a lot like its peer institutions in terms of the percentages of women and racial minorities on the law school faculty.
    .
    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/on-kagans-minority-hiring-record.html

  • nflfoghorn

    Laugh-In must’ve gotten a quota memo from somewhere. I’m not saying a black female shouldn’t be considered at some point but it’s his perogative to get who he wants. You get the best mind for the job, period. Nowhere is it written that the nominee has to be of a certain ethnicity or background. Would he be righteously indignant if Kagan was Protestant?

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Harvard Square, Hyde Park, and the DC Beltway. These are not places where one learns ‘how ordinary people live.’

    Because everyone knows that the people in Harvard Square all have a third eye in the middle of their foreheads……..

  • deconstructiva

    Jay, thanks for this and your tweet about Leahy’s response: “The president could’ve nominated Moses-the-law-giver and someone would’ve said, ‘Wait, he doesn’t have a birth certificate.’” …but at least Moses would get support from the granite mining industry. Good thing Leahy didn’t mention poor Trig Palin’s missing birth certificate, but I digress.
    .
    During confirmation, I hope Kagan does NOT get asked if she believes DQ’s vanilla soft-serve is real ice cream or fake ice cream. (okay, what the hell am I talking about? Lovely Jay earlier tweeted about DQ ice cream / not. That’s been an issue for a long time.)

  • stuartzechman

    Jay Newton-Small:
    .
    And so now the Orwellian double-speak of the center is on full display:

    John Podesta says she’ll be “a much-needed progressive voice on a Court dominated by conservatives,”

    Right.
    .
    Podesta means “progressive” in the sense he means “Center for American Progress,” i.e. (link to PDF of Podesta’s speech at Oxford, England, MARCH 4, 2006),

    …both countries [Great Britain and the US] evidently made a decision to invade Iraq based on faith, rather than a plan.
    .
    And in the 1990s, we shared a common governing principle, which I would like to turn to now.
    .
    Beginning in the early 1990s, I had the opportunity to watch two gifted political leaders on opposite sides of the Atlantic complete the modernization of their political parties through a program they called the Third Way.
    .
    In my own country, Bill Clinton assumed the leadership of a progressive movement that many thought had run its course…
    .
    My organization, the Center for American Progress, is leading the effort in the United States of America to again modernize the machinery of progressivism.
    .
    Half the battle is won.

    Just to be clear, I’m not blaming you, Jay Newton-Small, for the deliberately opaque and misleading rhetoric of centrists like Podesta, but mightn’t you include first reactions from people who represent liberalism and the left, as well?

  • nflfoghorn

    his perogative = BO’s

  • grape_crush

    First Reactions to Kagan’s Nomination
    .
    No offense to Jay in particular, but isn’t there anything else going on other than this non-suprising nomination?

  • stuartzechman

    This has got to be one of the least substantial arguments against Kagan I’ve come across, if we don’t count the petty sloganeering of the tabloid right.

  • deconstructiva

    Yes – the Geico cavemen are real (aka ancestors of select R’s and RW commenters here) –
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html

  • square1

    My initial reactions:

    1. I knew I should have gone to Princeton!

    2. John Podesta may be a progressive as far as Clintonites go, but his stamp of approval is hardly definitive.

    3. Kagan, given her lifelong desire to reach this position, has clearly and carefully crafted a resume devoid of disqualifying activities. She would be the biggest cipher since Souter*.

    4. IMHO, Obama is not hoping for a post-confirmation shift to the Left. Whatever “liberal” attitudes she may have displayed as a young lady when the country was considerably more open to such views have likely been eradicated as she has become increasingly entrenched within America’s most powerful institutions.

    *Souter’s post-confirmation “liberal shift” was aways overblown. Souter is a truly principled Yankee conservative — and was a phenomenal justice — whose views simply did not shift along with the GOP over the past 20 years. But the guy isn’t a Movement Conservative. He didn’t have an agenda on the Court and he was unwilling to compromise his legal analysis to help GOP interest groups and partisan GOP interests.

  • nflfoghorn

    Trig was on the cover of USA Today’s Sunday mag along with Miss Prissy and the rest of the bunch (Todd, I think, was missing). Wonder what his mom is tweeting – that she’s not intellectual enough to be a justice??

