The Kagan Hearings: Day 2

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor of the online magazine Slate, provides analysis of Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation hearings.


Dahlia Lithwick

Comments [16]

Hugh Sansom

To correct Dahlia Lithwick again, many liberals and civil libertarians see Obama as Bush _heavy_ on due process for alleged terrorists. Obama is taking _more_ conservative positions on a number of issues.

Jun. 29 2010 11:59 AM
Jeffrey from Upper West Side

Why don't the democrats fight back and label the right-wing side of the today's court as the true Activists? The democrats let themselves be falsely labeled and everyone then takes what's unrefuted as the truth.

Jun. 29 2010 11:58 AM
Matthew from Brooklyn

Lithwick is spot-on as usual: the federal court system has been moved steadily back to its traditional reactionary role as a defender of wealth and power. The Democrats have done very little to stop this corporate-Republican counter-revolution against the Warren Court; indeed, in many ways, they have aided and abetted it.

It was a fateful mistake when put our hopes in lawyers. American's long struggle towards justice hasn't been by made by lawyers, it's been made by mass movements and fearsome struggles against the plutocrats and their hirelings. The laws came after, after we forced them into reality.

Jun. 29 2010 11:55 AM
norman from NYC

Right, Hugh.

The Democrats should be putting Michael Ranter on the Supreme Court.

Jun. 29 2010 11:50 AM
Hugh Sansom from Brooklyn

Dahlia Lithwick is wrong on one point: Conservatives nominate conservatives, but liberals have not been nominating liberals. Clinton named moderates. Obama has named moderates.

It would be something to see a really liberal nominee.

Jun. 29 2010 11:41 AM
Matthew from Brooklyn

Where's the full-throated defense of Thurgood Marshall's critical approach to the slave-owning generation's Constitution? Throw Dred Scott and Plessy into those Cracker Senator's faces.

Jun. 29 2010 11:39 AM
Edward from NJ

If individual Senators didn't have the power to block a nomination, then nominees could actually speak their minds. If Elena Kagan actually told Jeff Sessions what she thinks of his views, he could completely freeze the process.

Jun. 29 2010 11:37 AM
Kent from North Bergen

Leave the process alone. We are only bored because we (most) like Kagan. If there was a Bork or another Clarence Thomas we (most) would be foaming at the mouth for the dems and libs to "BORK" them. Don't change a thing.

Jun. 29 2010 11:37 AM
The Truth from Becky

This whole process is a load of BS! Pointless drivel! An opportunity for those who oppose to say why.

Jun. 29 2010 11:28 AM
norman from NYC

Politico reviewed a video of a presentation Kagan made at an anti-porn conference at U. Chicago.

Kagan called for "new and harsher" penalties against pornography and hate speech. She said that producers and distributors of pornography could be prosecuted under the laws against prostitution. She adopted the position of Catherine McKinnon that pornography can be forbidden because it's harmful.

Kagan said that our goal should be for the government to eliminate pornography.

Kagan also argued in U.S. vs. Stevens for prosecuting people who distributed videos showing animal cruelty. This would lead to prosecuting tourists who broght home videos of bullfights.

Jun. 29 2010 11:23 AM
Marielle from Brooklyn

These confirmation hearings have become utterly idiotic - what a waste of everyone's time.

Jun. 29 2010 11:14 AM
Edward from NJ

To Jeff Sessions and his ilk, I just wish she'd respond by asking rhetorically whether Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Ed reflected the "original intent" of the Constitution. There were no relevant amendments between those two rulings. So Senator, which one was right?

Jun. 29 2010 11:08 AM
jo from ny

Hey close your eyes and listen to her she sounds exactly like Ellen Degeneres

Jun. 29 2010 11:07 AM

This is what you call " a dog adn pony show"

Jun. 29 2010 11:03 AM
Jeffrey from Upper West Side

Why doesn't the Citizens United decision violate the one man one vote principle? A corporate CEO, Board of Directors, and all the people who work for a corporation, get to vote as individuals and yet the corporation as an entity made up of those same people seems to get a second voice as a corporation according to the Roberts court.
Since a corporation doesn't actually get to cast a vote on election day, how can it be treated in terms of political contributions as if it did actually have a vote it could cast?

Jun. 29 2010 10:54 AM

I don't see how it would help to allow corporate advocacy groups, but not corporations to contribute to political campaigns. What has happened with rules like that is that corporations band together in advocacy groups, like fuel companies who form the Blue Sky Pac or the Chamber of Commerce. They pay for ads and list the Pac name as the sponsor, e.g. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, that does not disclose who is behind the ad. The rule should be individual campaign contributions only. The constitution should be amended to repeal Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United. The framers never intended corporations to have 1st Amendment rights. The framers were worried about the power of joint stock corporations, their equivalent of the modern corporation. The Supreme Court has blurred the line between free individual and expression with corporate speech.

Jun. 29 2010 10:52 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.