How the current Supreme Court works, and what the current goal is.

I watched Charlie Rose last night on the Kagan nomination.......
And although some may argue with various rationales for Kagan as the pick,
what I heard on that show made plenty of sense.

One of the two guests was talking about how the court doesn't really work the way many think; and that although we might think of the SC as 9 different individuals, in terms of rulings, it's one unit, and the trick is getting that unit to lean back center just to the left enough.

So the key is not to simply choose someone way to the left in hopes that they somehow become a counterbalance to those on the right. Rather he said, we need justices who know how to articulate closer to the center-Left so that by sheer reasoning can make the reasonable argument that will appeal to the 5th vote; as it is not the liberal ideological argument that will win the only center-right vote closer over to the center-Left.

So indeed, for the liberals to actually win rulings, the one to persuade is the Center Right vote and to get it to sway it towards the center enough that the left can win that one vote.....

In otherwords, it is the tight swing closer to the middle that needs working on; and it is getting that Kennedy vote that is the aim, not necessarily adding big weight way over to the Left, as the goal is to swing important rulings from 5 to 4 for the Right over to 4 to 5 for the people.

So the Kagan pick, in reality has little to do with Roberts, and everything to do with Kennedy; and everything to do with her skill set of being able to persuade that shift away from the Center-Right....which is sadly the only reachable vote.

It was fascinating.....

Here's the show. Please watch: http://www.charlierose.com/

It was save alot of jawboning.

but since we live in a world where that ain't just gonna happen.....

And the President could add as many as he saw fit. Not saying it's gonna happen though...

And he is not really THAT persuadable. He said he never wanted to be the swing vote and yet he is, because he is more center-right then full out idiotic-right. Kagan has a history of being able to bring people that disagree to at the very least a point where they can communicate better (she did that as the Harvard Law School Dean).

namely that the closer "our" choice moves from left to center, the more likely we are to lose our own vote, which is an unmitigated disaster.

it is indeed a careful balancing act. i agree that a firebrand liberal won't convince anyone, but it is one very reliable vote.
hit the ideal sweet spot and one nominee could be worth 1.25 or even 1.5 votes if the few votes the fail to vote "left" are more than covered by the times our nominee can bring kennedy over to the good side.

however, go too far to the center and our nominee is worth 0.5 votes as they are unreliably "left" and are as likely as not to pull others to the right as to the left.



the REAL problem is that all of this is very short-term thinking. if it works well given the new court make-up, it's quite likely NOT to work after the next retirement. say thomas retires and is replaced with a reliable or semi-reliable left justice. the mix shifts and our current, influential "center-left" heroine might now serve to prevent a progressive shift.


not that we should take our lead from the right wing, but i will note that they NEVER sought to influence the thought processes of liberal justices. they ALWAYS sought to have pure idiologues and 100% reliable conservative votes, ever since, well, the stevens nomination.

and personally, I don't think that this is the case. I think that she is reliably Left,
no matter the propaganda out there, and in addition, I think she has the skill sets required
to, out of anyone on that bench to persuade the only persuadable justice.

If you haven't read her paper on Executive power, you should....as it isn't what some say it is....

I do believe that Pres. Obama understands that we aren't looking to go further to the Right, but rather to win some victories for the Left. One doesn't have to go Right to win for the Left, but rather one needs justices who know how to bring the center right, over to the center left. If Kagan was touted as a great big giant Liberal, the goal would be over before it started, as she would come to the bench already tainted.

i think obama wants consensus, but appointments in general and supreme court nominations in particular are one of the few areas where a president doesn't really have to compromise very much. even obstructionist republicans are, in the end, inclined to give great deference to the office of the president (if not the person occupying that office) in making these choices. after all, they figure they're the rightful owners of that office and want THEIR presidents given wide lattitude in making choices like alito and roberts.

republicans, in this case, want to DELAY the nomination to restrict the rest of obama's agenda. they don't particularly want to kill the nomination. after all, the next one might be worse from their point of view. to the extent they want the nomination to fail, it's only because that means even more delay.


as for kagan, it's always hard to predict how supremos will act once they have life tenure and aren't required to advocate a particular position or shape their career so as to remain a viable choice for the court.

i hope she's a strong left-of-center person who merely did what she needed to do to get there.

both included guests that bascially said there is no persuading on the Supreme Court. One of them actually said,]i] "Kagain is not Svengali-like. These people are individuals, they vote how they want and there is no persuading." What an absurd statement. Firstly, who suggested she was Svengali? And secondly, there is always a possibility to persuade someone with the right argument made by the right person. To say otherwise, is to imply the Justices are completely close-minded and not open to any discussion.

