Kyl: Kagan praised Thurgood Marshall -- and she would help the underdog

[babylonsister]

The horror of it all. :eyes:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/kyl.html


Kyl: Kagan praised Thurgood Marshall -- and she would help the underdog

There have been two key GOP attack lines on Elena Kagan that have aroused particularly aggressive pushback from Dems: The claim that she will hew to an "empathy" standard, and the criticism of her for saying nice things about the legacy of Thurgood Marshall.

During his opening statement, Senator Jon Kyl reprised both those attacks. But in so doing, he seemed to stray into politically questionable territory, suggesting it's a liability for a justice to believe powerful interests shouldn't be able to drown out the voices of ordinary Americans.

From Kyl's opening statement...

Judge Sotomayor explicitly rejected the "empathy" standard espoused by President Obama -- a standard where "legal process alone" is deemed insufficient to decide the so-called "hard cases"; a standard where the "critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."

Perhaps because his first nominee failed to defend the judicial philosophy that he was promoting, the President has repackaged it. Now, he says that judges should have "a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people ... and know that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."

And a bit later...

Kagan wrote a tribute to Justice Marshall in which she said in his view it was the role of the courts and interpreting the Constitution to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government. The court existed primarily to fulfill this mission. And later, when she was working in the Clinton administration, she encouraged a colleague working on a speech about Justice Marshall to emphasize his unshakable determination to protect the underdog.

I get that this is all about riling up the GOP base with "judicial activist" talk. But the GOP is under assault for being regional, intolerant and too solicitious of special interests.

In this context, it's hard to see how it's good long-term politics to attack Kagan explicitly because she might seek to defend ordinary Americans, or the "underdog," against powerful interests -- while simultaneously faulting her for praising the legacy of the first African American to sit on the court. It doesn't add up to a pretty picture.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. oh noes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The horror of it all......

Their unmitigated gall and arrogance makes me want to puke..

[Divine Discontent]

2. yes, there's plenty of bigots sessions will be 'singing' to, but the more these bigots talk the more

the majority of people will see the GOP as a den of thieves, coddlers of intolerance, perverts, money-grubbers, warmongers, and status quo do nothings!

[damntexdem]

3. Oh, what lovely praise from a Rethug!

What, an attack line? What? Where?

;-)

[gratuitous]

4. I don't think they've quite grasped their minority status

Like the Democrats haven't quite figured out that the majority of Americans are actually rather progressive (and therefore fail to fight for even, say, a Department of Labor whose primary concern is Labor), Republicans haven't quite grasped that they are appealing to a diminishing segment of the population. Most people like the idea of a court system where the underdog has at least a chance to win. Laws, court decisions and rules of procedure mean that even the lowliest of the low can prevail against the mightiest corporation when that corporation has done wrong. And people like that. They'll even vote for it, and appreciate politicians who fight for that level playing field.

[Bitwit1234]

5. Since Kagan will fight for the underdog

that will make the republicans whine and moan that much harder. I tell you this and will repear it over and over, I have never seen a group of supposed grown up people that act more like 10 year olds than these republicans we have in congress.

[WI_DEM]

6. Too bad she didn't praise John W. Davis who was lead councel for the board of education in 1954

maybe then he would like her.

[ck4829]

7. Judicial independence is very much around to protect minorities from the majority

So yes, part of the function of our courts is to protect underdogs from the powerful.