Obama selects Elena Kagan for Supreme Court Justice

[Samuel]

Aren't radical leftists, by definition, not liberals?

How so?

Liberalism is an ideology that focuses on the importance of freedom and equality through gradual change. Radical leftists generally refer to those who focus on greater, more radical and sudden changes.

[Simon_Jester]

The one thing you can really count on is Obama consistently selling out any real liberal or progressive position every chance he gets because those two demographics are too stupid not to buck him.

It's really more that the only other choice in this country is to vote for insane people who push through evil policies.

Right. I don't think Obama's supporters are all stupid. I think that some of them recognize his flaws, look at the likely alternative, and are justifiably terrified.

Exactly. I mean, I'd rather vote for nearly anyone than McCain-Palin, especially given McCain's questionable health. And I doubt the Republicans are going to run anyone much more palatable in 2012, either.

I am very much disappointed in Obama, but I'd rather be disappointed than feel like a traitor for watching the official I elected mutilate my country.

[Darth Yan]

shes intelligent and qualified. I honestly feel that it's too early to start judging her.

[Patrick Degan]

Aren't radical leftists, by definition, not liberals?

How so?

Liberals believe in the power of gradual democratic change through the existing system. Radical leftists believe in revolution.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am very much disappointed in Obama, but I'd rather be disappointed than feel like a traitor for watching the official I elected mutilate my country.

Given the choice between a right wing president and an insane fascist president, my choice is to leave as soon as I have my PhD if I am able. I cannot feel like a traitor for this, because I have been disgusted to call myself an american for years. There is nothing left to betray. My last hope for stopping the rightward creep of national politics in the United States gave its death rattle when the public option got taken off the table.

This is just more of the same. Due to a pathological fear of conflict, a disdain for the liberal base, and in the name of "bipartisanship" Obama and the rest of the democrats are making the term "liberal" in this country meaningless. If a person is considered a liberal if they support executive power to detain people indefinitely without trial, do not think gay people should be able to enjoy all of the legal protections of american citizenship (but of course support their right to sacrifice themselves to defend other people's civil rights), and who settles for less than even a public option for healthcare-then the term itself has no meaning.

[Xisiqomelir]

So far Ms. Kagan looks great.

I'd like to learn more about her legal positions.

[Simon_Jester]

Given the choice between a right wing president and an insane fascist president, my choice is to leave as soon as I have my PhD if I am able. I cannot feel like a traitor for this, because I have been disgusted to call myself an american for years.

I don't disagree. But I was talking only about the 2008 election, not about the general question of what to do after I get my Ph.D.* In that election, I had basically three choices.

-Vote McCain-Palin: unthinkable for so many, many reasons. Under no plausible circumstances would I ever endorse them. I'm sure you feel the same way.
-Not vote: Possible, but it would feel like quitting, so I didn't want to do that.
-Vote Obama-Biden: given what I knew at the time, I still had some hope that Obama would be the kind of president I wanted. It didn't work out that way, and had I been ten years older and more cynical I might not have been fooled at all. But at the very least, I was reasonably confident that an Obama-Biden victory was the utilitarian-best (least wrong) outcome. So I voted for them, like a good doobie.

In hindsight? Major disappointment. But what was I going to do?

*Truth be told, I'll be lucky to get it before the 2012 election rolls around... sigh.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Im curious Simon, if Obama has been a disappointment, What exactly has he let you down ABout? He has disappointed me immensely but I suspect for different reasons.

[Simon_Jester]

Im curious Simon, if Obama has been a disappointment, What exactly has he let you down ABout? He has disappointed me immensely but I suspect for different reasons.

In no particular order:

-Failure to follow through on health care reform
-Cancelling the Constellation space program and replacing it with vaporware
-Failing to come out against Bush-era civil liberties violations
-Making himself complicit in those violations by continuing to argue in their defense
-Failure to pursue economic action that would punish and weaken the financial industry with the aim of reducing its lock on the economy. The stock market in its present form is a type of gambling, and I don't like living in a nation whose greatest industry is its casinos.

