BREAKING: We Have Elena Kagan's College Thesis...Update: Thesis Being Taken off the NET

The .pdf got removed. Said "PULLED AT THE REQUEST OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY EXERCISING ITS COPYRIGHT RIGHTS."

Originally posted by mistafaz
The .pdf got removed. Said "PULLED AT THE REQUEST OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY EXERCISING ITS COPYRIGHT RIGHTS."

Oh wow, I hope someone saved it. That was one juicy information. Well I hope this thread stays alive with the snippets that were captured from it.

reply to post by prionace glauca


I did download it last night when I originally read it.

I don't wish to violate any copyright laws, but aren't we looking at it for research purposes?

ETA - I would be more willing to bet it was pulled due to Obama's insistance via Princeton. Like I said, they are preventing her from talking to anyone, and even have silenced her *family*.

cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com...

May 13, 2010, 1:48 pm
Want to Talk to Kagan’s Family? Permission Denied
By SHARON OTTERMAN
White Houses traditionally put a muzzle on their Supreme Court nominees, to keep them from saying anything that might jeopardize Senate confirmation. But the Obama White House has taken it one step further. It is limiting, if not blocking, access to the nominee’s family.

read more at the link.

www.cbsnews.com...

May 11, 2010 4:49 PM
Elena Kagan White House "Interview" Riles Reporters

In the interview, conducted by a White House staffer who produces videos for the administration, Kagan discusses her ..

(snip)

While the White House seems to believe the American people deserve to hear from Kagan, it has not made her available to reporters. That prompted some consternation at today's White House briefing.

(snip)

Soon after, the reporter can be heard saying, an edge in her voice, "So a White House staffer interviewing her."

(snip)

The decision to post an interview with Kagan conducted by a government employee - not a journalist - is in line with the Obama administration's policy of regularly using new media tools to go around traditional media.

Doing so allows the administration to better control its message - and, in this case, avoid any uncomfortable questions for their Supreme Court nominee.

This just reminds me of the web scrubbing that happened when Obama was elected. He had no history to speak of either. They are two of a kind, and boy, should the alarm bells be going off.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by Libertygal]

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by prionace glauca

 

I did download it last night when I originally read it.

I don't wish to violate any copyright laws, but aren't we looking at it for research purposes?

Yes it is for research purposes but they are using their copyright law to inhibit it being posted electronically. Well my friend you have something the powers to be want hidden.

reply to post by prionace glauca


Should I be afraid?

Check your U2U's.

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by prionace glauca

 

Should I be afraid?

Check your U2U's.

Please go check your U2Us.

www.redstate.com...

Princeton Demands We Not Show You Elena Kagan’s Socialist Thesis

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Friday, May 14th at 4:35PM EDT

37 Comments
What are they worried about? The woman is a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States and Princeton University demands we pull down the Kagan thesis on socialism.

From: Daniel J. Linke
Subject: Kagan senior thesis copyright violation
Date: May 14, 2010 3:04:42 PM EDT
To: [email protected]

Dear Sir or Madam:

It has been brought to my attention that you have posted Elena Kagan’s senior thesis online. (See: www.redstate.com...) Copies provided by the Princeton University Archives are governed by U.S. Copyright Law and are for private individual use only. Any electronic distribution is prohibited, as noted on the first page of the copy that is on your website. Therefore I request that you remove it immediately before further action is taken.

Please notify me as soon as possible that you have removed it from your web site.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel J. Linke

University Archivist and Curator of Public Policy Papers
Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library
Princeton University

It seems from the google search, that it is being scrubbed as we speak.

This isn't "breaking news", in fact it is just a rehash.
These socialist accusations based on Kagans' thesis started early last year.

It first surfaced in this blog on May of 2009.
Weeklystandard.com

They've always had her thesis they didn't just get it.
The right is simply gearing up for the attack all over again.

- Lee

Originally posted by prionace glauca


Man this nation is being set up for nose dive. The Constitution will not survive any more with a SCOTUS like this to tip the balance, The POTUS and the dems are sleeping with the enemy and do not care about the State of Union.

www.redstate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Hey friend the constitution's day's are numbered.

