White House complains about CBS News blog post saying that possible Supreme Court nominee is gay

"The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505658.html?hpid=topnews

And then not pick one after the RW goes nuts...and shows how fucking violently nuts they are.

and that also believes the President can hold anyone indefinitely without habeas corpus rights.

I don't care whether or not Kagan is gay or not, it is her ideology that is the issue at hand.

Kagan was a law clerk for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court.

and

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1600235

and

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Elena_Kagan

Published on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 by Salon.com

The Case Against Elena Kagan

by Glenn Greenwald

It is far from clear who Obama will chose to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, but Elena Kagan, his current Solicitor General and former Dean of Harvard Law School, is on every list of the most likely replacements. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog has declared her "the prohibitive front-runner" and predicts: "On October 4, 2010, Elena Kagan Will Ask Her First Question As A Supreme Court Justice." The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin made the same prediction.

The prospect that Stevens will be replaced by Elena Kagan has led to the growing perception that Barack Obama will actually take a Supreme Court dominated by Justices Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (Bush 41), Roberts (Bush 43), Alito (Bush 43) and Kennedy (Reagan) and move it further to the Right. Joe Lieberman went on Fox News this weekend to celebrate the prospect that "President Obama may nominate someone in fact who makes the Court slightly less liberal," while The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus predicted: "The court that convenes on the first Monday in October is apt to be more conservative than the one we have now." Last Friday, I made the same argument: that replacing Stevens with Kagan risks moving the Court to the Right, perhaps substantially to the Right (by "the Right," I mean: closer to the Bush/Cheney vision of Government and the Thomas/Scalia approach to executive power and law).

<snip>

Beyond the disturbing risks posed by Kagan's strange silence on most key legal questions, there are serious red flags raised by what little there is to examine in her record. I've written twice before about that record -- here (last paragraph) and here -- and won't repeat those points. Among the most disturbing aspects is her testimony during her Solicitor General confirmation hearing, where she agreed wholeheartedly with Lindsey Graham about the rightness of the core Bush/Cheney Terrorism template: namely, that the entire world is a "battlefield," that "war" is the proper legal framework for analyzing all matters relating to Terrorism, and the Government can therefore indefinitely detain anyone captured on that "battlefield" (i.e., anywhere in the world without geographical limits) who is accused (but not proven) to be an "enemy combatant."

Those views, along with her steadfast work as Solicitor General defending the Bush/Cheney approach to executive power, have caused even the farthest Right elements -- from Bill Kristol to former Bush OLC lawyer Ed Whelan -- to praise her rather lavishly. Contrast all of that with Justice Stevens' unbroken record of opposing Bush's sweeping claims of executive power every chance he got, at times even more vigorously than the rest of the Court's "liberal wing," and the risks of a Kagan nomination are self-evident.

The only other real glimpse into Kagan's judicial philosophy and views of executive power came in a June, 2001 Harvard Law Review article (.pdf), in which she defended Bill Clinton's then-unprecedented attempt to control administrative agencies by expanding a variety of tools of presidential power that were originally created by the Reagan administration (some of which Kagan helped build while working in the Clinton White House), all as a means of overcoming a GOP-controlled Congress. This view that it is the President rather than Congress with primary control over administrative agencies became known, before it was distorted by the Bush era, as the theory of the "unitary executive." I don't want to over-simplify this issue or draw too much importance from it; what Kagan was defending back then was many universes away from what Bush/Cheney ended up doing, and her defense of Clinton's theories of administrative power was nuanced, complex and explicitly cognizant of the Constitutional questions they might raise.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/13-0

It was precisely that concept, advanced by the likes of Dick Cheney and John Yoo, that brought us to the brink of tyranny. If we are to restore the Constitution and the federal republic, we must do a one-eighty from all the policies of the Bush/Cheney regime. Having a Democratic Administration embrace, and even expand on those policies, does not make our current situation more palatable.

Oh wait!!! My bad. I hope I didn't let the cat out of the bag for him.

Had he been spent the last 1.5 years being the fierce advocate for the LGBT community that he claimed he was, it would have taken much of the gunpowder out of situations just like this.

she really is.