  • square1

    BTW, Stuart, thanks for your compliment during the podcast. Incidentally, I think you definitely had the better end of the argument with Digby regarding the ideological nature of centrism.

  • stuartzechman

    Alright, before I get hammered for this, yes, Russ Feingold qualifies as a liberal voice, yes, HRC isn’t a Third Way organization as such.

  • stuartzechman

    Well said again, sqr1.

  • http://usataxpayer.org/ fantumx

    Doesn’t Barack Obama know anybody who is not a freak or not on the rolls of NAMBLA, GLSEN or LGBT? Why are so many willing to praise this Marxist idiot as he shames everything America stands for?

    LGBT = Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender
    NAMBLA = North American Man Boy Love Association
    GLSEN = Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network

    Obama’s Gay Administration…
    http://usataxpayer.org/?0098557572

  • deconstructiva

    I looked. She hasn’t tweeted yet.
    http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA
    No facebook entry either.
    http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    This is what I mean when I refer to self-discrediting Free Speech.

  • grape_crush

    …the Geico cavemen are real…
    .
    Well, that explains the excess hair on my back.
    .
    Me, I’m thinking that the link sacoharry posted in Morning Reads to the Maine GOP’s new uber-Teabaggy party platform is noteworthy, in that, finally, we know exactly what they stand for.

    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/05/10/morning-must-reads-kagan/comment-page-1/#comment-162898

    It ain’t pretty.

  • stuartzechman

    sqr1:
    .
    If the subject is commentary (digby brought it up), you’re one of the more gifted writers in the commentariat, so I am compelled to mention you.
    .
    Incidentally, I’m interested in what you found convincing about my arguments, since these theories run right smack into the liberal blogosphere’s long (weirdly, at least to me) accepted consensus with the establishment press corps that New Democrats represent a “pragmatic” (cowards), “realistic” (venal) and “non-ideological” (unprincipled) “progressivism” (conservatism in sheep’s clothing).

  • nflfoghorn

    “This is what I mean when I refer to self-desecrating Free Speech”
    .
    Fixed it for you.

  • stuartzechman

    LOL, Dirks.

  • nflfoghorn

    We just gotta sit tight until she makes a decree. I can hear her now: “God doesn’t hear the appointment of a Jew to the highest court in the country by a Kenyan, who’s not even a citizen??”

  • 3xfire3

    My compliments to President Obama on his choice of Elena Kagen as his nominee to the Supreme Court. In Ms Kagen he has chosen a Liberal but not a radical. At a time when our country is so divided he has chosen a Liberal that will not add to the division.
    .
    This was a difficult decision for him to make and he has chosen to not divide the country even more than it is now divided. He has made a wise decision.

  • constantweader

    Notwithstanding Kagan’s dismal record on hiring women & minorities at Harvard Law, which I commented on in an earlier post (4 out of 5 hires were white men), I am fairly stunned by Joe Solmonese’s positive comment. Solmonese even mentions that “issues related to marriage equality” will becoming before the Court.

    Evidently he didn’t get the memo about Kagan’s seemingly unequivocal statement to the Judiciary Committee made as part of her written answers during the confirmation process for Solicitor General: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

