But, but, but: Greenwald Puts Greg Craig on the Hotseat on This Week

Elena Kagan's nomination to the SCOTUS was at the top of the list (or at least a close second to the BP disaster) of the Talking Heads Sunday this morning. I watched MTP and didn't find it very enlightening on the discussion about Ms. Kagan's nomination, especially when Sen Chuck Schumer couldn't really defend her except perhaps she's a New Yorker and he represents her as a constituent. When NBC News puts up the transcript, I'll link to it here.

The more animated conversation took place on ABC News' This Week, and I was very happy to see Glenn Greenwald (who is garnering more respect as real progressive/liberal and not being criticized for it by other journalists) represent a real ideological view, along with George Will and Ed Gillespie --Ed being the big ideologue from the Rethugs--(I bet Glenn had to wash hands immediately after having to sit next to him) and Greg Craig, a centrist/moderate who was an adviser to Obama recently. Mr. Craig asserted that Ms. Kagan was the most qualified nominee in his lifetime.

Greenwald repeated the reasons for his opposition, posited from last week and added that she would have to share a little more of her legal viewpoints. Mr. Craig tried to counterpoint by saying that Greenwald preferred a judicial nominee. Greenwald was allowed to do something very different from Democracy Now nor on Rachel Maddow's show, which was to ask directly to Mr. Craig to point out anything that would illuminate Ms. Kagan's views. Here's the Youtube, courtesy of Firedoglake:



Like Larry Lessig and other Kagan supporters, Mr. Craig failed to be able to point out any clues, but instead that repeated her resume. I think Greenwald nailed it when requested specific articles and Mr. Craig, who took a very defensive tone--instead of one of a healthy debate--she taught students, administered law professors (I guess he was trying to make a weak argument that administration of faculty is equal to law clerks??), but he failed by not being able to point out one solid article she had written in this past decade.

To follow other discussions, Firedoglake has one here, and at Salon, Greenwald has unedited portions of that roundtable up on his page.

Even George Will complemented Greenwald at the end for bringing the left to the debate, but in a thoughtful way. I guess the two hadn't met before.

One note that hasn't been pointed out: Ruth Bader Ginsburg also said very little about her views during her hearings, except about privacy. And she was criticized for not hiring more women and minorities, similar to this year's nominee. I guess many of the Obama supporters are hoping the same on this nominee, but as Greenwald would likely point out: Ginsburg came from the Appellate.

Congrats to Glenn Greenwald, blogger and now a budding talking head liberal on a traditional network news platform. Some of the bloggers at Open Left think this may be the only time we see Greenwald on the bobbleheads. I disagree. I think he harbored a lot of goodwill as he was intelligent, but calm, and was after facts, not just bomb throwing. Of course, one could say he was a grown-up at the table--for opposing this nominee without a lot more answers, but the difference between him and the GOP is still from a liberal perspective, not just to blow more hot air in the room.

A Healthy Debate about Elena Kagan's Nomination

I've been following Glenn Greenwald's opposition to the "blank slate" nominee, Elena Kagan, to the SCOTUS. Larry Lessig, Ms. Kagan's good friend, has her back.

BW readers probably can tell that I'm on Glenn's side on this issue (especially as I pointed out and Glenn has since done the same of problems pointed out by Jonathan Turley and Jeffrey Toobin), but as mcjoan at the Daily Kos pointed out this afternoon, this is a healthy debate. Like mcjoan, I hope progressives such as Bernie Sanders, Al Franken and Jeff Merkeley will pick up on these points in forcing Ms. Kagan to take some positions, whether we agree with them or not.

President Obama is squandering a golden opportunity when we have many Democrats who could carry a nominee forward without a single Republican vote. I would prefer a very progressive candidate to hold a candle to the many years Justice Stevens was on the court. If a nominee is too timid to say what's on her mind or fails to address her meager record, our POTUS should withdraw her nomination. Frankness and transparency, which candidate Obama promised, are at stake here and will mark his legacy to be characterized more like W's--more of a unitary executive--instead of a complement of three branches.

Stay tuned. I'm still looking for more opinions besides the ones I posted yesterday and today.

Update: as promised, I found some more opinions and facts via Alternet and Mother Jones. Very discouraging indeed.

Second update: Nate Silver at 538 has an angle regarding actuaries.

Ugh --more Centrists for the SCOTUS

Most of the time, I am asleep at midnight. Tonight I have many issues I am trying to think through as I have too many details to attend to on a local basis.

One of the thoughts I wish I wasn't having was about Obama's second pick to the SCOTUS and that is Elena Kagan as the nominee. Ugh, another freakin' centrist. One can tell Larry Summers was at the top of the advisor list with this one. She is going to be for corporatists and not for the true theory of justice--Harvard Law dean or what. I don't care if she is a woman or not. That doesn't count as much as views, and all of this is politics--and who can get through. What happened to rulings? This woman has almost NONE.

I worked at Harvard. I respect Harvard. But I have little respect for cronyism, Mr. President. I guess you do.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/its-kagan----obama-makes-supreme-court-selection.php?ref=fpblg

Update: see Glen Greenwald's commentary about Kagan.
Second update: see Jeffrey Toobin's piece in the New Yorker today. His comment about Ms. Kagan & comparing her to her nominator:

But on the Court, Kagan will have to do something she’s not done before. Show her hand. Develop a clear ideology. Make tough votes. I have little doubt she’s up to the job, but am less clear on how she’ll do it.

H/t to Desmoinesdem at Bleeding Heartland

Another update: Jonathan Turley nailed it about why progressives like me find this pick very disheartening.

"Obama’s record on civil liberties has long been attributed to a rather cold calculus that liberals have no where to go and that he should continue to play to the middle and right of the political spectrum. I am not so certain. There is no evidence that Obama actually believes in some of the principles that Stevens fought for, particularly in the area of terrorism. What is clear is that he has selected someone who will honor that legacy by dismantling a significant part of it."


Personally, I'm tired of sellouts. But I knew this president would do it.