Greenwald slams Elena Kagan's vote on Medicaid expansion

[Marzupialis]

Greenwald: (July 7th, 2012):

During the debate over Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination, those of us who opposed her selection argued that there was a substantial risk that she would join with the Court’s four right-wing Justices more often than her predecessor, John Paul Stevens, did, and more often than other potential nominees (such as Diane Wood) would, and thus have the effect of actually moving the Court to the right (using “left” and “right” here in its conventional sense). The argument was not that she would be a Scalia clone; it was that her deliberate lack of a public record on judicial philosophy, combined with the isolated glimpses into her worldview that were available, made this an unnecessarily risky choice to replace Stevens, who had become the leader of the “liberal” bloc.

Particularly since she has so often recused herself on key cases, the record is still too incomplete to permit either side of this debate to claim vindication. There have, however, been several cases in which Kagan has joined with the Court’s Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Roberts bloc in important areas, including her support for the narrowing of Miranda rights (the stalwart protection of which has long been a crown jewel of liberal jurisprudence) as well as her denial of review of disturbing death penalty sentences and an oppressive free speech ruling. In each of those cases, President Obama’s other Court appointee, Sonia Sotomayor (whose nomination I enthusiastically defended), as well as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were on the opposite side from Kagan.

The Supreme Court’s health care ruling two weeks ago provides perhaps the most potent example yet justifying these concerns about Kagan. Although it was John Roberts’ ideological apostasy that has received the most attention, Kagan joined with the Court’s five right-wing Justices (as well as Stephen Breyer) to strike down one of the most important provisions of the bill — its Medicaid expansion program — on the ground that it was unconstitutionally coercive of the states (by threatening states with a loss of benefits for non-participation); on that issue, it was Sotomayor and Ginsburg in dissent.

More: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/07/kagans_medicaid_vote/

[GarroHorus]

1. DOUCHEWALD!!!!!

[TownDrunk2]

10. how about not-a-democrat-apologetic-drone

Notice also, how the right side bars are only MSNBC "anchors" and none from Current TV whose anchors are much more liberal ...

[GarroHorus]

12. How about an anti-Obama ASSHOLE who does nothing but anti-Obama screeds like Limbaugh?

Current TV can suck it. I stopped watching it the day they hired that other douchebag, Cenk Uygur.

[smokey nj]

13. Greenwald is on the President's side regarding Medicaid expansion. Elena Kagan is not.

That's the point of the article. You should read it.

[stockholmer]

20. You didn't even read the article, or else you would not have revealed your pavlovian vitriol

for Greenwald and Uygur, who are actually leftist-progressive and lovers of civil liberties, not simply 'party-first' hacks, flacks, or shills.

"Elizabeth Warren, asked about the Medicaid ruling last week, said “she found it ‘pretty shocking’ that seven justices would create a “new limitation on congressional power to condition spending” and ”rolled her eyes when it is mentioned that her former colleague Elena Kagan was one of those seven.”

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. "pavlovian vitriol" = short, to the point, and exactly right

[sabrina 1]

100. I think you're lost. Greenwald was defending the President's HC policy

on Medicaid. Maybe you should go read it all again. Knee-jerk reactions to messengers tend to lose people credibility, especially when they are so very wrong.

Unless of course, as I stated above, you, like the five right wing justices, oppose the President's HC program.

[stockholmer]

15. how about you read an article before knee-jerking?

"Elizabeth Warren, asked about the Medicaid ruling last week, said “she found it ‘pretty shocking’ that seven justices would create a “new limitation on congressional power to condition spending” and ”rolled her eyes when it is mentioned that her former colleague Elena Kagan was one of those seven.”

[TownDrunk2]

19. I was replying to the posting of "DOUCHEWALD" in reference to Glenn Greenwald NOT to the article

If you had paid attention you'd have noticed that - have a nice day

[stockholmer]

23. so was I. Just because a person is a leftist-progressive and a fierce champion of civil

liberties does NOT make them a DOUCHEWALD if their concerns run into the wall of left-cover shaded corporate power that is unfortunately oh too prevalent in the Democratic party.

[sabrina 1]

101. You oppose the President's expansion of Medicaid also then?

I support that strongly and I'm sure he was not happy that one of his own nominees joined the Right Wing justices against him.