I could forgive him about two of those. All five is just too much for me.

[Samuel]

I could forgive the first and the last. They are in fact hard, complex problems (okay, dealing with the Republicans is the hard part) and expecting immediate change and improvement would be over optomistic. The other 3 just come across as an insult to progressives and people who love technological progress. They don't require any major overhauls, agreement with Republicans or any other major hurdle to really overcome. He just doesn't seem to care.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I could forgive the first and the last. They are in fact hard, complex problems (okay, dealing with the Republicans is the hard part) and expecting immediate change and improvement would be over optomistic. The other 3 just come across as an insult to progressives and people who love technological progress. They don't require any major overhauls, agreement with Republicans or any other major hurdle to really overcome. He just doesn't seem to care.

That pretty much sums it up. Add to the list his support for offshore drilling,

[Simon_Jester]

Habitat protection is an issue I respect, but it isn't a berserk button issue for me, as it might very reasonably be for you, Alyrium. I didn't think of it because it isn't one of the ones that really pisses me off.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Habitat protection is an issue I respect, but it isn't a berserk button issue for me, as it might very reasonably be for you, Alyrium. I didn't think of it because it isn't one of the ones that really pisses me off.

It is definitely one of the buttons that gets pushed.

-Vote McCain-Palin: unthinkable for so many, many reasons. Under no plausible circumstances would I ever endorse them. I'm sure you feel the same way.

Agreed.

-Not vote: Possible, but it would feel like quitting, so I didn't want to do that.

I vote am politically active because I feel ethically obligated to do so, not because I have an aversion to quitting or because I operate under the delusion that any amount of activism I undertake will change public opinion. Just getting people to view other human beings as equals is hard enough. Getting them to think they should not rape nature is pointless. But I am obligated to try (even when it is futile) to make the world better. Damn ethics. Why cant I just become a Nihilist? The option in the future is of course to leave the shit hole and go someplace where I can do some good. For example, the region of the world where environmental regulators actually care about the data showing that a pesticide turns frogs into transsexuals at concentrations 1/30th what is allowed in our drinking water...

-Vote Obama-Biden: given what I knew at the time, I still had some hope that Obama would be the kind of president I wanted.

I harped the word "Bipartisanship" and I knew what it meant. A slow rightward crawl of our national politics because he was afraid of standing up to the people who raped the constitution, the earth, and our economy for 8 years. Still, a rightward lurch is better than a full on sprint to Fascistland. I just hoped that said lurch would have a silver lining or two around it. Like actual healthcare reform rather than what we have now. By way of comparison (and you have seen this before, but I will give others the gift of it)

Healthcare in America's past: If you choose to go down the dark ally, you will be raped without lube and for all that there is still a chance that they will kick you out of the ally where there is a significant chance that a runaway bus will splatter you all over the pavement. Failure to go down the ally entails a greater chance of being hit by the bus.

Healthcare in America now:You are forced to go down the dark ally, but the rapist has to use lube. The chances of being hit by a bus are low compared to what they were before, however there is still an epidemic of runaway buses.

Healthcare in Europe: They converted the ally into a rape counseling center and took control of their streets. There are now traffic lights and crosswalks, with a regular police presence. Bus drivers have to use a breathalizer before starting said bus. It is still possible for random accidents to occur, but the chances are fantastically low.

and had I been ten years older and more cynical I might not have been fooled at all.

I have been this cynical for years.

But at the very least, I was reasonably confident that an Obama-Biden victory was the utilitarian-best (least wrong) outcome. So I voted for them, like a good doobie.

No. It is just the best remotely possible outcome. A Norwegian led coup of our government would probably be the best utilitarian answer.

[Simon_Jester]

-Vote Obama-Biden: given what I knew at the time, I still had some hope that Obama would be the kind of president I wanted.

I harped the word "Bipartisanship" and I knew what it meant. A slow rightward crawl of our national politics because he was afraid of standing up to the people who raped the constitution, the earth, and our economy for 8 years. Still, a rightward lurch is better than a full on sprint to Fascistland. I just hoped that said lurch would have a silver lining or two around it. Like actual healthcare reform rather than what we have now.

