Elena Kagan's Record

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 senior editor Dahlia Lithwick looks at what's known about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's stance on key issues likely to face the court.


Dahlia Lithwick

Comments [13]

reconfigure from NYC

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan & Her Actions to Protect Saudi Royal Family from 9/11 Lawsuits (and her profile at is posted at

May. 19 2010 04:47 PM
amalgam from Manhattan by day, NJ by night

@ smidely - Thanks. I've noted Calls'em's continuous provocations over the year['s??], and regardless of his intention I'm all about stomping on inaccuracies and foolishness wherever I see it. Opinion is one thing, but even if it's not heard, gotta get the facts correct and put it in the atmosphere...

May. 19 2010 11:33 AM
mc from Brooklyn

Hugh: With all due respect--if you had paid closer attention to his legislative record and speeches before he became a presidential candidate you would have seen what he is before now. Always a cautious, risk-averse partisan. Never really blazed any new trails politically, only symbolically.

May. 19 2010 11:28 AM

Heads up -- I have come to assume that Calls Em is a lefty provocateur, trying to make real conservatives look silly by over-exaggerating his/her positions.

(Similar to the smart@ss college kids who surely must be purposely misspelling the signs they are pumping up and down at Tea Party gatherings, like "Oboma is a Soshalist.")

May. 19 2010 11:08 AM
amalgam from Manhattan by day, NJ by night

@ Calls'em - You're much like other radical right-wingers: You clearly do not understand what socialism means as a economic system and conflate it with many other liberal ideas that you hate.

To wit: You're either uneducated or intentionally obfuscate concepts to fit your agenda.

May. 19 2010 10:54 AM
Calls'em As I Sees'em from here, there and everywhere

Lies, lies and more lies. Just another WNYC propaganda piece.

Kagan is a committed radical, from a family of committed radicals. Notice how there is no coverage of her family, as there was with Sotomayor. The Bama Hate House banned the Times from covering her brother who she states is her mentor and who is a wild America hating radical.

Just a one example - she believes that the Gov't can ban books and even political writing. She believes that the Gov't could ban the publishing of the Federalist Papers.

On top of that she has been a political operative or an administrator most of her life. So she clerked for a high level judge - what major law school prof. other than Obama, hasn't.

She is a long time political minion of the radical socialist forces in America and Obama knows it.

May. 19 2010 10:33 AM

@Estelle -- I didn't really give a good answer because I was typing in a rush. Ask any attorney you know. They should be able to explain it to you. I don't why DL didn't do a good job of it. Better that you have someone to whom you can ask f/u questions.

May. 19 2010 10:28 AM
Matthew Schmidt

This is a poor answer from Dalia, somewhat surprisingly. The reason the AG doesn't represent the Administration before SCOTUS is that the AG doesn't represent the Administration, he represents the people of the United States, much like the DA represents the people of the City of New York.

May. 19 2010 10:22 AM

Obama is just not a liberal. Let's abandon the pretense that he is. He paid lip-service to a public option, to organized labor, to environmental protection, to rolling back American imperial acts abroad, to protecting civil liberties. He has gone conservative -- not moderate -- on all of these issues.

May. 19 2010 10:22 AM

I can't believe you figure out why the SG has to be separate from the AG. Remember Roberto Gonzalez? Remember that the AG was supposed to lead DOJ independent of politics? The SG's job is to represent the White House. She's his advocate. COMPLETELY different.

May. 19 2010 10:22 AM
Estelle from Austin

Lithwick didn't answer your question about attorney general vs. solicitor general, and I would like to know.

May. 19 2010 10:20 AM

Dahlia Lithwick might be right -- if we trust Obama.

We have no reason to trust him. He lied about what he would do on Iraq, Gitmo, torture, extraordinary rendition, the bailout, healthcare, etc.

So it is quite possible that Obama _supports_ the conservatives on the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United. He may only be mouthing what he knows he has to in order to preserve some measure of looking like a Democrat.

More important, being a Friend of Barack is not sufficient to qualifiy one for anything except a place at the dinner table.

May. 19 2010 10:18 AM
JOR from Thank You.

[[JOR - We've passed along your comment to listener services - they are the folks best equipped to answer these types of questions. For the record, we don't have a policy of blocking any particular poster - we do moderate individual comments from time to time, but we've never banned a poster on this comments board. Best, Brian Lehrer Show.]]

Off topic, but I'd really like to pledge (again) but apparently WNYC had sanctioned my comments. I don't mind if my comments now and then were being edited or not posted, (I admit that some of my 'humor' can be offensive, since it's hard to tell online if one is being sarcastic), but all of them? I don't know. For a station that advocates for free speech and democracy, WNYC is acting as if it is being run by China.

May. 19 2010 10:16 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.