Kagen, redux

[solarbird]

No wonder the neoconservatives don't hate Mr. Obama's Supreme Court nominee; in confirmation hearings she not only supported the Bush administration's indefinite-detention-without-trial-or-appeal programme, she said that the US should've been considering itself at war in the 1990s.

Ms. Kagen has also written sympathetically of the use of obscenity labels as a method to control "hate speech" (see previous link), and, in 1997, urged then-President Bill Clinton to ban late-term abortion. From what little we know of her - and the administration has already proclaimed she won't answer any specific questions in hearings - she seems to have a highly "pragmatic" view of civil liberties, of rights, of power, which in practice translates to the ability to rationalise whatever a government wants to do. In short: from what little we know, she'll be an effective supporter of government power, replacing one of the votes in the slim 5-4 majority against claims like arbitrary arrest-and-imprisonment over the last decade.

And, of course, under Mr. Obama, that power has been extended to execution.

For years, the Democrats have told civil libertarians and progressives, "vote for us for judges! Vote for us for judges! If nothing else, vote for us for judges!" Now, they're giving you this. And even now, even here, on comment threads, I'm seeing "IT'S THEM OR THE TEA PARTIERS!!1!" That's how they've led you here, you fools.

Comments

[sutures1.livejournal.com]

No argument here. As far as I can tell, the woman's a sad replacement for Justice Stevens, and the court as a whole will move to the right once he leaves and she arrives.

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

I've already received the standard Democrat tripe/trope of "Leftists will reject any candidate who doesn't meet their specific litmus test." To which I replied "Liberal Dems will support any and all shredding of the constitution, just as long as the shredding is being done by a Democrat."

[phillipalden.livejournal.com]

The more I hear (and read) the less I like.

[pentane.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, it is them or the tea partiers. Don't know if you've been following Utah, but Bennet who received good marks from conservatives was voted out as "not conservative enough".

We really need more parties, because the 'choice' we have sucks.

[solarbird]

Unfortunately, it is them or the tea partiers.
Right. And that's how you guys vote Democrat over and over again no matter how much damage they do, rather than voting for a third party because "they can't win," and that's how you get here. I mean, you're right; they can't win. But you can see what the Tea Partiers are doing in the GOP by making something that even looks like a new party - and meaning it - and in how short a time they've done it.

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

Exactly. If Nader had gotten the 20-30% of the vote he deserved (based on numerous issue polls at the time showing at least that many Americans supporting Nader's positions over those of his opponents), he still would have lost, but today's Democrats would be sounding a lot more like Nader, and a lot less like George Bush.

[pentane.livejournal.com]

I'd vote (pre-92) Republican if I voted, so I'm not one of 'you guys'.

[solarbird]

Oh, okay. Well, fair enough. The general point stands, tho'; the progressives/liberals and also the civil liberties people need to know that if they're not willing to bolt, they're not going to get a goddamn thing. And on the whole, they're not willing to bolt, and that's how we get here.