I was honestly hoping he'd at least sort of passively sit there and take steps to stop the damage getting worse. In a few areas he kinda sort has, even.

I wonder if any of the semi-viable Democratic candidates would have been better in '08, or if it was just a choice between flavors of junk...

and had I been ten years older and more cynical I might not have been fooled at all.

I have been this cynical for years.

Oh, I know. I am only now beginning to even faintly approximate your depth of cynicism and misanthropy; it's taken me a while to get this far.

But at the very least, I was reasonably confident that an Obama-Biden victory was the utilitarian-best (least wrong) outcome. So I voted for them, like a good doobie.

No. It is just the best remotely possible outcome. A Norwegian led coup of our government would probably be the best utilitarian answer.

I'm too good at math to forget to multiply the value of the outcome by the plausibility of the outcome when doing utilitarian math.

I mean, if I actually thought "vote to replace our entire government with that of Norway" was an option, I'd probably vote for that, since I'm pretty sure the Norwegian government is superior to our own. But since it's not, I don't count it in the race for "best utilitarian option."

[Alyrium Denryle]

I wonder if any of the semi-viable Democratic candidates would have been better in '08, or if it was just a choice between flavors of junk...

I would say Kucinich but he is not viable.

The answer is no.

Oh, I know. I am only now beginning to even faintly approximate your depth of cynicism and misanthropy; it's taken me a while to get this far.

It is OK. The world will crush your hope and love for your fellow human beings in due course.

I'm too good at math to forget to multiply the value of the outcome by the plausibility of the outcome when doing utilitarian math.

I look at it slightly differently. When evaluating the morality of a choice you take into account the probability of a given consequence occuring (50% chance of 1 person dying, 10% chance of 11 etc). You do not evaluate the chance of the choice actually happening. A separate evaluation is done for that. One that constrains your choices to the probable ones.

[Crossroads Inc.]

LINK

Is Kagan Gay? It's All the Talk, and That's a Shame
POSTED: 05/12/10
FILED UNDER:SUPREME COURT, WOMAN UP, ELENA KAGAN

Let's face it. To the world at large, being gay is a terrible thing to be. People whisper the word, gossip about it, trade in innuendos about it, as if being gay were a crime.

That brings us to Elena Kagan. Here she is: a brilliant, accomplished, fabulously successful lawyer and professor, dean of the Ivies, academic par excellence, and a good-time gal, a former smoker who plays poker and can swing a bat. She's a New Yorker, a child of the Upper West Side of Manhattan, dutiful daughter of dutiful liberal parents, and soon-to-be Supreme Court justice.

Who could ask for anything more?

Well, by now you know that some people have got it into their heads that Kagan is gay. Running between the lines of the serious articles and chatter in the media about her nomination to the Supreme Court is a whispered story line about her private life. Thoughtful and not-so-thoughtful people wonder, how come we don't know much about her day-to-day and after-hours habits, her close encounters -- in other words, her love life? How come she NEVER MARRIED!?

This is the aha moment: It's got to be because she's hiding something.

We are so degraded in this age of 24-hour revelations about the lives of the famous and infamous that we cannot believe for one minute that Elena Kagan may have a completely non-newsworthy life as a single woman who does not date, has not had a significant other, or simply does not want to blab to the whole world about any of it.

We have to put a spin on it. And what spin can be more intriguing, and juicy, than pegging her for a lesbian?


It's really not surprising. Kagan, who is 50, fits the lesbian profile concocted by people who can't think outside trivial and inaccurate stereotypes. She's got short hair! She's stout! She's got no fellow on a string! She wears pants and sensible shoes, and she's ambitious, driven, confident, has a swagger about her -- attributes too many people associate with manliness.

Funny thing about stereotypes. What about the other extreme, the lipstick lesbian, she of lean figure and flowing tresses and sexy come-hither looks? Check out some of the girl bars and you'll see plenty of them right along with the heavyset, booted motorcycle mamas.