    The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

  • square1

    Stuart, as you know, I believe that the New Democrat/Third Way movement within the Democratic party began with laudable principles. In the late 80′s and early 90′s, a typical Third Way political thinker would have said something along the lines of:
    .
    “Just because Republicans often have dubious motives, doesn’t mean that their proposals are always wrong. Opposition to Republican policies should be based upon the merits. For example, if welfare needs to be reformed it should be reformed regardless if part of the motivation for Republican support is, frankly, a racist unwillingness to help minorities. We should be open to market-based solutions to environmental and social problems. We should not avoid cost-benefit analyses when considering government intervention, even if historically Republicans and big business have used phony cost-benefit analyses to evade necessary regulation.”
    .
    Personally, I don’t disagree with the above. IMHO, the problem came when, increasingly over the next 20 years, Third Way Democrats stopped being unusually open-minded. Instead they became intoxicated with being “contrarians.” I can’t emphasize this enough. I believe that acting in a “contrarian” fashion is deeply and emotionally rewarding for Third Way Democrats. Kicking liberals to the curb is a necessary part of their identity.
    .
    As you pointed out to Digby, it is no more rational to expect Third Way Democrats to agree with liberals as it to expect Republicans to agree with us. The identities of both groups deeply depend on their disagreement with us.
    .
    In some ways, New Democrats became victims of their own success. When rank-and-file Democrats started adopting Third Way ideas (e.g. cap and trade, the public option, “free trade” with environmental and labor protections), the Third Way Democrats were forced to move further and further Right in order to maintain their “contrarian” identities.
    .
    That’s my take on the history of the movement.
    .
    The key test for whether the Third Way Democrats are now ideological actors or non-ideological cynics, as Digby suggested, is whether the Third Way Democrats will ever support liberal policies when there is a clear political benefit to doing so.
    .
    IOW, if Digby were right, even if Obama didn’t fight for the public option, he never would have fought AGAINST it, given its extreme popularity amongst the public. Similarly, if Obama wasn’t ideologically supportive of Wall Street, he would have distanced himself from the big banks long ago. He never would have reappointed Bernanke.
    .
    Instead Obama has almost voluntarily accepted responsibility for the Bush economy. Yes, Obama will point out that the economic crisis started on Bush’s watch. But, curiously, Obama never seems to really specify which of Bush’s economic policies that he disagreed with.
    .
    Obama’s behavior cannot be explained by finger-in-the-air politics. It strongly points to a strongly-held (if poorly-developed, intellectually) political and economic ideology.

  • sacredh

    Well, that explains the excess hair on my back.
    .
    Join the club.

  • porkdumpling

    Perhaps Roland Martin senses a prejudice against ascot wearers.
    .
    (After Jon Stewart’s bit, I won’t ever think of Martin for anything else.)

  • porkdumpling

    4 out of 5!?! Get the torches and pitchforks!

  • porkdumpling

    “Whatever “liberal” attitudes she may have displayed as a young lady when the country was considerably more open to such views have likely been eradicated as she has become increasingly entrenched within America’s most powerful institutions.”
    .
    Once again, how do you know that? That seems a leap of a conclusion.
    .
    My impression is that Obama has a very good measure of her political temperament back when they knew each other at the U of Chicago. Way before either had any clue he would someday have the power to appoint her to the bench.

  • square1

    Once again, how do you know that?
    .
    I don’t “know” that. I concluded that it was likely. The basis of my conclusion was that people tend to become more conservative as they get older. And also that people who are members of conservative institutions tend to reflect the conservatism of this institutions. YMMV.
    .
    My impression is that Obama has a very good measure of her political temperament back when they knew each other at the U of Chicago.
    .
    I don’t know if Obama has a “very good” measure since, by all accounts, she has kept her political opinions pretty close to the vest for decades. But assuming that Obama has some measure of her political and legal views, I would suspect that her views are similar to his. That is, not particularly liberal.

  • 3xfire3

    “But what if the choice were made by a black Democratic president, and it was a woman? A white woman? A white Democratic woman”?
    .
    Roland Martin makes an excellent living finding race in everything. His comments here are no exception. President Obama nominated the second minority and third women to the Supreme Court in his first 16 months as President. Give him a break.
    .
    Roland expects everything to be based purly on race quotas. That makes no sense. He is surprised and concerned that the first Black President isn’t following his personal bigotry.
    .
    What he doesn’t understand is that President Obama is the President of all the People. He wouldn’t be President if a large number of white people had not also voted for him.
    .
    Roland, he not only a black President. He’s also a white President. You forget his mother was white and he was raised largely by his white grandparents.
    .
    Obama did what he should have done and did not make race the primary reason for his appointment.

  • porkdumpling

    Oh, then I’m glad you were able to take your knowledge of “people” generally and apply it so specifically and definitively to this one person.
    .
    As for Obama and Kagan, they didn’t just obliquely know each other at U of Chicago; they were(are?) friends (so it has been written). But perhaps Obama *doesn’t* know her political and constitutional inclinations even though they taught law together there and he just picked her as his second choice for the Supreme Court. Yeah, maybe he doesn’t know that at all. Thanks for correcting me on that.

