Kagan: "I love the Federalist Society"

Kagan in Context: Shafting Progressive Values

"It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills," President Obama said in support of offshore oil drilling, less than three weeks before the April 20 blowout in the Gulf. "They are technologically very advanced."

On numerous policy fronts, such conformity to a centrist baseline has smothered hopes for moving this country in a progressive direction. Now, the president has taken a step that jeopardizes civil liberties and other basic constitutional principles.

"During the course of her Senate confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan explicitly endorsed the Bush administration's bogus category of ‘enemy combatant,' whose implementation has been a war crime in its own right," University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle noted last month. "Now, in her current job as U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan is quarterbacking the continuation of the Bush administration's illegal and unconstitutional positions in U.S. federal court litigation around the country, including in the U.S. Supreme Court."

Boyle added: "Kagan has said ‘I love the Federalist Society.' This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society."

The departing Justice Stevens was a defender of civil liberties. Unless the Senate refuses to approve Kagan for the Supreme Court, the nation's top court is very likely to become more hostile to civil liberties and less inclined to put limits on presidential power.

snip

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/10-0


**************************************************


The Federalist Society.....

.................Not yet 20 years old, the Federalist Society exerts a powerful influence. Despite its protestations that it is little more than a debating society, media from across the political spectrum agree that the organization carries tremendous clout. The Washington Times' Insight magazine identified the group as the "single most influential organization in the conservative legal world." <6> An article in Washington Monthly identified the Society as "quite simply the best-organized, best-funded, and most effective legal network operating in this country. . . . There is nothing like the Federalist Society on the left." <7>

The Society's status is reflected in the list of people who are members of, or otherwise affiliated with it. This list includes: Attorney General John Ashcroft; Department of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham; Department of the Interior Secretary Gail Norton; Senator Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee; Solicitor General Theodore Olson; former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr; and former Christian Coalition President Donald Hodel, who also served as secretary of the Energy and Interior departments under President Reagan (see Appendices for a more extensive list). <8>

There is nothing illegal or unethical about an administration being so heavily staffed and influenced by individuals who are affiliated with a single organization. However, the American people deserve to be fully informed about any organization that has assumed such a central role in shaping policies and determining appointees for the Bush administration. Contrary to the charges of Federalist Society members, there is nothing inappropriate or McCarthyite about such an effort to inform the public. Indeed, if the organization in question were People For the American Way, it's a safe bet that Federalist Society members themselves would be vigorously arguing that Americans should closely examine the values and goals that guide the organization.

To better inform the public debate, this report explores the Federalist Society and its members and allies -- examining their legal and policy objectives, their prevailing philosophy, as well as the kind of impact they could have through their influence within and outside the Bush administration on the law, the courts, the Constitution and ordinary citizens.




Right-Wingers of a Feather

Founded in 1982 by students at the Yale and University of Chicago law schools, the Federalist Society was initially nurtured by law professors such as Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia. <9> The Society served as a meeting ground for those who felt out of step with the perceived liberal bent of their schools' curriculum. To this day, the Society continues to attract lawyers, scholars and elected officials whose opinions closely parallel the right-wing views of Bork, Scalia, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The Federalist Society is governed by a board of directors co-chaired by Steven Calabresi and David McIntosh, both of whom have strong ultra-conservative credentials. As a Yale law student, Calabresi founded one of the first Society chapters. Upon graduation, he went on to clerk for both Robert Bork at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He also served as a special assistant to Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese III and as a speechwriter for Vice President Dan Quayle.

snip

In addition to sponsoring a conference this year called "Rolling Back the New Deal," the Society itself has endorsed the view that Supreme Court decisions upholding congressional authority to enact New Deal legislation were harmful. In its online "Introduction to American Law" and reading list, the Society recommends several articles that make this point. <88> According to the Society, one article "describes the damage done to the Constitution's protection of economic liberties by the Court's approval of New Deal regulatory statutes." <89>