But hey, if you don't like Obama's policies, that's your choice. This part of the bill is the part that would provide the most help to those who cannot afford HC. Too bad to see Democrats here oppose it.

[stockholmer]

104. I support the intent, but the bill, I fear is going to backfire on certain parts and be used as an

excuse by the corporate right to falsely accuse the government of trying to run 'socialized medicine' (which is a blatant RW lie) and thus further push off the only possible solution- single-payer with the for-profit motive utterly stripped away.

Bit by bit the minutiae of application (the good parts that we like) will be whittled away legislatively, or litigated away in court. The insurance and health care lobbyists had tremendous input into the crafting of the ACA, so they damn well know where the weak points are for their hyena-like attacks.

[sabrina 1]

105. Oops, my apologies, my comment was intended for

Garrohaurus who seems to be very confused about Greenwald's position on this part of the bill.

I agree with most of what you are saying. There are far too many loopholes which as we all know, were probably intentional, since the Insurance Industry wrote the bill.

I am for Single Payer and hope that the fight continues towards that goal.

However, I see people here who claim to support the President's bill, slamming Greenwald who is actually supporting the Medicaid expansion part of the bill, which was one of the good things about the bill. The knee-jerk reaction is stunning to be honest. It totally discredits them imho.

[Marzupialis]

86. Translation: "I resorted to an ad-hominem attack..."

instead of reading and addressing the article.

[stockholmer]

17. try reading the article first before droning on with your talking point (I'm being generous with the

term 'talking point', btw)

"Elizabeth Warren, asked about the Medicaid ruling last week, said “she found it ‘pretty shocking’ that seven justices would create a “new limitation on congressional power to condition spending” and ”rolled her eyes when it is mentioned that her former colleague Elena Kagan was one of those seven.”

[yardwork]

21. Well, that's persuasive. /nt

[dionysus]

48. that'll be another 50 cents usage fee.

[GarroHorus]

52. .

[dionysus]

55. I'ma place a glass jar over on the counter. every time you say douchewald i want 50 cents in there.

NO PENNIES.

[DevonRex]

56. Is there a jar shortage or something?

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. I'll go in the penalty box by myself and feel shame now.

[dionysus]

84. and where have we been, hmm?

[DevonRex]

85. I keep getting sent to the penalty box

for some reason. I didn't mean to knock out that guy's teeth. Honest.

[inna]

91. oh yeah, he got that from you, didn't he?

figures.

except that -didn't you use to say "High Lord Douchenozzle", or some such nonsense?...

(how are those royalties working out for you, btw? )

[dionysus]

92. i almost got enough to buy a six pack from this thread alone.

[MNBrewer]

63. SO you disagree with Greenwald that the Medicaid expansion should NOT have been struck down?

Or is it just because Glenn Greenwald took a position, you must reflexively take the opposite opinion (and throw in some ad hominem for good measure)?

[sabrina 1]

99. I take it you oppose the Medicaid expansion and agree with the five Right Wing

SC Justices. Good to know!

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Kagan's decision to side with the Wingers did great harm to the goal of insuring more people

It is that simple.

[vaberella]

4. How? They upheld the law and have no power to change it.

So she sided on this issue, the law still stands as is.

[rhett o rick]

8. Huh? They changed the law by accepting parts and voting down parts. The part discussed by the OP

was voted down.

[nashville_brook]

68. +1

[vaberella]

3. They didn't strike it down. They had a dissenting opinion.

The issue was not on medicaid expansion but the mandate as a tax. They can say what they want on any other aspect of the law, but the law remains. I don't see this as a clear view of her being against something liberal more so sharing an opinion that she has the right to share on the health care bill.

[Mass]

5. The court struck down the penalty on the states that do not implement the Medicaid expansion.

State can now refuse to implement it without penalty.

[Sirveri]

96. That's not true. If they refuse they lose the additional funding ACA would provide.

The issue here is that if they refused to comply they would lose ALL of their federal funding, completely defunding the state medicaid program and tossing people who were in that system into the streets. Do you really want to give right wing governors ammo to demolish their state medicaid system and attack the poor even more?

[rateyes]

16. The medicaid expansion was made optional without penalty. This time Greewald

is correct.

