Awaz Apni

Here's the problem: about 30, maybe as many as 35, Republican Senators are going to oppose confirming Elena Kagan to a seat on the Supreme Court.  And, alas for them, they have to explain why they're doing so.  Uh oh! Why is it a problem?  Well, why are they actually voting against her?  There are two sorts of answers, both correct.  One is simply that she's a liberal, and they're conservatives.  The other is the Bob Bennett answer: they're scared for their careers, believing that a single "liberal" vote could wind up producing a primary challenge from true believers.  That's a problem because you're not allowed (by the norms of political discourse) to say that you're voting against a Supreme Court nominee because you're afraid of those crazy Tea Party nuts -- and because many Republican Senators had loudly proclaimed under different circumstances that one should not oppose a nominee simply on ideological grounds.  Moreover, because Elena K...

Here's the problem: about 30, maybe as many as 35, Republican Senators are going to oppose confirming Elena Kagan to a seat on the Supreme Court.  And, alas for them, they have to explain why they're doing so.  Uh oh! Why is it a problem?  Well, why are they actually voting against her?  There are two sorts of answers, both correct.  One is simply that she's a liberal, and they're conservatives.  The other is the Bob Bennett answer: they're scared for their careers, believing that a single "liberal" vote could wind up producing a primary challenge from true believers.  That's a problem because you're not allowed (by the norms of political discourse) to say that you're voting against a Supreme Court nominee because you're afraid of those crazy Tea Party nuts -- and because many Republican Senators had loudly proclaimed under different circumstances that one should not oppose a nominee simply on ideological grounds.  Moreover, because Elena K...

Well, let's see.  She's going to be confirmed.  She'll probably draw about the same size of opposition as Sotomayor did, about 30 or so Republicans.  They seem to have even less to hang their hats on, but the threat of eventual primary challenges has grown since last year, so I'm assuming that the safe move for most Republicans is to vote no.  I really haven't watched much TV coverage -- I listened to almost the entire two-plus rounds of questioning, and that's really enough -- but I did hear one conservative pundit complaining about the lack of spine shown by the Republicans in supposedly not filibustering, so if there's a lot of that out there it's possible, I suppose, that they'll force a cloture vote.  If I were Harry Reid, I'd insist on it, just to mess with them. It's hard to grade the confirmation hearings, because it's difficult to know what the point of it is.  One of the Republicans, I think it was Tom Coburn, pretty much seem t...

Well, let's see.  She's going to be confirmed.  She'll probably draw about the same size of opposition as Sotomayor did, about 30 or so Republicans.  They seem to have even less to hang their hats on, but the threat of eventual primary challenges has grown since last year, so I'm assuming that the safe move for most Republicans is to vote no.  I really haven't watched much TV coverage -- I listened to almost the entire two-plus rounds of questioning, and that's really enough -- but I did hear one conservative pundit complaining about the lack of spine shown by the Republicans in supposedly not filibustering, so if there's a lot of that out there it's possible, I suppose, that they'll force a cloture vote.  If I were Harry Reid, I'd insist on it, just to mess with them. It's hard to grade the confirmation hearings, because it's difficult to know what the point of it is.  One of the Republicans, I think it was Tom Coburn, pretty much seem t...

Day one of the questioning, that is.  Just two quick notes for now... First of all, I try to keep up with all the wacky ideas out there, from all factions and fringes of the political culture.  From the Tea Party crowd I know the arguments for why income taxes are theft, why the ACA individual mandate is unconstitutional, and why direct election of Senators ruined the republic...but I have to say that the flat-out attack on precedent was a new one for me.  For those not watching carefully, and for those who were wondering what Tom Coburn was talking about in his questioning today, please see this op-ed by Senator Jim DeMint declaring that he opposes Elena Kagan's confirmation on the basis of her commitment to respecting precedent.  It's true, of course, that liberals spent much of the last decade increasingly clinging to stare decisis, so I'm not exactly surprised.  But as Coburn and DeMint tell it, it sounds less like a case of pragmatic adjustment on question...

Day one of the questioning, that is.  Just two quick notes for now... First of all, I try to keep up with all the wacky ideas out there, from all factions and fringes of the political culture.  From the Tea Party crowd I know the arguments for why income taxes are theft, why the ACA individual mandate is unconstitutional, and why direct election of Senators ruined the republic...but I have to say that the flat-out attack on precedent was a new one for me.  For those not watching carefully, and for those who were wondering what Tom Coburn was talking about in his questioning today, please see this op-ed by Senator Jim DeMint declaring that he opposes Elena Kagan's confirmation on the basis of her commitment to respecting precedent.  It's true, of course, that liberals spent much of the last decade increasingly clinging to stare decisis, so I'm not exactly surprised.  But as Coburn and DeMint tell it, it sounds less like a case of pragmatic adjustment on question...

Remember this ? Well Ann Coulter graces the pages of Richard Mellon Scaife's rag once again. And in doing so participates in yet another right wing smear. Here's Ann: When, as dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan disagreed with the Bill Clinton policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" for gays in the military, she open-mindedly banned military recruiters from the law school, denouncing Clinton's policy as "discriminatory," "deeply wrong," "unwise and unjust." Not true, of course. But before I get to that I do want to point out a subtle sleight of hand. She opens her piece with this: In The New York Times' profile on the family of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, her aunt was quoted as saying: "There was thinking, always thinking" at the family's dinner table. "Nothing was sacrosanct." Really? Nothing was sacrosanct? So what should we believe when we read this a few paragraphs down? As Kagan herself ...