US POLITICS: Congratulation to USA for their upcoming health

Awfully false equivalence by Greenwald there. Trusting Obama to pick a good Justice is quite different from conservatives supporting decisions by Bush that they would have opposed from a Democrat. A blank slate is not the same as flipping your position on an issue.

"huge numbers"

Trusting Obama to do anything is infantile.

I trust Obama to have good posture.

Trying really hard not to start a Ken Del Vecchio thread you guys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMJCX-Ddt8g

gg otm in re: iglesias (and that terrifying iatee post yesterday); just because kagan is probably the best choice for obama and the party doesn't mean she's the best choice for like, me

did you vote for kucinich in the primaries?

good point

Bennett Ousted at Utah G.O.P. Convention

Senator Robert F. Bennett, an 18-year veteran Republican who had been seeking a fourth term this fall, was stripped of his party’s nomination on Saturday at the state convention, becoming one of the first Congressional victims of the surging ferment of discontent from the Tea Party-infused Republican right.

It really hasn't been well established that Kagan is all that great of a pick politically anyway. Maybe she'll dominate in the hearings like Sotomayor, Ginsburg etc. did, but one of the others probably would too.

basically I want someone on the left about whom we can say "LOL Wood" like we can about Scalia.

Obama nominates zombie Brennan.

If only.

Kagan, they said, has weathered criticism from conservatives and liberals. The left has criticized her defense of some of the terrorism policies of the George W. Bush administration, although her defenders point out that she was only representing the policies of the Obama administration.

One Democrat close to the process said the questions about Kagan and her lack of a record on issues liberal groups are concerned about has not hurt her.

Because of her work in the Clinton administration, one activist said, "she has a lot of powerful liberal friends in this town. She has been very effective in using her progressive allies."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR2010050705029.html

I love how every time there's a Supreme Court pick we all sit around posturing like we actually pay attention to circuit courts and judges and what qualities and experience are relevant, like we can divine the meaning behind quantity or quality of legal writing etc.

Not to say all of this discussion is lol pointless but a whole lot of it is lol pointless

well maybe you should marry it if you love it so much

x-post--Eh, speak for yourself. If some of us have read folks that are more expert that's good enough for me. Plus I sometime have to read circuit court opinions for my dayjob. So there! Also, some of the journalists writing about these judges do follow caselaw trends and some have legal backgrounds.

Some of us are pretty good at "reading comprehension," Tracer; and we can read legal prose.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36967616/ns/politics-supreme_court/

kagan.

of course

http://i40.tinypic.com/oa6m8w.gif

!!

oh and holder wants to weaken miranda. what the fuck.

confirmed by cnn :/

fml

*drinks up*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FblQR8ZeUpQ

I love how every time there's a Supreme Court pick we all sit around posturing like we actually pay attention to circuit courts and judges and what qualities and experience are relevant, like we can divine the meaning behind quantity or quality of legal writing etc.

I personally am fonder of how opinions like this get trotted out to tell people "stfu & trust people who are doubtless nobler than thee"

I keep looking for something that would make me think Kagan is a terrible nominee and can't really find one. It'd be nice to have someone who is obviously a liberal (like uh, former ACLU SG Ginsburg), but I'm not persuaded to oppose the nomination outright because she didn't hire enough minority professors at Harvard.

ringing endorsement there

lol

that criticism is pretty weak imo

Well I understand opposing the nomination because she's a blank slate. But I kept reading these Greenwald posts, and seeing a million links in them, and when I took the time to actually read all of them it turns out that her biggest problems are that she didn't hire enough minorities at Harvard, and that she made some arguments in favor of dumb/evil Obama policies (i.e. she did her job).

alright so i understand the arguments as to why kagan might be better than greenwald is making her out to be -- in fact i generally agree with them. my question is this: has anyone made a case or given a reason why diane wood should not have been picked? or why kagan should've been picked over her, aside from the huffington post article which i actually thought was good, but didn't touch at all on why kagan would be better specifically than wood, if they were the final two. would obama have any firsthand knowledge about wood that would inform his decision to pick kagan over her, or is it purely ideological?

^^yes this is exactly it dude, no one is arguing that kagan is some kind of clarence monster, she'll probably be a reliable leftish justice for quite a long time - it's just, why the fuck support someone who we're unsure about and have reason to believe might be kinda conservative on executive powers when wood is so unequivocal in her views and her judicial record is so easy to parse. seriously that opinion of hers gg linked to a few weeks ago is so amazing and inspiring. and at the risk of regurgitating his talking points, it'd be different if she were replacing, like, scalia - then there would be less reason to oppose her. but why take a chance on her replacing just about the only reliable liberal on the court when there is someone else who is supremely qualified who literally poses no risk of shifting the balance to the right?

*clarence thomas-type monster......i am not on a first name basis with the dude

a pube-first basis

ugh son

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/images/clarence_thomas2.jpg

it's hard telling. accounts from the sotomayor pick make it seem like the interview was a big part of it, obama and sotomayor clicked on some i'm sure very important jurisprudential level and that was that.

xps

when wood is so unequivocal in her views and her judicial record is so easy to parse.

the senate being what it is, maybe this is the problem.

i guess obama will make a statement regarding this tomorrow?

i mean i'm not gonna act like it doesn't make perfect sense or whatever - of course obama is gonna pick someone who's gonna have his back on executive powers stuff! dude is doing tons of foreign policy ish that hardcore liberals aren't cool w/ - why would he pick someone like wood, who has very clearly defined views in the area and would almost certainly oppose certain extra-judicial decisions just about any white house would want to make, when he can pick some careerist hack like kagan who would be more sympathetic in that area but still win over 90% of libs - she's pro-choice, phew! she's probably gay and sure showed those mean army recruiters that one time!

i guess obama will make a statement regarding this tomorrow?

― J0rdan S., Monday, May 10, 2010 12:39 AM (14 seconds ago)

yeha as of an hour ago cnn was saying 10ish

clarence monster

it will be interesting to see if he echoes the sentiments of that huffpo article re her abilities wrt persuasion

some careerist hack like kagan

easy bro, it's not like she started a tumblr about hipsters or something

she's pro-choice, phew! she's probably gay and sure showed those mean army recruiters that one time!

― sveltko (k3vin k.), Sunday, May 9, 2010 11:39 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

let's not scoff at this

dogg the point is any fucking obama pick is going to be pro-choice and pro-gay, bfd

yo could u link that huffpo article you're referring to?

new thread imo btw

that obama is really picking kagan over wood because he just wants extra executive power is a pretty retarded suggestion - we have a far right-wing supreme court either way.