[yardwork]

22. There was more than one law contained in this ruling. The justices struck down the Medicaid rule.

[girl gone mad]

81. You're making some really uninformed comments in this thread.

Maybe you should read up on the decision before posting.

[SidDithers]

6. I've been waiting to see if Greenwald would comment on the ACA ruling...

and this is what he writes about. Not the survival of ACA and the millions of people who will have now have access to health care, but the fact that Kagan, in a 7-2 decision, voted with the court's conservative justices.

Breyer and Stevens also voted with the conservatives, but it's Kagan's vote that Greenwald seizes on. Now, why would that be?

Oh yeah, it's because Kagan was an Obama appointment.

Greenwald. What a clown.

Sid

Edit: That should be Kennedy, not Stevens. And I've got a mental block on Kagan, and always incorrectly spell it with an "e".

[rhett o rick]

7. So you approve of Justice Kagen's vote? nm

[GarroHorus]

9. He's going after Kagan the way teabaggers go after Roberts

Douchewald is a dick.

[Oilwellian]

11. So was Sotomayor

And Greenwald LOVES her. LOL

The point of Greenwald's piece is millions more may NOT have access to health care BECAUSE of Kagan's vote. Haven't you heard some of the states throwing a tantrum and saying they won't participate in the Medicaid expansion part of the Bill? Rather than attacking the messenger, why aren't you upset that Kagan, who was appointed by President Obama, imperils a key piece of his ACA Bill?

[yardwork]

25. The point of his column is that Kagan sided with the right wing justices to remove Medicaid

protection from potentially millions of people. Many conservative states have already stated, in the wake of the ACA ruling, that they will be seizing the opportunity afforded by the Court in this decision to refuse to extend Medicaid coverage. While the Court approved ACA as a whole they dealt a serious blow to the most vulnerable population - the Medicaid eligible. The fact that Elena Kagan, a recent SC appointee who was opposed by many on the left for exactly this reason, voted with Scalia and Co. on this is news.

Breyer was appointed long ago. We weren't talking about him a couple of years ago. Stevens is no longer on the Court. Kagan replaced him. Kagan was the one who replaced the most liberal justice. Her appointment has indeed moved the Court to the right, just as Greenwald says. You may not agree with him on much else, but he is literally and factually correct on this.

And you spelled her name wrong.

[heaven05]

49. another

another hurtful Obama compromise. I wonder if he and his key advisers are kicking each other in the butt?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

40. Greenwald's own words shows he referred to both Kagan's and Breyer's votes on the Medicaid issue.

Kagan joined with the Court’s five right-wing Justices (as well as Stephen Breyer) to strike down one of the most important provisions of the bill — its Medicaid expansion program

[Vattel]

44. We get it, you want Greenwald to be a cheerleader, not a critic.

[sabrina 1]

103. Are you saying Americans should not have access to information that is of the utmost

importance to them because, well because why?

Greenwald is supporting the President. Most of us here in the US expected that his own nominee to the SC would also have supported him, especially on this most important part of the HC Bill.

Of course he pointed out her vote, as no one ever knows what Kennedy will do, often voting with the Right Wingers, so no surprise when he does.

But Kagan was an Obama nominee and most definitely her defection is newsworthy, as was the defection of Souter when it occurred.

What point are you trying to make here? Whatever it is, it is not at all clear. Are you opposing the Medicaid Expansion and supporting the Right Wing justices, or are you saying that journalists should keep quiet on certain issues for political purposes? If it's the latter, you might want to read the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. If it's the former, why on earth would you be supporting the possible denial of Medicaid to the poorest Americans, one of the best parts of the President's bill?

Iow, I have no clue what your point is, so could you please explain it?

To Progressive Democrats in this country, Kagan's vote was a huge disappointment, and no, we did not need Greenwald to tell us about it. In case you are not aware, that information is available to the public and was already known, and commented here in great detail, in RL and elsewhere.

Sorry, but our HC is a very, very important topic here in the US and NOT available to play political games with.

