Sessions presses Kagan on recruiting

Someone needs to press Wingnutter Sessions about his palling around with the KKK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/may/05/jeff-sessions-arlen-specter-judiciary-committee
------

Kagan Never Banned Recruiters From Harvard Law School

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has been the victim of repeated smears from the right since the day she was nominated. Of course, we know that the President could have nominated Christ himself and Republicans would have called him a socialist radical-- anything to keep the President from getting his way.

The worst of all the smears is that Elena Kagan is somehow anti-military because she allegedly kicked military recruiters of the campus of Harvard Law School during her tenure as dean there.

There's only one problem with that line of thinking: it's 100% false.

http://networkedblogs.com/3WwxG

Seeing as how the Repubs put two far right wing extremists, who lied during their conformation hearings, on the court (Roberts, Alito) during Bush Jr's reign - they can take their fake outrage over Elena Kagen and shove it.

they can take their fake outrage over Elena Kagen and shove it.

Posted by: former Republican | June 29, 2010 2:15 PM
---------------------------------
My my, watch out for the angry sheeple. Elena Kagen is John Lovitz in drag. The only thing I am outraged about is her lack of experience. But since we elected a President with no experience (and it shows) it's par on Barack's golf course of the week. FORE!

Thanks for that window on reality, fmr. Republican.

They are grasping at straws.

O, well. That's OK. They're going down pretty soon.

One wonders: why even bother? The other side didn't do this to Roberts, as I recall.

Military recruiting is not a very resonant issue these days, anyway, is it?

What with the "all volunteer" army and all....

Blah, blah, blah...these guys only want to hear themselves talk. They all should get Academy Awards for acting like what they have to say matters AND for acting like what they are saying they really mean. They only want to put on a good show and get to the next free lunch/dinner/brunch and shake hands with the lobbyists that will fund their next campaign.

Unfortunately most of the recent Supreme Court Confirmation have taken on a highly political tone. And BOTH SIDES (Democratic and Republican) have been guilty of this. Some of you have short memories and have forgotten that the Democrats were holding up Bush Supreme Court Appointees until a Bi-Partisan Group of 14 stopped this and allowed a full Senate vote. Unless there is a smoking gun Elena Kagan seems to be qualified and should be confirmed.

Good old nonpartisan Swamp article....
Number of words of Republican quoted --47
Number of words of Democrat quoted--111.

Over 2-1 Democrat over Republican. Which is Standard Operating Procedure at the DNC Swamp.

What is even more telling is Andrew Breitbart's $100,000 reward for the JournoList archive! When he gets this information, it will finally expose those newspaper writes that have colluded in creating story lines and narratives for important events Progressives want to control.

I would not be surprised to see a number of Tribune Company writers on that list, based on the stories they create!

This is all about nothing. The GOP will ask questions trying to tie her up. She will give bland non-descript answers. In the end she gets 65 - 75 votes. I guess this this just keeps these Senators busy so they aren't screwing up our lives.

Former,

I'm sure Sessions bumped into Senator Byrd plenty of times in the Senate - probably had dinner and few adult beverages also. Why are you holding that against him?

Wingnut Master,

Jon Levitz? I still think she looks like Kevin James - the King of Queens.

I guess Al Franken had a tough time staying awake yesterday. Today, he stayed awake by doodling. Buyers remorse in Minnesota?

These hearings are a joke. Half the chamber puts on cheerleading outfits and completely abandons their Constitutional duty to vet the nominee. The other side cherry picks quotes from years ago trying to play "gotcha". The nominee ducks any meaningful answers. This is a complete waste of time and I really wish the Senate would reconsider how they run these hearings.

-------

I don't know what kind of judge Kagan will make. I worry that since she has spent most of her professional life advocating liberal policies and ideals, that she will continue that practice and be a results-oriented Justice. She claims she can leave advocate Kagan at the door, and turn into neutral Justice Kagan when she puts the robe on. Forgive me for being a little skeptical. That being said, there is nothing concrete enough here to support a filibuster. Unless she completely throws up on herself during the hearings, I agree with Terry that she will get 65-75 votes and be confirmed.

--------

"former republican", excellent liberal talking points as usual. Give my compliments to whoever or wherever you copied them from.

