![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Kagen, redux
May. 11th, 2010 08:19 amNo 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.
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.
