Tag Archives: Elena Kagan

February 28, 2013 · 1:13 PM

Sotomayor Leads Liberal Justices In Defending The Voting Rights Act

Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor is acknowledged by President Barack Obama at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 34th Annual Awards Gala at the Washington Convention Center, Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2011 in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor is acknowledged by President Barack Obama at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 34th Annual Awards Gala at the Washington Convention Center, Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2011 in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

TPMDC

Seemingly aware that they were outnumbered and fighting an uphill battle, the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court defended the Voting Rights Act during Supreme Court oral arguments Wednesday with a mix of sharp questions, appeals to history, and indirect rejoinders to the more conservative justices.

All four of them participated actively in oral arguments. None was more emphatic than Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The Obama-appointed justice asked the first question of the day. She hammered Burt Rein, the lawyer representing the challengers, Shelby County of Alabama, over its record of discrimination. The county contends that Section 5 is unfair to its residents and other jurisdictions that it requires to obtain federal pre-clearance before changing their voting laws.

“Assuming I accept your premise, and there’s some question about that, that some portions of the South have changed, your county pretty much hasn’t,” Sotomayor said of Shelby County, which is 90 percent white. “In the period we’re talking about, it has many more discriminating -­- 240 discriminatory voting laws that were blocked by Section 5 objections. … You may be the wrong party bringing this.”

“Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?” she asked, wondering why the Court should invalidate Section 5 if, as she argued, any formula would cover Shelby County. “Discrimination is discrimination.”

While Section 5 was taking a beating at the hands of the conservative justices, the four liberal-leaning justices targeted various audiences. Sometimes they played to each other, sometimes to the conservative justices they hoped to sway, sometimes to the future Court, sometimes to the public audience.

Justice Stephen Breyer several times tried to needle the lawyers defending the Voting Rights Act into addressing conservatives’ concerns. Other times, he did so himself.

“The disease is still there in the state,” he said. “Of course this is aimed at states. What do you think the Civil War was about? Of course it was aimed at treating some states differently than others.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the liberty of knocking down what she viewed as a straw man argument by attorney Rein.

“Mr. Rein, you keep emphasizing over and over again in your brief registration and you said it a couple of times this morning,” she said. “Congress was well aware that registration was no longer the problem. This legislative record is replete with what they call second generation devices. Congress said up front: We know that the registration is fine. That is no longer the problem. But the discrimination continues in other forms.”

Justice Elena Kagan twice said the Section 5 coverage formula has been working “pretty well” when it comes to snuffing out voter discrimination where it’s most likely to emanate. When Rein argued that it’s the courts, not Congress, who should determine whether the coverage formula is legitimate, she sounded shocked.

“That’s a big new power you’re giving us,” Kagan said, “that we have the power to determine when racial discrimination has ended. I did not think we had that power.”

In the final moments of the argument, Sotomayor, apparently taken aback by Justice Antonin Scalia’s statement that Section 5 is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement,” put the question to Shelby County’s lawyer.

“Do you think that the right to vote is a racial entitlement in Section 5?” she asked Rein. When he dodged, she asked him again: “I asked a different question. Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?” He dodged again.

Related articles

 

4 Comments

Filed under Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court Of The United States

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 11, 2013 · 10:06 AM

On President Obama’s “Diversity Problem…”

Does Obama have a diversity problem?

Does Obama have a diversity problem?

Recently, much has been written  about President Obama’s “lack of gender diversity” within his cabinet.

I disagree with those who think that the president is not sincere in his effort to bring women to the forefront in major cabinet positions and judicial appointments.  Have we forgotten his two Supreme Court nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Solicitor General Elena Kagan who were successfully appointed in the president’s first term.

One would be hard-pressed to find a contradiction in the premise that President Obama has made a concerted effort to include women in all facets of his appointments.

The Huffington Post notes:

Though the optics of the gender equality issue are awkward for the president, CNN notes that Obama’s overall record of diversity isn’t as weak as it appears in the latest round of nominations.