All this stuff about military recruiting is misguided. In the first place, her attitudes toward military recruiting say nothing about her views on the law - which is central to the issue of her qualifications to serve. In the second place, quibbling over this minutia actually detracts from some quality time asking her some hard questions about the law and her attitudes toward it. Even Kagan is on record in support of a more searching inquiry during the judicial confirmation process. She should get what she asked for.
.
I would like to see, for instance, someone ask her about her scary views of the First Amendment. Her written record, as sparse as it is, indicates that she believes the government can censor speech even if the speech does not threaten any imminent harm by its utterance. The traditional view, on the other hand, is that content-based censorship is impermissible unless the government has a compelling interest - normally involving the prevention of some imminent harm caused by the speech itself – and only when the government has chosen the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest. This latter view represents the value that ideas, including false and bad ideas, should be allowed access to the marketplace of ideas as long as any deleterious effects can be remedied by more speech. It is only when the harm is imminent and cannot be adequately checked by more speech that the government’s interests become sufficiently compelling. Kagan’s proposed analysis would justify a substantially greater amount of censorship.
.
Then again, we understand why she takes a different view regarding individual rights protected by the Constitutions. She was appointed by a collectivist progressive to protect and promote the collectivist progressive agendum. Progressives hate the Constitution, and view it as an impediment to the promotion of their value system. It is much easier for the government to win, and the individual to lose whose rights stand in the government’s way, if the decision to grant or withhold any constitutional right can be determined by an ad hoc balancing test on each new occasion. This might make sense to someone who believes that government is an engine for positive, social change. It is a freakin’ disaster for anyone who knows the history of government and the oppression it can bring when it is given too much power.

JW,

Would you rather give power to the Executive and the courts, or to the Congress?

Legislatures and legislation are "collectivist"? Well, yes, in that they reflect the will of the people.

Hey John W.
Stop boring us with your pseudo lawyer drivel and inaccurate and false postings. No one cares what you think you know.
Elena Kagan will be the next Supreme Court Justice. People like you and your ilk (including racist bigot Jeff Sessions) can't handle that. Get over it loser.

Hey Tinkled On Terry - the good people of Minnesota are proud to have Franken as their Senator, because he's smart enough to say this:
*
http://www.acslaw.org/files/AlFrankenRemarksatACS2010.pdf

BC

What you really should have said is he has a good speechwriter. And knows how to read a speech real well.

* * * * *
Posted by: ornery | June 30, 2010 12:38 AM
.
Your first question poses a couple problems. All three branches of the federal government have all the power they are ever going to have unless the Constitution is amended to give them more. There are also certain powers that must remain out of the hands of all three branches of government if we hope to maintain a free and plural society. So the first part of the answer to your question is: Sometimes, I prefer that no branch of government be given certain powers.
.
With these qualifications aside, I would always prefer that power vest in the branch of government with the greatest political accountability, namely Congress. That is, assuming it is a power suitable for legislative action. We wouldn’t want to give Congress more judicial power than it already has, now would we?
.
The rest of your post demonstrates you misperception of what is meant by the word “collectivist.” The latter refers to one who put the interests of any group of people before the interests and rights of the individual in society. Worded in a more negative manner, a collectivist is one who believes that an individual has few, if any, rights that cannot be abridged or sacrificed for the greater good of the whole. The idea stands in opposition to the basic principles of classical liberalism upon which this country was founded - i.e., that individuals have “inalienable rights.” Socialists, communists and fascists are all examples of collectivists. So, no, Legislatures are not “collectivists” simply because they represent the will of the people.

* * * * *
Posted by: Doug R. | June 30, 2010 7:45 AM
.
I’ll say this as nicely as I can.
.
You haven’t got a clue, so you bluff and lie. My posts are not “pseudo lawyer drivel,” because I am a real lawyer who practices law in California, and what I write makes sense to those who have the brains and sense to understand it (which excludes certain parties to this conversation). Nor are my posts inaccurate or false. Interestingly enough, you don’t even have the guts to try to identify any of the parts of my writing that you claim are false or inaccurate. You are just pushing negative, ‘snarl’ words because doing so relieves you of having to actually do some thinking, which you don’t do well anyway.
.
Elena Kagan may very well become the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. That would be a tragedy for anyone who cherishes freedom.
.
And - BTW - I am neither a Republican nor a racist. In which case, Jeff Sessions is not one of my ‘ilk.” I thank you, however, for providing yet another example of how you prefer idiotic name calling to reasoned analysis. Having read so many of your posts on the Swamp before, I knew you could do no better.