Stirring the witches' cauldron is none other than Andrew Sullivan, renowned blogger, former New Republic editor and gay savant. Since his life is, as they say, an open book, he wants to open hers as well for the world to peek. We used to call it "outing." In a heated column on Tuesday he lit the fuse, asking the question, "So Is She Gay?'' and because his blog is published by the high-tone Atlantic magazine, folks pay attention. We mean, Washington pays attention, and New York. That is, the mainstream media.

Now, Politics Daily contributor Eleanor Clift, a veteran of Washington's culture wars, poses the reasonable theory that Kagan's private life has no bearing when it comes to making constitutional decisions on the high bench. She's right, of course.

But we are caught in a trap of Obama's own making. Obama has held up Kagan's life experiences (and before her, Sonia Sotomayor's) as evidence of her qualifications. It's hard to argue that the personal side is not a major component of life experience. And if that is the case, questions about her sexual orientation could be fair game.

That dilemma rarely comes up because most public figures play it straight and never tire of showing off their spouses and precious children and grandchildren (Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin), or, at the lower end of the marriage scale, revealing their cheating hearts (John Edwards, Mark Sanford, Tiger Woods, just in the past year). In the case of politicians caught red-handed in homosexual hijinks, there's immediate public condemnation, as there should be, not because they are gay, but because they denounce it publicly while reveling in it on the downlow.

We've not had this question of sexuality come at us full blown, certainly not this seriously. In the recent past, several high-level women have been singled out for gay rumors: Janet Reno, Donna Shalala, Condoleeza Rice, Janet Napolitano. And then there's Hillary Clinton, a target of right-wing nuts who have painted her as a stealth lesbian for years.

But there's something a little different about the Kagan case. The White House hasn't been able to put down the flames, and her camp has decided to try to quash the rumor, bringing out a law school classmate to vouch for Kagan's straight sexuality, New York magazine's blog, Daily Intel, reported Wednesday.

"I've known her for most of her adult life and I know she's straight," said Sarah Walzer, Kagan's roommate in law school and a close friend since then, according to Daily Intel. "She dated men when we were in law school, we talked about men – who in our class was cute, who she would like to date, all those things. She definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school, when she was in Chicago – and she just didn't find the right person."

That is pathetic.

It's ridiculous and sad. None of what Sarah Walzer says proves anything. How sad that in this day and age people feel the need to defend themselves against gay rumors, that being gay is considered a dreadful condition.

Whether Kagan is or is not gay is, finally, not the point. But it's too bad that so many people see that as something shameful.

Get the new
PD toolbar!

Have not heard a Whiff of this anywhere, only caught it ona Right Wing site.. Im guessing its ,much ado about nothing.

[Liberty]

You know I swear to FSM that the right doesn't even bother anymore, they just wait to be told what to say by higher ups...

Watching Faux News today for a bit, they are already all over this in predictable fashion. In about 40min I heard people state:

"Another Radical Left Wing Liberal"
"A long History of Judicial Activism"
"No Regard for the constitution of the US"
"Obama is clearly choosing a Radical Liberal"

I mean really, REALLY???

This makes me SO mad. Not really surprised, though... Can we please have real, objective reporting? I'm tired of everything being spun!

Also, how the hell can things be this hard?! We've got the president and a huge majority in both houses. That never stopped the Republicans from getting huge things done (Roberts, Alito, war in Iraq, Patriot Act, ad infinitum) - why the hell does it stop the democrats?!

[Darth Holbytlan]

Because the Republicans have the party discipline (read as "a spine", if you want) to vote in a bloc and the Democrats don't. There's nothing really new here: this has been the reality in the Senate for a good long while. Unfortunately, the Democrats gaining such discipline wouldn't fix the problem. This is a game of attrition: if neither party blinks, they'll just get nothing done, including confirming Kagen. Of course, this is prejudging the matter a bit—we don't know that the Republicans will hold it together to block her.

[Anguirus]

Hadn't heard the "is she a lesbian" thing, but apparently Pat Buchanan thinks she's too Jewish. And implies racism on the part of OBAMA for not nominating someone black instead.