Prominent Federalist Society members have been at the leading edge of efforts to utilize such legal theories to limit civil rights and other protections. As a defense attorney in a Virginia rape case, Michael Rosman -- a leading figure in the Society -- used this right-wing view of states' rights to argue before the Supreme Court against the constitutionality of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. <90> Rosman's case was bolstered by a friend of the court brief filed by prominent Federalist Society member Jeffrey Sutton, an officer in the Society's separation of powers and federalism practice group. The result was a narrow 5-4 decision by the Court striking down key provisions of the Act. Sutton had earlier argued another Supreme Court case that struck down a congressional law designed to protect religious liberty, and praised the ruling in a Federalist Society article because it "strikes a welcome blow for States' rights." <91>

snip

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/feddieSoc.html




eta: no time to find the ny times' magazine section article from a few yrs ago.....the Federalist society wants to eliminate minimum wage laws, OSHA protections, etc................

But I bet that's not what you were sighing about.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Obama secretly wanted to vote for Roberts and Alito so now he's sending help.

Kagan then went on to explain why she loved the Federalist Society — chiefly, its contributions to the intellectual lives of American law schools and its commitment to open debate. She talked about what liberals had learned from the Federalist Society and about the liberal American Constitution Society trying to copy its methods and success.

no context excuses it, or attenuates it

But you keep pushing this bullshit line.

If the context didn't count, it wouldn't have been omitted from the original post.

in which it was said, because what you posted doesn't make it sound any better.

If you google Kagan, federalist society

http://volokh.com/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-i-love-the-federalist-society-i-love-the-federalist-society/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+volokh/mainfeed+(The+Volokh+Conspiracy)

"Fried leaves out enough of the story that it becomes incomprehensible. Why would the Federalists cheer someone seemingly insulting them by saying, ““You are not my people”? What Fried forgot (or chose to omit) were Kagan’s two lines immediately before her disclaimer.

On the night of Fried’s story, in a very large banquet room I was sitting next to Frank Easterbrook, perhaps 15 or 20 feet from Elena Kagan. She began her welcome by booming out:

“I LOVE the Federalist Society!”

Kagan paused for emphasis and then repeated,

“I LOVE the Federalist Society!”

As I recall, after applause Kagan’s next line was:

“But, you know, you are not my people.” "

and very easy for someone like you to piously proclaim.

Context is everything, and it completely exonerates the statement. It's more like saying you love some of the things Reagan has done or the stances he has taken -- like the desire to cut back on nuclear warheads.

values

it's like saying, "I love George Bush," or worse, actually

That's exactly what it is. You're so right on that one!

:rofl:

as you correcting me when you your own post had its own little spelling problem. I love it.

this context. They just keep trying to throw shit against the wall to see what sticks.

Thanks for keeping them honest.

Thats the part you keep missing.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

While omitting the fact that after saying that she added something to the effect of, "you're not my people, of course." It is pretty well known she liked the fact that they had public debates and gave hearing to opposing views, even while she didn't agree with their politics.

Is the whole concept that you can disagree with someone's politics while still thinking they're a generally honorable person simply dead nowadays?

the same Boyle that urged Iran to sue the US? I'll pass, thanks. His credibility is highly suspect imo, but you keep diggin' 'em up. btw, google is your friend, which is how you must dig them up. Might want to do a bit more research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Boyle


In 1993, Boyle gave a speech in which he called for Hawaiian independence from the United States.<7>