While it still is available...

www.scribd.com...

now back to your regularly scheduled posting

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
While it still is available...

www.scribd.com...

now back to your regularly scheduled posting

Thank you for posting that link. I would suggest people to get a hold of this copy while it is still available. It would be interesting to see how she would present herself in light of the opinions she had in this thesis.

Originally posted by prionace glauca

Originally posted by Silverado292
I'm having a serious bout of Etardism right now is there a link to her Thesis thats not in PDF format?

Lets see, maybe this can cure your "E-tardism" for the time being.

PDF of Kagan's Thesis --also the second link provided in the OP

[edit on 14-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

I get this message:

"Oops! This link appears broken.DNS error occurred. Server cannot be found."

I cannot get the link to load.

Originally posted by prionace glauca
Now we have thesis that explains more about the stance Elena Kagan has in politics.

I'm not so sure it does.

I don't think your personal opinion on this one particular undergraduate thesis written in 1981 (almost thirty years ago) is enough to adamantly declare you know Kagans' stance on current politics. As if there is only one way to read this thesis and it has to be similar to your own narrow view or it's just liberal nonsense.

That is one helluva leap and an arrogant one at that.

David Weigel, Conservative writer for the Washington Post puts it best here:

As a college graduate who wrote one term paper on the efficacy of Stalin's Russification on the Asian states of the Soviet Union, I chuckle at the idea that a paper on radicalism is evidence of the author's radicalism.

This "would be" SCOTUS has America in its cross-hairs for not allowing socialism to prosper. She consistently through out her thesis mentions about how sad it was in the past that socialism was almost phased out. She goes on to say that radical forces must unite for the common benefit that socialism provides.

From her Thesis Advisor:

Princeton History Professor Sean Wilentz, who served as Kagan's thesis advisor (and who has previously written for Salon) told Salon that she is not a socialist, and that the question she was asking with the paper "was an absolutely standard" one about why the U.S. hasn't had the same kind of radical movements that have flourished in the rest of the world.

"Was she sympathetic to the socialists? Only insofar as the socialists were raising urgent issues about industry and labor even before unions were quite legal nationwide," Wilentz says. He added, "I'm proud of [the thesis]... I wasn't the only one who liked it. She went on to win the Sachs fellowship to Oxford, which is about as prestigious a fellowship as Princeton awards."
Salon.com

But Wilentz defended Kagan against her critics, noting that she was adept at removing her personal beliefs from her academic research on labor and radical history.

"Sympathy for the movement of people who were trying to better their lives isn't something to look down on," he explained. "Studying something doesn't necessarily mean that you endorse it. It means you're into it. That's what historians do." Dailyprincetonian

*my bolds

A student paper exploring various aspects of radical movements and their impact on the United States and brave enough to even attempt to sympathize with certain facets of the subjects ideology suddenly makes them a radical threat to America?

Perhaps she should have ended the thesis by saying she wished them all incinerated in a giant microwave, but I suspect the right would still twist even that.

You talk about freedom of speech then seek to unjustly condemn someone as a radical out to destroy the country and our freedoms based simply on a paper they wrote about radicalism while in college thirty years ago.

You're not in the Ministry of Truth by any chance are you?

Man this nation is being set up for nose dive. The Constitution will not survive any more with a SCOTUS like this to tip the balance, The POTUS and the dems are sleeping with the enemy and do not care about the State of Union.

People on the Left were making the same wild claims under the last Bush administration and we aren't living in caves right now. It's just partisan rhetoric.

What's funny is that Conservatives were arguing not too long ago against doing the very thing they are to Kagan right now.

Remember this:

Conservatives criticized Dems for focusing on things Alito did in college

WSJ criticized Dems for focusing on Alito's "ancient association" with group at Princeton.

It's a sign of how little Democrats have on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito that on Day Three of his confirmation hearings they were still pounding away on his membership in an obscure Princeton alumni group that flowered briefly at the judge's alma mater. They can't touch him on credentials or his mastery of jurisprudence, so they're trying to get him on guilt by ancient association.

