It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ventian
reply to post by Logarock
I could actually understand nominating a lesbian/gay rights judge. But a women's rights judge is crazy. Why are there still women's rights activists....wasn't all this settled awhile back?
She did offer a glimpse of her views in a 2001 article in The Harvard Law Review that considered the "unitary executive" theory.
The phrase is sometimes used as shorthand for the Bush administration's assertion that it has broad powers that cannot be limited by Congress or the courts. In her article, Kagan addressed an earlier and narrower meaning of the phrase, one made popular during the Reagan administration, concerning the scope of the president's power to control the executive branch itself.
She found that such presidential control "expanded dramatically during the Clinton presidency," a development she largely welcomed. But she said Congress, experts and interest groups should also play a role in informing the executive branch's actions.
"From the perspective of those who have been advocating change from Bush policies, she has been a disappointment," said Tina Foster of the International Justice Network, who argued against Kagan's deputy Neal Katyal over detention policies in an appeal in January.
"She would spell very bad news" if she became a Supreme Court justice, said Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has long challenged Bush and now Obama detention policies. "We don't see any basis to assume she does not embrace the Bush view of executive power."
At the Electronic Frontier Foundation, senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston called the Obama administration's stance on state secrets and national security wiretapping "a grave disappointment, particularly for those who took Obama's promises seriously." Bankston cautioned he is not certain how involved Kagan herself has been in the positions the department has taken on these issues.
Maybe we can get a version of Pol-pot in 2012 and stop pretending America is free.
Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by ventian
Not to be overly offensive here, but are you sure that's a woman?
Wow, anyway, I'll need to see more information on this lady and her opinions before I chime in with anything definitive. Guess I better start looking through journals and see if I can find anything.
[edit on 9-5-2010 by antonia]
Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by ventian
Not to be overly offensive here, but are you sure that's a woman?
Wow, anyway, I'll need to see more information on this lady and her opinions before I chime in with anything definitive. Guess I better start looking through journals and see if I can find anything.
[edit on 9-5-2010 by antonia]
Originally posted by Xtrozero
If she is moderate then she will most likely have an easy time in the hearings.
From 2005 through 2008, Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Personally I hope they ask her questions about President Obama's policies and how she would rule, especially on health care, and the constitutionality of such.
[edit on 9-5-2010 by sdcigarpig]
Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by ventian
Not to be overly offensive here, but are you sure that's a woman?
Wow, anyway, I'll need to see more information on this lady and her opinions before I chime in with anything definitive. Guess I better start looking through journals and see if I can find anything.
[edit on 9-5-2010 by antonia]