GOP vs Kagan

[Anonymous]

I have recently seen three facets of the GOP opposition to Kagan:

First, there is Newt Gingrich's attack on her as disrespectful of the young people defending our democracy throughout the world. To turn the fact that she opposed the policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell into some kind of opposition to the people in uniform, many of whom suffer because of that policy, is such flawed logic that I cannot believe it shows anything but contempt for the intelligence of his audience (which, by the way, justified his contempt by energetically applauding his ploy). Newt says the Senate should not even hold hearings, but should reject her out-of-hand. I guess that means he's calling for a filibuster?

Then there is Mich McConnell, who is attacking Kagan for arguing the Citizens United case. Does he forget that it is the Solicitor General's job to argue the government's position? Does he forget that she was arguing in favor of Congress's right to make that law? Does he forget that not one voter had his or her rights restricted by the law that was overturned, only corporations -- those paragons of present popularity?

Finally, there is the hubbub that is brewing over her undergraduate thesis, about the failure of the socialist movement in pre-1933 New York. I see nothing in the parts I have read to show that she was doing anything more than describing the failure of a movement, pointing out the lessons for any future movements to change America (such as the Obama campaign or the Tea Party). Can any of you please point out to me any part of this anti-Kagan article, http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/elena-kagans-thesis-in-90-seconds.html, that you think gives convincing evidence that she herself (as opposed to her brother) was a socialist? And even if you can deduce socialist leanings in the writer of that thesis, is a 30 year professional career trumped by a 20-year-old's political views. McConnell thinks a corporation's right to free speech is sacrosanct, but Doug Ross thinks a college student's free speech should subject her to lifelong punishment.

What I really want to know is whether the GOP really wants to deep-six the most conservative nominee they are likely to get?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What I really want to know is whether the GOP really wants to deep-six the most conservative nominee they are likely to get?

Of course not. On the other hand, they are happy to score as many political points as possible along the way to confirmation. The problem that Republicans find themselves in these days is that they instantly frame anything associated with Obama as evil incarnate. While they know this is just political theater, the Republican base often takes them seriously. Then, the Republicans have to explain why they didn't filibuster the devil. But, that will be their problem down the road. Right now, they are still in the political theater stage.

[Anonymous]

Shockingly enough, I agree with Mr. Steele on this one, this is just political theater and the R's are not going to seriously oppose Kagan. They are just going to try to expose some of her views that they think will alienate voters going into the November midterms. Nothing wrong with this, IMO -- done by both sides -- as long as kept within reason.

I'm also not sure Kagan is the most conservative nominee the R's are going to get -- too little is known about her real views. But Obama has been intelligent about choosing someone whose credentials are really above reproach -- and this is coming from a conservative lawyer who is going to hate what she does on the court -- to try to make this a political non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. Since no one expects them to ever win votes, they can complain about anything and score a win among their voters while attacking the president's record.

BTW this is not limited to Republicans in the minority. It happens in all democracies. People (or countries, in the case of the EU or UN) frequently vote against bills they actually support because they get the benefit of passing the legislation (ie it makes things better) while not having the political cost associated with the tough medicine that is often a part of lawmaking. The most chickenshit way of doing this is to abstain or skip the vote, but you can do even more by waiving some obscure procedure in a committee to allow a bill to advance that you could otherwise block. Thus you did a big thing to actually pass it, but your action will never show up as a vote on the issue, and you can complain about it to your heart's content.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Thanks for the responses; informative on a subject where bloviation is common.

[Anonymous]

Just thought we ought to end this thread with the fact that five GOPers voted for her. Ben Nelson was the only Dem to vote against, based on the preferences of his constituents, as though he's a pollster rather than a senator.

Scott Brown was thought to be another possible GOP aye, but he based his negative vote on the fact that she has never been a judge, which is not at all unusual for SCOTUS until quite recently, and which both Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have said should not be considered a negative.