Conservatives previously argued "nominees' personal opinions are irrelevant"

Hannity: "[T]he nominees' personal opinions are irrelevant." In pushing the false claim that Kagan's thesis shows she is a socialist, conservatives have also ignored their own standard that a nominee's personal and political views are "irrelevant" to the confirmation process. For example, on the June 28, 2001, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes (from the Nexis database), Hannity asserted: "But I -- but what bothers me about this -- the reason that the Senate has advice and consent and it doesn't include an ideological litmus test is because the nominees' personal opinions are irrelevant, as they're supposed to set those aside and rule as a matter of law. And it seems to me that they want to disqualify anybody because they have an opinion but which they're supposed to put aside."

Wash. Times criticized Schumer for "outrageous rationale for rejecting judicial nominees based on ideology."

In a July 24, 2001, editorial, The Washington Times wrote: "Mr. Schumer lay down what can only be described as an outrageous rationale for rejecting judicial nominees based on ideology; or, more specifically, for rejecting nominees for thinking beyond the 'mainstream' -- the Democratic 'mainstream,' that is, particularly on political flash points such as abortion and race" (from Nexis).

Wash. Times advanced conservative argument that opposing a nominee on basis of "political views" is "outside the mainstream of our entire constitutional tradition."

In a June 5, 2001, editorial, the Times quoted Bush judicial nominee Christopher Cox's complaint to Sen. Barbara Boxer that she had "made it clear that you believe it is acceptable to oppose a prospective judicial nominee on the basis of his or her political views" but "this view is outside the mainstream of our entire constitutional tradition." The editorial went on to assert: "Once upon a time, this was the stuff of high school civics courses. Now, U.S. senators such as Mrs. Boxer and her ideological cohorts on the Judiciary Committee seem to be in dire need of remedial help."

Conservative activist Wendy Long: A nominee's "personal and political views are irrelevant."

In an October 3, 2005, CNN appearance discussing Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court (from the Nexis database), Wendy Long, legal counsel to the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network and a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, said: "[S]he pretty clearly signals that she shares his [President Bush's] judicial philosophy. And the key to that is, politics is different from judging. They will not legislate from the bench. Her personal and political views are irrelevant. She's just going to very modestly and strictly interpret the constitution and laws. It's a lot of what we heard from John Roberts, but it's the president's judicial philosophy."

*my Bolds
from: Media Matters.org

Are any of those Conservative arguments against these attacks based on a college thesis that are, as they said, "outside the mainstream of our entire constitutional tradition" still valid?

If so, I guess the Left can just start using them now.

Again...this is still OLD NEWS.
The same people trying to "tar and feather" Kagan had access to her thesis in 2009.

Pure unmitigated drama and pathological denial all wrapped up in one nice little smear campaign.

- Lee


[edit on 14-5-2010 by lee anoma]

reply to post by lee anoma


Wow, that was a long, well thought out post. I cannot say I necessarily agree with the golden images that some are trying to paint of her, but you did an excellent job of backing up what you say.

To play the Devil's Advocate though, the thesis coupled with some of the recent things coming to light about her opinions, decisions, and contacts that have come to light all seem to bear the fruit of some truth to the socialist claim.

If nothing else, she seems to make decisions based on her political standpoint rather than on ones based on the rule of law.

In saying that, it seems rather important that her political standpoint then be examined rather intensely, and I think that you can agree there is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of scrutiny when it comes to making a person a SCOTUS justice for the remainder of her life.

We already had a hard lesson about people with hazy a background, but he will be gone in a couple more years. Her, not so much.

Surprisingly, I heard someone on televison today defending her, and they made a statement along the lines that people had claimed she had no judicial experience to speak of. He then went on to elaborate quite intently that she had served as a law clerk, and she most certainly knew what being a judge was all about.

Really?

Do you defend that this is all it takes to be a SCOTUS Justice? I am just curious how far you are willing to bend to defend her, since this seems to really be striking a cord with you.

Really this is just a bit or BS to spread on the gardens of the post American revolution 2's tribute to those who opposed politians, bankers and lawyers and caused them to lost their fortunes. This is do to the grass roots uprising in favor of human/American rights activism that will overcome them in all arenas.