[kemah]

14. How would Greenwald feel if one of the liberal justices spouse received money for supporting ACA

Thomas wife, Gina, well you know the rest of the story.
Thomas hid his wife's income for several years and when caught, He said, "My Bad"

[brentspeak]

18. Obama appointed Kagan because she was a reliable corporate stooge

Good summation of this quintessential a$$-kisser's career:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-will-be-the-most-unqualified-justice-in-history/

Elena Kagan Will Be The Most Unqualified Justice In History

By: bmaz Monday May 10, 2010 7:24 am

snip

One of the most laughable memes floated by Kagan’s inner circle of friends and sycophants is that she is some sort of wondrous uniter who could single handedly suave Anthony Kennedy to her side like some kind of SCOTUS Svengali. First off, this is the biggest pile of bull manure I have ever experienced; not to mention Kennedy is not so young anymore and may not be around so long. Oh, also, there is less than zero evidence the wet behind the ears rookie on the Supreme bench ever does squat along the lines people are suggesting as far as “persuasion” they glibly think Kagan can pull off.

The narrative being pitched about Kagan is the most contrived I have ever heard on a Supreme Court nominee. She has little record of legal accomplishment in any area actually in the active legal profession (although she apparently is very good at schmoozing monied corporations and benefactors of the Ivy League elite). None. She had never even set foot into a courtroom on behalf of a client, much less as a judge on a case in controversy, prior to being named Solicitor General. Her resume of written work is about the equivalent of an aggressive law school student on the top of their school’s law review; maybe less.

Kagan’s record as Solicitor General is shaky, at best (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/15/kagan_as_solictor_general): she wrote a weak amicus brief in Mohawk Industries, was unfocused on her oral argument of Citizens United, stepped in deep manure during the oral argument in Holder v. HLP when she said the material support criminal charge should be applied to attorneys representing disadvantaged clients, and no less than the Supreme Court themselves, in an 8-1 decision in US v. Stevens, basically declared her briefing and argument in said case to be laughably ill conceived, wrongheaded and misguided. Kagan herself admits she is so inexperienced she is like a deer in headlights before the Supreme Court. This is the woman who is going to be the great liberal persuader? Please; what a patently absurd contention.

Elena Kagan would be the most unqualified nominee in the history of the Supreme Court; she makes Harriet Miers look like William O. Douglas. Don’t believe me? Take a look at Miers’ curriculum vitae and slate of authored works; then think about the emptiness of Kagan’s written work and nature of her service. Both are clearly accomplished women, but it is hard to see how Kagan is superior to Miers, and Miers was flamed universally across the political spectrum as being an absurd nominee. How can Elena Kagan now be seen as superior?

[stockholmer]

24. big thumbs up

[byeya]

27. You got that right. Kagan is another Democratic Whizzer White

and she'll be around forever.

[ProSense]

28. You know

"Elena Kagan Will Be The Most Unqualified Justice In History"

...this is absolute bullshit! Kagan has several excellent votes, including upholding the health care law.

I mean, Clarence Thomas is a seat warmer.

[former9thward]

79. She did not vote to uphold it. That is the point.

She voted to reject the provision in the law which penalized states for not expanding Medicaid. In fact some states are using the ruling to cut their medicaid programs. Maine is dropping 20,000 people off.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303684004577511103843368654.html?KEYWORDS=states+interpret+ruling+to+cut+medicaid+now

[ProSense]

90. No

"She did not vote to uphold it. That is the point."

...the point is exactly what I said it was.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002868210

[former9thward]

93. Only two Justices voted to uphold the entire law.

Ginsberg and Sotomayor. The expansion of Medicaid was one of the most important sections of the law. You can shout it was upheld but that does not make it true.

[ProSense]

94. So

"Only two Justices voted to uphold the entire law. Ginsberg and Sotomayor."

...the final, and key decision, was 2-7?

I mean, you can hang onto the Medicaid decision, but without Kagan's vote on the final decision, everything else would be moot.

The decision was 5-4. See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=913900

Period!

[former9thward]

97. You use the term "final decision" as if that overruled everything else.

There was no final decision. There were really only two sections of the law being contested. The mandate and the Medicaid expansion. The mandate, a gift to the insurance companies, was upheld 5-4. Expanding Medicaid, which was a step towards single payer, was rejected 7-2. As I linked in an earlier post some states, such as Maine, are using the decision to drop Medicaid recipients. So in those cases the number covered by insurance will be less after the decision than before. Some victory.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. Exactly. Thanks.