  • porkdumpling

    Hate gay people, do you? Don’t worry: chances are that one of your children or siblings or relatives will turn out to be gay and you’ll find that you felt love and affection for a gay person after all.

  • stuartzechman

    Whether the President knows Elena Kagan in the biblical sense or not, the likelihood of her being a liberal in the fashion of Obama, i.e. not a liberal, is very high.

  • square1

    Oh, then I’m glad you were able to take your knowledge of “people” generally and apply it so specifically and definitively to this one person.
    .
    Fortunately, porkdumpling, when my mind-reading machine is in the repair shop, as it is at the moment, I am forced to fall back on a technique that I call “drawing logical inferences based upon the available evidence”. I admit that it isn’t perfect. But until the mindreader is fixed, its all I’ve got.
    .
    I have no interest in debating whether Obama really knows Kagan’s jurisprudential predispositions. Maybe he does — he’s had a lot of contact with her. Or maybe he doesn’t (It wouldn’t be the first time that a President evaluated their pick incorrectly). Whatever. Like SZ said, either way, I highly doubt that we will look back in 20 years and reflect on how Kagan was instrumental in steering a more liberal course for the Court.

  • http://teacherreaderwriter.wordpress.com/ Shakespeare in GA

    So our President is a gay Marxist who likes little boys? Good to know. Unless, of course, this is what my psychologist wife would call projection, in which case, fantumx, I should give you her work number.
    .
    Nice job rolling several RW fear memes into one post, by the way. Newfreedomblog would probably welcome your commentary.
    .
    (And Dirks FTW.)

  • stuartzechman

    Thanks for this explanation, sqr1.
    .
    I think that they weren’t just engaged in a critique of Great Society liberalism (the failures of which are still haunting us), but were actively seeking a political base for their new versions of neo-liberal economic policy. I also think that they were developing their Radical Middle political theory as they were becoming more fluent in American politics. Wikipedia has Radical Middle at around 1998, but Joe Klein’s vanguard manifesto “Stalking the Radical Middle” was published in Newsweek in 1995, and, obviously, Clinton was already two years in office by then.
    .
    As you would expect, I concur with your “ket test” argument.
    .
    Also, your last point regarding the poor, inchoate state of centrist ideology is well-made. It’s somewhat analogous to the predictable failures of conservative federal governance, in that, we could expect people who represent themselves as “post-ideological,” and whose philosophy rejects adherence to political principles altogether to have minimal real coherence when it comes to their own ideology.

  • stuartzechman

    Sorry, that’s your “key test” to which I was concurring…

  • shepherdwong

    Again, illustrating the complete embargo of liberal opinion from the mainstream, any real “progressive voice” interested serving on a Supreme Court dominated by corporatist Federalist Society hacks, as well as the future of our democracy, would have to point out that there is zero, none, nadda Constitutional accommodation for corporate power in government.

  • stuartzechman

    shepherdwong:
    .
    That is also a valuable point, one that I was (gently) criticized today by Jay Ackroyd for not making often enough.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “Whatever ‘liberal’ attitudes she may have displayed as a young lady when the country was considerably more open to such views have likely been eradicated as she has become increasingly entrenched within America’s most powerful institutions.”
    .
    Wonderfully put but god let’s not limit it to Kagan. It’s a virtual blueprint for rising through the ranks. Manufacturing Consent springs to mind vis a vis the media. But one could argue that like would-be SCOTUS justices, presidential contenders must willingly embrace such ideological rebranding (a la gay boot camps) if they hope to get past city councillor positions in liberal enclaves.

  • shepherdwong

    Any essential truth that can never be uttered by our elites is always valuable, as an abject lesson in what afflicts our public understanding, if for no other reason. In this case, however, it also goes to the core of the degradation of the republic designed by our Founders. The fact that it can never be uttered by the supposed “progressive” voices of the supposed guardians of their (and our) legacy means that it is probably lost forever.

blog comments powered by Disqus