In December 2004, Boyle stated that the United States is illegally occupying the state of Hawaii and has encouraged Native Hawaiians to press for independence and, if necessary, unilaterally proclaim their own state. In a three-hour speech entitled "The Restoration of Hawaii's Independence," Boyle claimed that the United States has conceded it unlawfully occupied the Kingdom of Hawaii and that fact alone "gives the Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) the entitlement to restore their independent status as a sovereign nation state." Boyle argued that, like the Palestinians, Hawaiians should "exercise their right of self-determination," instead of asking the permission for it. Boyle stated that "the plight of the Hawaiian people is generally well known in the world and there's a great deal of sympathy." He concluded his speech by stating that "Hawaii should send the strongest message to Washington it can. Letters carry no weight. The number of people in the street do. Ghandi threw the mighty British out of India with peaceful, nonviolent force. People power, submit to it."<8>
Iran

Boyle has urged Iran to sue the United States in the International Court of Justice in The Hague in order to discourage a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and prevent the imposition of new sanctions by the U.N. Security Council. He has also offered to represent Iran and recommended that Iran begin drafting lawsuits for presentation to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). <9>
Israel

Boyle is a harsh critic of Israel, and American foreign policy towards Israel. In May 2008, Boyle offered to "represent Iran in an international tribunal for trying the Zionist regime on charges of genocide of Palestinians", and reportedly demanded that his proposal be submitted to Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.<10><11>

In January 2009, Boyle wrote that "Israel’s genocidal policy against the Palestinians has been unremitting, extending from before the very foundation of the State of Israel in 1948... Zionism’s “final solution” to Israel’s much touted “demographic threat” allegedly posed by the very existence of the Palestinians has always been genocide."<11>

or extraordinary about her comment.

It's hearsay.

Policies...

She has no substantive experience.

She is a horrible pick, ESPECIALLY to replace Stevens. Her qualification seems to be that she didn't have a paper trail that would cause any controversy with Republicans.

Pathetic. I see nothing to like here. Listening to Obama drone on about her 'temperament' was just ludicrous. As humiliating a choice as Miers....

Federalist society an upscale tea party organization.

In the article it surfaces as a claim from Boyle that she said that, not an original uneditted quote from her on the subject.

He said she said.

slam anyone YOU feel like slamming, but you go off into a high dudgeon when someone criticizes your sainted Boyle? bwaahhahahaha.

perfect.

:rofl:

From the article:

"Boyle added: "Kagan has said ‘I love the Federalist Society.' This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society.""

When someone claims that someone said something, especially without substantiation, it is not the same as a quote coming directly from the source.

That is why hearsay is not allowed as evidence in court. When and if someone can produce a valid quote directly from Kagan that shows without a doubt that she likes the Federalist Society, I will accept that and criticize her accordingly. Not until.

and that what YOU and the writer of the piece you posted, are doing. It really doesn't take anything beyond that to expose this cheap shit.

themselves. You are providing no more information than the OP wrt the supposed statement.

http://volokh.com/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-i-love-the-federalist-society-i-love-the-federalist-society/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+volokh/mainfeed+(The+Volokh+Conspiracy)

There is apparently no video or transcript of the event but it appears she doesn't deny the statement.

In context, she praised them for their 'methods' which Liberals had 'learned from'. It sounds like she was being gracious as the host of the event, making the joke that they were not her kind of people, but adding that she loved them because of their commitment to open debate.

Can't say I'm very thrilled with her. This was an opportunity of a lifetime to appoint a real Liberal and stop the rightward swing of the court. However, I don't think this statement was anything more than being a gracious host to a group with whom she claims not to have much in common. Sounds like it was pretty spontaneous. That is good, imo, if she really doesn't have much in common with them.

Otoh, I'd like to see her debate them on the issues with which she disagrees. She is an unknown quantity at this point. There were far better people who could have been chosen but it's too late now and she probably will be confirmed. We can only hope that she is capable of standing up for civil liberties at least, although what is known already isn't too comforting on that score.

Again, thank you for the link :-)

Sigh.

Sid

OMG, WHY SID!!!!

:)

Sid

I am looking forward to watching the confirmation hearing and will make up my mind based on what she says herself.

How dare you reserve judgment. Who do you think you are, a logical and rational thinker?

pfft

nt