[nashville_brook]

70. thanks for posting this -- good reminder!

we're left hoping that in the course of her lifetime appointment she'll mature beyond corporate sycophancy.

[bornskeptic]

80. Th claim that Miers was more qualified than Kagan may be the stupidest thing I've ever seen here.

1. Elena Kagan was a Circuit Court clerk.
2. Elena Kagan was a Supreme Court clerk (for Thurgood Marshall).
3. Elena Kagan was a law professor at the University of Chicago.
4. Elena Kagan was a full Professor at Harvard Law School
5. Elena Kagan is the author of a number of acclaimed scholarly articles on Constitutional issues, and is one of the foremost authorities in the country on administrative law.
6. Elena Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law School.
7. Elena Kagan was Solicitor General of the United States.
She was not my first choice for the seat. I would have preferred Kathleen Sullivan or Pam Karlan, or perhaps Diane Wood. That does not change the fact that Kagan is one of the most qualified Supreme Court nominees in many years.

1. Harriet Miers was a tort lawyer and later head of a law firm which coughed up $20 million to settle a lawsuit in which it was accused of fraudulent activities..
2. Harriet Miers was the president's personal attorney.
When did those start being qualifications for the Supreme Court? The post above brags on her publications, but I wasn't aware that she had ever published anything. Where do we find these publications - The National Review?

[woo me with science]

102. The truth hurts, but until you acknowledge it, you cannot fix it.

We are looking at another four years of corporate enabling and construction of the corporate, authoritarian state even with the better of the two options we are given in 2012. This is why voting is not enough anymore. The Supreme Court is moving rightward EVEN under a Democratic administration.


Occupy. Pressure Democrats to move leftward. Get the corporate money out of politics. We are in serious, serious trouble in this nation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=889484

[xchrom]

26. Du rec. Nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. Meh, justices are supposed to rule on constitutionality

Justice Kagen, along with six other justices, believed it was unconstitutional to offer states a choice that wasn't really a choice at all.

We consistently lambaste conservative judges that rule based on ideology, and then lambaste a liberal judge when she doesn't? Am I the only one that sees that as hypocrisy?

[SidDithers]

30. No...

but to some around here, St. Glenn's pronouncements are words from on high.

Sid

[Marr]

33. And to some, they're to be dismissed out of hand with a shout of "DOUCEHWALD".

I see a lot more of the sort I describe than what you describe. It's intellectually lazy group think.

[GarroHorus]

34. I dismiss anything Douchewald writes out of hand

He's earned that level of scorn.

[Marr]

37. Yes, I know-- you make a wonderful argument.

"Douchewald". How could anyone argue with such reasoning?

Do you really think that pavlovian response is anything but embarrassing? You clearly didn't even read the piece.

[GarroHorus]

39. And I won't read the piece. Douchewald is no different from Limbaugh. He is an enemy. n/t

[Demit]

60. Which makes your posts, on whatever Greenwald is writing about, completely without merit.

And a waste of space. And intellectually lazy. And childish. This forum is better than that, with members who prefer reason-supported argument. There is a blog that encourages your kind of blinkered devotion and declaring of people who don't agree with you 'enemies'. You should go there.

[GarroHorus]

72. I'm sick of making arguments about Douchewald, Uygur, Hamsher, and other idiots on the left.

So the simplest thing to do is roll my eyes at what they write.

[inna]

87. lol, incredibly ignorant series of posts there, Garro

- but hey, thanks for being (mildly) entertaining!

[sabrina 1]

106. Which is why your own

contributions to this discussion will be mostly dismissed. How embarrassing to admit, that you would oppose facts simply because you don't like the author of the facts. I sure hope you are not in any way representative of the Dem Party. This seems to me to be a quality we criticized vehemently when displayed on the Far Right.

Greenwald is supporting the President's expansion of Medicaid, which was in fact a good part of the bill.

I have asked you already, do you oppose the President on the Expansion of Medicaid?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

50. Absolutely.

[treestar]

38. +1

People need to look at the reasons she gives in her decision, at least. Just because we like a thing doesn't mean it is constitutional, which goes for right wingers, too.