Roughly 36% of Obama’s Cabinet are women compared to 19% for Bush in his first term, according to the Women and Politics Center at Rutgers.While Obama’s record on diversity is also better than the much-discussed 20% female representation in the Senate, he would have to appoint more women to match Bill Clinton’s record. Women represented 41% of his Cabinet in his second term.

The White House itself employs almost even amounts of men and women.

While Obama is now under pressure to find women — perhaps “binders full” of them– to fill the next wave of open positions, the administration is defending itself against mounting criticism.

“This president is committed to diversity,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Wednesday. “Look at the record. It is a vast improvement” from previous administrations.

Carney continued, saying that it “would be useful to wait and make judgments about this issue after the president has made the totality of appointments that he will make in the transition to a second term.”

Salon touts an article that claims the Obama White House is:

…Still White and Overwhelmingly Male.

The stale sameness of the president’s second-term Cabinet picks belies the administration’s rhetoric on diversity

President Obama has demonstrated his bona fides about his choices of cabinet members and White House staff.  I see the entire brouhaha as a concerted effort by right-wing operatives to divert their very real issues to diversify with regard to LGBT, women and minorities.

The president’s “diversity problem” is non-existent.  It is merely a well-played out diversionary tactic by the GOP to disseminate  half-truths, lies, innuendos and draw attention away from their own misogynistic tendencies.

The real “diversity problem” lies within the GOP, not the president’s White House.

Sheila Bryant (aka Kstreet607)

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Obama White House, U.S. Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

February 22, 2012 · 12:01 AM

Law professor: Supreme Court could send affirmative action to the ashbin

I know that Justice Elena Kagan is recusing herself on the upcoming affirmative action case because she worked with the Department of Justice on the previous case before the court, some ten years ago.

Am I concerned with the political makeup of this court?  Oh yes!

The Raw Story

On Countdown with Keith Olbermann, he noted that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who very often determines contentious cases, had previously voted against affirmative action.

“There’s no question that they have the presumed five votes that could send [Grutter v. Bollinger] into the ashbin of history,” Turley said. “With it could go affirmative action — at least the consideration of race.”

The case is being brought to the highest court after the 5th Court of Appeals upheld the university’s decision based on the 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter vs. Bollinger, in which racial considerations in admissions at the University of Michigan were ruled legal by the court.

The original lawsuit was filed by Abigail Fisher and another woman in 2008, who felt the University of Texas’ admissions policy violated their civil and constitutional rights. Fisher, now a senior at Louisiana State University, has continued with the lawsuit while the other woman has dropped out.

Justice Elena Kagan is recusing herself from the case after serving as the Justice Department’s solicitor general while the department participated in the Texas case.

Watch video, courtesy of Current TV here…

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

November 15, 2011 · 1:26 AM

Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided to hear a challenge to the POTUS’ Health Care Law.  Having said that, what the hell are Justices Scalia and Thomas doing dining with the probable attorney who will argue the case against the Health Care law?

They don’t seem to care about the appearance of impropriety anymore.  When did we fall down the rabbit hole?   Was it after Bush v Gore or was it after Citizens United?

The Los Angeles Times

The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.

The occasion was last Thursday, when all nine justices met for a conference to pore over the petitions for review. One of the cases at issue was a suit brought by 26 states challenging the sweeping healthcare overhaul passed by Congress last year, a law that has been a rallying cry for conservative activists nationwide.

The justices agreed to hear the suit; indeed, a landmark 5 1/2-hour argument is expected in March, and the outcome is likely to further roil the 2012 presidential race, which will be in full swing by the time the court’s decision is released.

The lawyer who will stand before the court and argue that the law should be thrown out is likely to be Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration.

Clement’s law firm, Bancroft PLLC, was one of almost two dozen firms that helped sponsor the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, a longstanding group dedicated to advocating conservative legal principles. Another firm that sponsored the dinner, Jones Day, represents one of the trade associations that challenged the law, the National Federation of Independent Business.