* * * * *
Posted by: BC | June 30, 2010 11:38 AM
.
Any Minnesotans that can be proud of Franken for speeches like that are gravely misguided. He thoroughly misrepresented the actions of the United States Supreme Court from beginning to end. His biggest lie in the speech came when he suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court always sides with government or corporate interests against the rights of the individual. It certainly does not. In addition, he fails to explain that a number of the cases (with outcomes he finds distasteful) turned on issues of statutory construction; meaning that the authors of the statutes (i.e. congressmen and senators) had more to do with the undesirable outcome than the court.
.
Furthermore, Franken could care less about individual rights when they rub against his progressive agendum.
.
Franken also stated that he believes Goodwin Liu should be sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Liu has absolutely no judicial experience, and almost no prior trial or litigation experience. How that qualifies him to sit in judgment of the rulings of experienced trial judges is just too much of a mystery. Liu is also an unapologetic progressive, which doesn’t recommend him to anyone with a love of the Constitution or any brains.
.
However, we can all forgive Franken in some small part for this speech because we know he neither wrote it nor contribute to its contents. He is admittedly too ignorant to have done either. So I guess Minnesotans are justified in being proud of their junior senator because he can read. What else is there?

Before CommonSense,

I'll bet that speech just made the Minnesotans so proud. That's the best you got?

Al Franken peaked with Stuart Smalley.

General Kagan sure showed us, just how astute those Republican-Obstructionists are. It was great entertainment. It's a wonder they even know their own names. Yet, they sure know how to make a 4th of July even more miserable for the unemployed, with their obstructing a bill that would have made life a little easier for the unemployed citizen and his or her family. No, these fatcat Republicans chose to obstruct an extension of unemployment benefits, trying to make its way through the Senate. They aren't worried about the unemployed, they have their great paying job and free healthcare, thanks to those very tax-payers, that are now, out of work.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Posted by: John W. | June 30, 2010 1:36 PM
*
[quote]
His biggest lie in the speech came when he suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court always sides with government or corporate interests against the rights of the individual. It certainly does not.
[/quote]
*
The pendulum certainly has swung that way a lot in the past several years, so it's fair to assume that's why he said "always" - he should have said "more than 50% of the time".
*
[quote]
Franken could care less about individual rights when they rub against his progressive agendum.
[/quote]
*
Got any PROOF to back up your charge?
*
[quote]
Liu is also an unapologetic progressive, which doesn’t recommend him to anyone with a love of the Constitution or any brains.
[/quote]
*
But it's okay for Republicans to pack the court with rightwing conservatives who ignore precedence and make their own laws, i.e., "activist judges"?
*
[quote]
However, we can all forgive Franken in some small part for this speech because we know he neither wrote it nor contribute to its contents.
[/quote]
*
Once again, got any PROOF to back up this allegation? Don't forget that Sen. Franken spent years as a writer at Saturday Night Live and has written a couple of books.
*
People like you underestimate his intelligence because you want to, not because it's based on reality.