[Vattel]

46. I agree!!!!!

[girl gone mad]

82. And yet it's constitutional to offer people a choice that isn't really a choice at all?

The ruling was corporatist garbage.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

88. The ruling in question, Medicaid expansion, had nothing to do with corporations

You're free to dislike the ruling, but you should at least have a clue about what it is and isn't.

[inna]

98. Your condescension is misplaced and reflects poorly on you - just so you know, nt

[ProSense]

31. I find this

During the debate over Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination, those of us who opposed her selection argued that there was a substantial risk that she would join with the Court’s four right-wing Justices more often than her predecessor, John Paul Stevens, did, and more often than other potential nominees (such as Diane Wood) would, and thus have the effect of actually moving the Court to the right (using “left” and “right” here in its conventional sense). The argument was not that she would be a Scalia clone; it was that her deliberate lack of a public record on judicial philosophy, combined with the isolated glimpses into her worldview that were available, made this an unnecessarily risky choice to replace Stevens, who had become the leader of the “liberal” bloc.

...to be so ironic and a bit disingenuous. Or is it hypocritical? I mean, Greenwald supports Citizens United. He does not side with the Court's "liberal bloc."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

32. Did you know that the "right-wing" ACLU has the same position as Greenwald?

Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.

It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.

Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

Should we trash the ACLU as well?

[ProSense]

36. Yes, and

I completely disagree with the ACLU. I mean, it's non-partisan, and I sometimes don't agree with them.

Point?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

47. If you need an explanation, it is commonly understood that the ACLU is about as far left as any

organization that can be found. It is so far left that it will defend Constitutional principles even when doing so results in an incidental benefit to persons that those on the left can find to be repugnant. It defends Constitutional principles, not individuals. The organization does not trash others based upon whether they are unpopular or espouse views that others on the left may disagree with.

Greenwald's position on the Citizens United case is the same as the ACLU's. On this, his liberal position is as bona fide as the ACLU's.

But you disregard his analysis of Kagan, you trash him, and you do so while indicating that his position on the Citizens United case (which is totally irrelevant to his analysis of Kagan's actions re Medicaid) are not sufficient liberal for you.

[ProSense]

53. So

"It is so far left that it will defend Constitutional principles even when doing so results in an incidental benefit to persons that those on the left can find to be repugnant."

...are you saying that Greenwald and the ACLU are "so far left" in siding with the RW Justices on Citizens United?

Who knew?

Absurd!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

57. No. Try to be logical. My words speak for themselves. They mean exactly what they say.

Good thinking, clear thinking, does not involve the use of fallacies such as the ad hominem fallacy.

As an example:
If someone was trying to squelch your free speech rights in a serious way and based, for example of your repetitive use of an ad hominem fallacy, the ACLU might even defend your use of that fallacy or others. If the ACLU did so, they would be defending the principle of free speech. They would not be siding with an ad hominem fallacy.

If ad hominem fallacies work for you, go for it. Their usage will save you a lot of time. You won't have to spend as much time thinking based upon logic, evidence, and reasoning. And if your expression of vitriol makes you feel good, go for that as well.

You say, with a rhetorical question, "...are you saying that Greenwald and the ACLU are "so far left" in siding with the RW Justices on Citizens United?" The answer is obviously no. Greenwald and the ACLU did not side with the RW Justices.

[ProSense]

73. Nice

You say, with a rhetorical question, "...are you saying that Greenwald and the ACLU are "so far left" in siding with the RW Justices on Citizens United?" The answer is obviously no. Greenwald and the ACLU did not side with the RW Justices.

...try. They took the same position as the RW Justices, the very thing that Greenwald is now using to lambaste Kagan.

I mean, the most important vote she took on health care was upholding the law. Period.

[Overseas]

41. K&R. So sad Kagan felt it was "too punitive" to prioritize healthcare for the destitute.

I shared Greenwald's reservations about Kagan. Adding a threat of loss of benefits to the Medicaid funding was important in this current climate of having so many GOP storm troop governors in charge. Without it we can see that some of them are saying they will refuse the Medicaid funding.

We can only hope that the voters in those right wingers' states will cast them out of office for putting politics above caring for the poor.

