The alleged political benefits of moderation

[Jefferson23]

Friday, Aug 6, 2010 07:07 ET

By Glenn Greenwald


My advocacy against the choice of Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens largely ceased once she was selected because, as I always acknowledged, her confirmation would be virtually inevitable if she were chosen. So uninspiring was Kagan's nomination that one should be forgiven for not having noticed that the Senate yesterday confirmed her appointment to the Supreme Court. It was actually painful watching progressive Democratic Party judicial advocacy groups trying dutifully to pretend with their Press Releases yesterday that there was something significant or exciting to celebrate. In any event, I'd like to make two points about this episode.

First, this new Washington Post article analyzes the likely impact of Kagan and bears this headline on the Post's main webpage: "Court ideology unlikely to shift." The article itself similarly predicts that "her confirmation is considered unlikely to immediately shift the court's ideology." But then this sentence appears:


Although she is expected to fit comfortably within the liberal wing of the court, she does not seem to be as liberal as Stevens was during his final years on the bench.


Doesn't that negate, or at least strongly undermine, the article's principal claim that she will likely have no ideological effect on the Court? If it's true that she'll be less "liberal" than Stevens -- which was a leading objection for the start for those who urged Obama not to select her -- then doesn't that mean, by definition, that she will move the Court to the Right? Unless we're still indulging this fantasy that Kagan -- through the sheer force of her personality and supernatural skills of conciliation -- will ascend into the Court and begin magically hypnotizing Justice Kennedy and the other conservative justices to change their views in a way that Justice Stevens could not (despite his being renown for having a close relationship with Justice Kennedy), doesn't this acknowledgment by the Post mean that the most likely impact of Kagan's confirmation is a right-wing shift? The way to assess a new Justice's impact is by evaluating where they fall on the spectrum not in absolute terms, but in comparison to the Justice they are replacing.


in full: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/06/kagan/index.html

[T Wolf]

1. The only "benefit" to political moderation is to the regrewssives who fight progress at

every turn.

Moderation slows (or stops) all progress.

[Demeter]

2. The Supremes are Anything But "Moderate"

Hope she has the guts to take on Scalia and Roberts.

[pansypoo53219]

3. this is why obama is smarter than glenn.

for now, we will always have 5 republikkklan leaning justices. kennedy. he's the semi-mushy middle. this is for the 5th vote. sotomayor was the 1st attempt. this is for the win. the 5-4 win.

[damntexdem]

4. Hey, let's face it: in today's politics, 'moderation' would be a major move to the left.

;-)

[Jefferson23]

5. lol, you may be right about that. n/t