* * * * *
Posted by: BC | July 1, 2010 1:11 PM
.
BC:
.
You say: “The pendulum certainly has swung that way a lot in the past several years, so it's fair to assume that's why he said ‘always’ - he should have said ‘more than 50% of the time.’”
.
When an intelligent person means to say “most of the time” or “more than 50% of the time,” they do not exaggerate and say “all of the time” or its functional, semantic equivalent. They say “most of the time” etc. You are just making excuses for his wildly out of line exaggerations.
.
You then ask me if I have proof that “Franken could care less about individual rights when they rub against his progressive agendum.” Yes, I do. (Maybe you should have know better than to ask me.)
.
First, Al Franken is a gun grabber of the first order. He is totally against handgun ownership and would be glad to relieve everyone of the guns they own in their homes. You can find explicit evidence of this in his book: “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot” (which I have read at least twice). The pages are strewn with it. Numerous broadcasts of his defunct radio program “Air America” also reflected that view. (Yes, he lied when he moderated his views on the Second Amendment to get elected to the Senate.) His position is entirely at odds with the Second Amendment as explained by the U.S.S.C. in TWO consecutive opinions on the subject - i.e. where it held that firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right against infringement by the federal government (District of Columbia v. Heller) and against infringement by state and local governments (McDonald v. City of Chicago).
.
Franken is the same fellow who helped to shepherd Sonia Sotomayor through her Senate confirmation hearings. As it turns out, she lied during those hearings about her willingness to follow the Heller case – as was shown by her recent dissent in McDonald v. City of Chicago. And we’re supposed to believe that Franken didn’t know about her views on the Second Amendment? (Yeah, right.)
.
This is a clear cut case of where Franken doesn’t give a piece of rat filth for the individual right to keep and bear arms precisely because it rubs against the progressive agendum. (And, yes, Franken is avowedly a progressive. He said so in the little speech for which you provided us a copy. Read it yourself.)
.
Second, Franken believes it is okay to censor political speech simply because of who utters it. The little speech at the American Constitutional Society (that you provided) again gives us the evidence of this. In three or four places he explicitly criticized the case of Citizens United v. FEC - which he characterizes as having given corporations the right of free speech. Of course, the Citizens United case didn’t do it. The Supreme Court had recognized the First Amendment right of a corporation to free speech in cases dating back to 1936. (See Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936).) The Citizens United case relied explicitly on First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), which had already prohibited censorship of corporate political speech on First Amendment grounds. Franken’s position (which is, parenthetically, the same as Obama’s) cannot be squared with the First Amendment’s injunction that “Congress shall make NO LAW … abridging the freedom of speech …” No law means no law.
.
You might counter by arguing that this is not an example of a position taken against an “individual’s” free speech rights, and you would be wrong. Some corporations, like Citizens United, are formed for the sole purpose of expressing the views of their individual members. Sometimes it takes the association or group of people to express views they are powerless to express individually. In such a case, the abridgement of First Amendment freedoms to the corporation also denies the individual rights of those who associated to form the corporation. In NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415 (1963), the United States Supreme Court explicitly said so (which hardly makes this a novel idea). This distinction is entirely lost on Franken (and Obama). So, yes, this is another example of how Franken would sacrifice the individual’s right to free speech to further the progressive agendum.
.
Third, as a dyed-in-the-wool progressive (as Franken expressly admits he is), his views on property rights must be horrible. It took the progressives on the Supreme Court to decide Kelo v. City of New London - in which the court held that a state can confiscate real property from an individual and hand it over to a private corporation without violating the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause (i.e. the one that only permits taking for “public use”). So, what did Franken do or say when Sotomayor and Kagan were being grilled on the Kelo case? In the case of Sotomayor, he was silent. During Kagan’s hearing, he doodled. He has shown absolutely no interest in either’s views on the subject. That’s because progressives, as a movement, believe that property rights are valuable and valued only to the extent they assist others, and that an individual’s right to property interests are subordinated to the collective interests of society. All of this is inconsistent with an individual’s property rights as protected by the Constitution. I also believe that Franken’s support for Obamacare is another example of this. The individual mandate included within it is another example of government confiscation for the benefit of private corporations (i.e. insurance companies). In which case, it is clear that Franken is willing to see people deprived of constitutionally protected property rights when it furthers his progressive agendum.
.
Give me a little more time, and I am sure I can find even more proof on the subject.
.
With regard to my remarks on Liu, you then say, “But it's okay for Republicans to pack the court with rightwing conservatives who ignore precedence and make their own laws, i.e., ‘activist judges’?”
.
I’m not a Republican, and I’m hardly okay with the entire Republican agendum. So you can’t push the evil doings of Republicans in my face.
.
However, I dispute your characterization of the more ‘conservative’ elements on the Court as “activist judges.” Do YOU have any proof of this beyond your mere assertion? (Franken’s speech offered no proof of this.) On the whole, I view much of what the so-called conservatives have done as a return to the original understanding of the Constitution. This is certainly the case when it comes to constitutional limitations on governmental power (the existence of which progressives don’t care to acknowledge).
.
And, yes, I also have proof that Franken didn’t contribute to or write the speech. He has repeatedly claimed that he is not a lawyer and doesn’t understand all this law stuff very well. He says this a few times in the speech itself. But it would have taken a lawyer (albeit a bad one) to engage in any or all of the legal analysis contained within the speech itself. And most of the speech is a legal argument against conservative “judicial activism.” In which case, he all but admits that he isn’t the source of the speech.
.
And, BTW, the analysis of the Lochner case in the speech is entirely wrong. Lochner did not involve an individual pitted against a corporation as Franken claims. At issue was the State of New York’s ability to regulate labor conditions against the will of the laborer - and the state lost. Lochner was an old, and now outdated, example of the Court’s former willingness to strike down state regulations that interfere with an individual’s rights to freely contract regarding his or her labor. So, if Franken did contribute to this speech, it is also proof that he isn’t as smart as you claim. The speech was riddled with errors, and not just with regard to Lochner.