I do wish President Obama had put a stronger liberal than Kagan onto the court to balance out the very activist right wingers his predecessors appointed.

[ProSense]

42. "UPDATE: Elizabeth Warren, asked about the Medicaid ruling last week...

UPDATE: Elizabeth Warren, asked about the Medicaid ruling last week, said “she found it ‘pretty shocking’ that seven justices would create a “new limitation on congressional power to condition spending” and ”roll[ed] her eyes when it is mentioned that her former colleague Elena Kagan was one of those seven.” Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick asserts that “liberals have been strangely silent” about Kagan’s vote because liberals generally expect more betrayals from Supreme Court Justices than conservatives do and have a less clear idea of what to expect from Justices, but she argues that liberals are perhaps too indifferent to Court appointees (“instead of smugly chuckling at the ways conservatives have turned on their chief justice this week, liberals might also want to take a page from their playbook. The courts matter. How we talk about the courts matters. And who is on the courts matters as well”).

From the OP article, that's some hilarious stuff.

[DirkGently]

43. KNR

[Poll_Blind]

45. Blast from the past: Kagan on Scalia: ""He's made a huntress out of me!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002518685

Did she ever get a chance to bag that antelope? I must say, the thought of she and Scalia with one foot each on a twitching beast, covered in blood, would make a perfect poster for the kind of "bipartisanship" we have nowdays.

"To the right, Left!"



PB

[ProSense]

51. Do you

think that Greenwald will attack her if she votes against Citizen United at some point?

All we need is one more justice for the "liberal bloc."

[SunsetDreams]

58. I don't know it kind of seems kind of disingenuous

and like one has an agenda to ONLY go after Kagan. What about Breyer?
There are two differences between Breyer and Kagan.
Breyer was appointed by Clinton and Kagan by Obama.
BOTH Breyer and Kagan held that Medicaid expansion be limited.

I'm not sure what the agenda is, but if you were really unhappy about that ruling and you were on the liberal side of the isle, you would go after BOTH liberal justices NOT JUST ONE.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

59. Greenwald's own words referred to both:

Kagan joined with the Court’s five right-wing Justices (as well as Stephen Breyer) to strike down one of the most important provisions of the bill — its Medicaid expansion program

[SunsetDreams]

61. He only acknowledged the vote

He didn't go after him.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

64. His words refer to both.

[SunsetDreams]

65. Not at all

The title of the article is

Kagan’s Medicaid vote

He does NOT go after Breyer, he mentioned his name only as an acknowledgement on the vote. The entire article is going after Kagan.
I still stand by what I said, it is disingenuous and seems like Greenwald has an agenda.

His words do NOT refer to both.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

69. If you are unhappy with the Greenwald's headline, and if you truly want to know why

Greenwald "went after Kagan" but not Breyer (and if you disregard the fact that Greenwald actually referred to Breyer in his analysis), you might want to consider both (1) Greenwald's headline and (2) Greenwald's subhead for the analysis:
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/07/kagans_medicaid_vote/

Can you claim that Breyer has sided with the right-wing faction of the Supreme Court as often as Kagan? If so, then maybe there is an argument that both should be criticized for doing so.

If not, then maybe there is a logical reason for distinguishing the two and placing some emphasis on Kagan's actions.

Greenwald's subhead clearly indicates:

The Obama Court appointee once again sides with the right-wing faction in an important ruling

You want Greenwald to criticize Kagan and Breyer equally? How about showing that Breyer and Kagan equally joined in supporting the right-wing faction of the Supreme Court?

[ProSense]

75. Maybe you

Can you claim that Breyer has sided with the right-wing faction of the Supreme Court as often as Kagan? If so, then maybe there is an argument that both should be criticized for doing so.

...should actually read what Greenwald wrote, as convoluted as it is.

This is more than an isolated instance. In Kagan’s short time on the Court, it’s beginning to look like a trend. She’s issued some impressive (dissenting) opinions and has, more often than not, been a reliable vote with the “liberal” wing of the Court (neither of which is at all surprising). But her propensity to join with the Scalia-led bloc in criminal justice cases, along with this latest ruling, seems a harbinger of things to come. That’s particularly true since one of the areas of greatest concern raised by her appointment — her views on broad theories of executive power in the national security and Terrorism context — has yet to be tested because she has recused herself from the bulk of cases in that area due to her advocacy for Obama’s expansive theories when she served as his Solicitor General (recusals which resulted in several right-wing, pro-government rulings being upheld).