Another bull dike short haired, feminazi liberal lesbian who doesn't like guns, free speech or a free markt and Constitutional republic being sworn in under Nobama! Wow what a surprise.

reply to post by prionace glauca

I will be voting for people who are against amnesty for ILLEGALS, I will be voting for people who said "NO" to HCR, who also said "NO" to another bailout package for big banks, who also want a small government not a big one, etc etc.

You mean that you are going to go in and blindly vote for all the "R"'s and that is it.


Why are you afraid to admit it...you are just a party line voter...no thought in it...just vote straight "R".

Originally posted by Libertygal
Do you defend that this is all it takes to be a SCOTUS Justice? I am just curious how far you are willing to bend to defend her, since this seems to really be striking a cord with you.

Hi Libertygal,

I'd defend anyone (including the OP of this thread) who was politically smeared as a terrorist/radical out to destroy America for simply writing a paper about the subject of radicalism in College.

It's ridiculous and unfair.

It was wrong when the Dems did this under Bush and it is wrong now.
Just read how the Conservatives felt about this tactic in my first post.

They made a great argument about why it was irrelevant didn't they?
What's different now?

Admittedly I don't know much about Kagan, or I should say about as much as anyone else. I'm still forming my opinion, I never said she was "golden" or even above reproach, but this thesis rubbish won't factor into my opinion any more than the "She's probably a Lesbian" crap the Right started throwing about.

Currently they have her framed as a "lesbian communist socialist radical".

It's a thirty year old College thesis, as far as we know it has no bearing on Kagans current political ideology, and isn't even an endorsement for radicalism or socialism.

I believe people are blowing this out of proportion and bending it to further a political agenda that started last year when this thesis was being touted as a valentines day card to socialism.

This is from 5 days ago:

Wilentz: Kagan's thesis on 'the futility of dogma'

One of the early (and fairly rare) conservative ideological knocks on Elana Kagan was her undergraduate thesis, whose most striking line was its title, echoing the Internationale: "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933."

Michael Goldfarb turned it up about a year ago, and wrote that it showed her to be a "radical," quoting passages that sound sympathetic with the New York socialists' goals at the time and her note that she had chosen to "explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas."

Reporting out another story this morning, I chatted with Kagan's thesis advisor at Princeton, the liberal historian Sean Wilentz, who was a sharp Obama critic in the primary but is an admirer of Kagan.

"I took the title to be a kind of a pun, something of a paradox," he said. "She takes a line from the Internationale -- "to the final conflict" – but the thesis is about failure. About the final conflict of the Socialist Party in New York, how it fell apart. How it was unable to do what it set out to do. It’s a study of factionalism, of the futility of dogma, of ideology."

"She said something in the introduction about how she wants to clarify her own politics," he recalled. "I don’t know if she did or not, but the example of the Socialist Party in New York was an example of idealism that ended in futility."
Politico

As her teacher I think he would be in a better position to determine what her goal with this document really was, not some right-wing blogger that will be anything but unbiased.

What is REALLY being bent here is the objective of her thesis, and what it was actually about. I would prefer to have her interviewed and asked directly about her political stances, not read some thirty year old paper from a College student and say, "Gee, that tears it! I know all about her and what she wants to do now and she aims to imprison us all!"

I'm not the one bending here.

That should be obvious in the midst of all the speculation and unfair characterizations of a woman we haven't heard even fully state all of her own positions.

I would ask you how far one would be willing to go in order to make sure she isn't on the Supreme Court and consequently branded a radical threat to America just because of blind partisanship and hatred for Obama?

I need more than this to grab a pitchfork and torch.

- Lee

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Sounds to me he is voting for his ideals, not any particular party.
He may vote an independent with his views,
But you are entitled to your opinion even if it is based solely on your opinion with no facts.

I remember very well the copyright at the very beginning of the thesis and it said it could only be used for research/educational purposes. I think posting the entire thesis on a blog site solely to "out" her as a socialist doesn't fall under "research" or "educational".

Just my take on it though.