Another sponsor was pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc, which has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. The dinner was held at a Washington hotel hours after the court’s conference over the case. In attendance was, among others, Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s top Republican and an avowed opponent of the healthcare law.

The featured guests at the dinner? Scalia and Thomas.

It’s nothing new: The two justices have been attending Federalist Society events for years. And it’s nothing that runs afoul of ethics rules. In fact, justices are exempt from the Code of Conduct that governs the actions of lower federal justices.

If they were, they arguably fell under code’s Canon 4C, which states, “A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event.“

Nevertheless, the sheer proximity of Scalia and Thomas to two of the law firms in the case, as well as to a company with a massive financial interest, was enough to alarm ethics-in-government activists.

“This stunning breach of ethics and indifference to the code belies claims by several justices that the court abides by the same rules that apply to all other federal judges,” said Bob Edgar, the president of Common Cause. “The justices were wining and dining at a black-tie fundraiser with attorneys who have pending cases before the court. Their appearance and assistance in fundraising for this event undercuts any claims of impartiality, and is unacceptable.”

Scalia and Thomas have shown little regard for critics who say they too readily mix the business of the court with agenda-driven groups such as the Federalist Society. And Thomas’ wife, Ginni, is a high-profile conservative activist.

Moreover, conservatives argue that it’s Justice Elena Kagan who has an ethical issue, not Scalia and Thomas. Kagan served as solicitor general in the Obama administration when the first legal challenges to the law were brought at the trial court level. Her critics have pushed for Kagan to recuse herself from hearing the case, saying that she was too invested in defending the law then to be impartial now. Kagan has given no indication she will do so.

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Of The United States

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 25, 2011 · 8:52 PM

State Of The Union Address 2011: Supreme Court Justices Won’t All Attend

 

 NOTE:  This article was to have been posted hours ago.  I was having some connectivity issues with my computer.  I apologize for the delay.

Never, in my lifetime have I seen such disrespect for a sitting president…

Huffington Post

Chief Justice John Roberts will lead a contingent of six Supreme Court justices at President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech, quieting speculation that only Democratic appointees to the court would attend.

Roberts had objected to the partisan atmosphere at last year’s address, particularly after Obama offered rare criticism of the court during his speech.

Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg confirmed that six justices would be present at Tuesday’s speech, although she would not say which ones. But as three of the nine justices had previously all but ruled themselves out, it seemed a safe assumption that Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy would join their four colleagues who were appointed by Democratic presidents.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor also are expected to attend. For Kagan, it would be her first speech since Obama nominated her last year. Sotomayor was Obama’s first high court pick.

Justice Samuel Alito, who mouthed the words “not true” in response to Obama’s criticism, is spending this week as “jurist in residence” at the University of Hawaii law school. Justice Antonin Scalia, at the Capitol Monday to speak to the Tea Party Caucus, has not attended a State of the Union speech at least since the mid-1990s. Justice Clarence Thomas said last year that he doesn’t go because “it has become so partisan,” although he attended Obama’s first speech to Congress in February 2009.   More…

Related Articles

Comments Off

Filed under State Of The Union, State of the Union Address

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

August 5, 2010 · 4:12 PM

The Supreme Court will now have three women justices.

Elena Kagan is now the third woman on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Think Progress

The Senate just confirmed Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court justice in a vote of 63-37. She will be the 112th justice and the fourth woman in history to serve on the court. The AP reports:

Five Republicans joined all but one Democrat and the Senate’s two independents to support Kagan. In a rarely practiced ritual reserved for the most historic votes, senators sat at their desks and stood to cast their votes with “ayes” and “nays.”

Comments Off

Filed under Elena Kagan, Elena Kagan Confirmation Hearings

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

July 31, 2010 · 12:40 AM

Ben Nelson Becomes 1st Dem Senator To Oppose Elena Kagan

Ok, it’s time Sen. Ben Nelson shed his Democrat in name only sheepskin and show the real snake underneath the sheep’s clothing.

Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson says he’ll vote against confirming Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice.

The Nebraskan’s announcement in a statement posted Friday evening makes him the first Democrat to say he’ll break with his party to oppose President Barack Obama’s nominee.

Nelson says he’s heard concerns from his constituents about Kagan, the 50-year-old solicitor general and former Harvard Law School dean. And he says her lack of judicial record makes it impossible to know whether their worries are unfounded.

The Senate is expected to vote next week on Kagan’s nomination, and Democrats have more than enough votes to confirm her. Five Republicans have said they’ll also vote “yes.”

Comments Off

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

July 12, 2010 · 2:21 PM

Obama has a higher rate of appointing women and minorities to the courts than any of his predecessors.

Think Progress

Yesterday, the Philadelphia Inquirer highlighted Republicans’ successful efforts to obstruct President Obama from appointing judges to the federal courts. Despite these efforts, the Inquirer notes, Obama has had a higher “rate of appointing women and people of color…than those of any of his precessors during their first year of their terms”:

So far, nearly half of Obama’s 73 appointments to the federal bench have been women, 25 percent have been African American, 11 percent Asian American, and 10 percent Hispanic. About 30 percent of Obama’s nominees were white males. By contrast, two-thirds of George W. Bush’s nominees were white males.

Obama’s rate of appointing women and people of color is higher than those of any of his predecessors during the first year of their terms.

Unfortunately, Republicans have shown a historically high level of obstruction in blocking Obama’s appointees. While Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan had 91 percent of their judicial appointees confirmed in their first year of office, Obama only had 36 percent of them approved by the U.S. Senate.

Comments Off

Filed under President Obama, SCOTUS, SCOTUS Nominees

Tagged as , , , ,

July 1, 2010 · 10:27 PM

Flashback – 24 Hours ago: GOP charges Liberal judicial activism – Sen. Franken demonstrates Thurgood Marshall’s brilliance

I am not sure how I missed posting this brilliant analysis from Senator Al Franken, regarding judicial activism in the current court, as well as demonstrating what a brilliant justice, Thurgood Marshall had been.  This video was taken at the Elena Kagan Confirmation Hearing yesterday.  Magnificent!

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Elena Kagan, Elena Kagan Confirmation Hearings, Judicial Activism, Justice Thurgood Marshall, Sen. Al Franken, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

· 5:01 AM

Politics Daily’s Patricia Murphy pwns Sean Hannity, blows up his right-wing talking points

 

 

Crooks & Liars 

Yesterday’s media heroine has to be Patricia Murphy of Politics Daily, who yesterday on Fox managed to make Sean Hannity look like buffoon and a tool. Of course, Hannity does this to himself every day, but Murphy gave it a little extra edge. 

First, she flatly knocked down Hannity’s little right-wing talking point about Elena Kagan purportedly “kicked the military off campus” at Harvard (she of course did did no such thing). 

But the most delicious moment was this one: 

Murphy: Let’s be really, really honest here. There are members of the Tea Party — it’s a tiny, tiny minority — members of the Tea Party, and I’ve seen them, who compare President Obama to Hitler. I’ve been there and seen it, I’ve been on this show – 

Hannity: I’ve not seen it. 

Murphy: He’s been compared to the Khmer Rouge, and to Nazism, while I’ve been here, this is just common cultural – 

Hannity: Whom compared him to that? 

Murphy: Tucker Carlson! When I was sitting right here, on this show! 

Hannity: [red-faced] Did you disagree with him? 

Murphy: I did disagree with him. 

Of course, if you go back and look at that clip now, it’s worth noting that Hannity did not.

Comments Off

Filed under Elena Kagan, Elena Kagan Confirmation Hearings, Fox News, Obama v GOP, Right Wing Extremism, Right Wing Myths and Falsehoods, Tea Partiers, Tea Party, Teabaggers, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,