May 10, 2010 by Post Team
Kagan Wiki:Pablo Campos are justifiably concerned that Elena Kagan track record does not suggest much about his judicial philosophy. And Senate inquisitors issues may find that some find that troubling in upcoming confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Kagan. However, we are not even there yet and already the knives coming out – but not right. Left is going after the candidate of the White House.
Serving as a very capable Kvetch in-Chief, Salon’s Glenn Greenwald has assembled a bill of particulars which summarize some of the concerns heard from the left on the desirability of Kagan to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. (Greenwald has a thorough criticism of Kagan here.
I have no personal passion for or against Kagan’s nomination, but frankly, some of the complaints are at best limit.
Let’s focus on the most explosive and I think the most ridiculous: his supposed “connection” to Goldman Sachs. Greenwald links to Digby, who links to U.S. Today love, I have those links – which states that Kagan received $ 10,000 in 2008 to serve as a member of Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute. Well, as the renowned constitutional scholar and former New Jersey Nets forward Derrick Coleman used to cry sometimes, whoop-de-damn-do. The fact is that the “Digby” post offers nothing in the way of evidence that points to an ominous connection. Read a little more, however, and find the real point of the author: “I think the Supreme Court confirmation battle are ideologically instructive for the nation and are one of the few times when it is possible for people to talk at length about philosophical world view. Liberals have to stop running from this. Let us define the other party is killing us. ”
There you have it. This is really about politics and dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Some in the lib left the White House would like much more difficult to turn in their direction and they are not happy about his political instincts to move towards the center. That is an argument that may have, but now it seems as if Kagan is trapped in the crossfire.
Back to Greenwald. He also cites Sam Stein of The Huffington Post. But Stein also adds nothing of real linterest to the table. The two reports that the Advisory Council includes HuffPo from 2005 and 2008 does not advance the conspiracy case of an inch. The whole exercise is basically a setup for a quote anonymously from someone identified as “a prominent progressive.”
“I just do not understand why the Administration want the brands and vulnerable to the opposition candidate at a time when American skepticism on Wall Street is at its highest point … this is like the delivery to the mantle of populism Republicans just for trying to oppose (sic) Kagen confirmation. “
Is it really?
Like Greenwald, after Stein attaches great importance to the U.S. Part Today. But the article is wrong, to take over the argument that crossed a line Kagan ethics. In this case, however, the author managed to get someone in the court file nominations specialist Lee Epstein of Northwestern University-Lee Epstein believe that the word Goldman Sachs would “complicate matters for her.”
And from what I can. Is radioactive Goldman Sachs, for obvious reasons in those days. But Kagan limited concert as advisor to the investment house, now tarnished had nothing to do with the creation of false or CDO market manipulation practices. It was an independent action to supplement his day job. If anyone has evidence to suggest otherwise, would have to put it into the public record.
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.