His focus on Kagan and not Breyer smacks of an agenda, and there it is. He's a tool, pure and simple. He's using the Medicaid vote, which he likely cares nothing about, as cover for his attacks on Obama's national security policy.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

76. Did you read the words from your own posting? Did you understand them?

But her propensity to join with the Scalia-led bloc in criminal justice cases, along with this latest ruling, seems a harbinger of things to come.

[ProSense]

78. Did you

"Did you read the words from your own posting? Did you understand them?"

...see any examples or a bullshit segue after the "but"?

[SunsetDreams]

77. Ok

I refer, of course, to Justice Elena Kagan.

Kagan voted for portions of Chief Justice John Roberts’s controlling opinion declaring unconstitutional a major provision in President Barack Obama’s health care law, namely the Medicaid expansion.

While Roberts has been denounced by conservatives as an ideological heretic and turncoat for siding with liberals to uphold the individual mandate in the law, Kagan’s conclusion that the law’s Medicaid expansion was unconstitutionally coercive toward the states has triggered no similar wave of condemnation of her by liberals.

The absence of public outrage toward Kagan is particularly notable since she wasn’t parting company just with her liberal ideological counterparts, but with the president who appointed her to the court and with the administration she served as Solicitor General immediately prior to taking the bench.

Again he doesn't go after Breyer.

He admits, however

Re: Kagan

She’s issued some impressive (dissenting) opinions and has, more often than not, been a reliable vote with the “liberal” wing of the Court (neither of which is at all surprising).

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/07/kagans_medicaid_vote/

I acknowledge your opinion, I just don't happen to agree with it. Time will tell if he goes after Breyer as well. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one

[Demit]

66. I think his point was that Kagan was a blank slate when she came in, & now we are seeing how

conservative she is turning out to be. He says it's not completely clear yet, but he does give his reasons for why, so far, it's working out the way he was afraid of. This essay of his was about Kagan. Perhaps next he'll write a piece examining Breyer's vote on this decision. Breyer has a long record of voting reliably liberal, and maybe Greenwald will muse on why exactly he voted with the conservatives this time. But this piece was about a new justice, who has no record of decisions, and that is the piece he was interested in writing.

It never ceases to amuse me when writers are criticized for writing what they wanted to write about, and not writing a piece instead that a reader thinks they should have written.

[SunsetDreams]

67. IF he does write about Breyer

that will help rectify the image of the way it looks now.

It's just odd that Greenwald represents himself to be on the liberal side and would only go after one Liberal Justice for siding with the right.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

71. It's not odd at all when Breyer has not equally supported the right-wing faction in the way that

Kagan has.

If you believe that Breyer and Kagan have equally supported the right-wing faction, can you show where Breyer has done so?

[ProSense]

74. What utter nonsense. n/t

[girl gone mad]

83. Don't you mean utter drivel?

[bvar22]

89. I must be a bad person...

... because I'm having fun watching the contortionists bend themselves into pretzels trying to defend the indefensible in this thread.

Kagan's decision was not unexpected to those who did their homework on her appointment.
Many were attacked here for pointing out that replacing an unashamed Liberal (John Paul Stevens) with a "Moderate"
moved the overall makeup of the Supreme Court to the Conservative Right.

[Chan790]

95. That's a two-fer shock.

1.) I've never agreed with Glenn Greenwald on anything before. In fact, I've argued that his Salon column should be unwelcome on DU.

2.) That's the most non-libertarian thing I've ever heard from the anti-war libertarian Greenwald.

3.) I'm not shocked that Kagan is Kagan, I opposed her appointment when she was nominated. I think we should be nominating the "great legal scholars" of our era with histories on the important issues of contemplation and wisdom: someone like Nadine Strossen or Larry Lessig. (I'll be irate if Ginsberg dies or retires and he replaces her with someone like his first two nominees. Go big, Barack!) No more moderates who favor corporations and whose key accomplishments are administrative or political; I don't think judicial experience is as important as a great legal mind.