As I recall, Kennedy used to join the liberal group quite often, until Roberts arrived. Not he rarely does, which makes me think he's being persuaded by Roberts, and we need a counter. According to Obama, Spitzer and others to know her well (unlike Olbermann and Maddow), Kagan is just the person for the job.

as folks understand.

Scalia and Thomas are lost causes, and Alito may be as well, but we don't know because we don't have someone on the bench who is able to bring anyone over to the liberal side. Time will tell about Alito.

arguments that will sway them to go against their inherent fascist nature. NOTgonna happen.

As for replacing the Fascist Four, maybe if there is a god, they will all be removed from the planet by some miracle. We can always hope they take a ride in a faulty small plane.

The OP is about getting the one true centrist vote. No one is claiming that Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas are going to be persuaded the other way.

however, Kennedy has voted before with the Liberals,
but has done so less since the installment of Roberts,
and the retirement of O'Connor....so who sits on the court
and is able to hold reasonable and persuadable arguments
with those needed to be swayed is about our only chance
against the 4 facists...because the 5th vote is the one
we are talking about......and that is the one that changes
rulings from a travesty to justice.

Sotomayor and Kagan are strong in the area needed.....

Even if they act like they are swayed by your logic in the end they vote with their agenda in mind....Thus we have the case of Citizens United,and Gore v Bush.

the other four.....and that has been proven before, but it has been a while, especially true since Roberts. So yes, we will lose a lot of battles based on simply being outnumbered, but that doesn't mean we have to lose them all, or make only that calculation, as it would be foolish to.

Just the important ones like Bush v Gore and Citizens United.
The right wing could care less if gays get married or serve in the military...it makes no difference in their bottom line.
But they can use those issues as a false flag to get us all involved and keep us busy while they work their magic.

and why would any of it make a difference?

But any change that would make a difference would have to be fundamental.
and the left would have to have some leadership that does not sell out to the moneyed intrist...so we are far from that.

to get as many Die Hard Conservatives on there.

Never forget the Conservative Movement has one goal. Conservative
Governing for 50 year run. This is why they have been such
sore losers.

They have lined up handpicked Conservatives (attorneys with
whom they have cultivated. Roberts and Alito are the perfect
example. Others waiting in the wind, in case a Republican President
has the opportunity to make appointments.

When your side loses its "anchor" (as Rachel and others have referred to Stevens) you're going to need someone to replace him or your side is going to end up in the mud. I'm not sure Kagan is that new anchor but maybe somebody else is. :shrug:

Of course the consequences in this case are far more serious than repeatedly ending up in a mud hole.

Chris Hayes hosted TRMS Tuesday and had a bit that showed how tilted to the right the court has become.

a hard core reactionary nor a radical regressive but that doesn't mean he can be convinced to stray too far from the "true religion".

There is nothing Kagan or anyone else can say that will transform one of the most conservative jurist in the history of the high court into a reasonable moderate, ready to listen to a good argument and side with reason. This line of argument is desperate reaching to cover up for not having principles and putting someone that plays ball with the bigwigs on the bench.

Stevens couldn't lasso Kennedy and Kagan won't fare much if any better. Pretending this nomination is some grand strategy to create a new coalition of five is just spinning yarns and fairy tales. She's just as likely or more being put there to soften the stances of the four more left leaning Justices than moving the any of the Reich wing hardliners including Kennedy.

I was relaying what others who appear to be quite intellectual and understanding of the court's interactions, much better than I were saying. I took their take and thought about it, and I tend to see that what they are saying makes sense.

As for pretense, it appears that is what you are doing in acting like you have all of the answers just because you have confidence in your own opinions. But then, I'm not surprised, and still wonder why you never ran for President or something considering how smart you are and have just about all of the answers on just about everything.

its taking me a while, but basically we need someone who is centrist who will sway the ultra right to nudge over a centimeter to the far right, thereby making any votes right wing anyway.


But there is nothing we can really do about it anyway, so if liberals are going to get assaulted, I guess we should just stop complaining and sit back, relax and enjoy it, right?




No one is buying it and the curtain is being pulled open slowly yet steadily.

Because I don't neccessarily think that Kagan is that.

THis is a discussion board where you don't have to believe, buy,
or comment to anything really.

I relayed something that I watched last night, and it appears that
you have a problem with that. Unfortunately it appears that it is your problem,
because I'm just fine, thank you.

And you don't have to buy anything.
You don't even have to be here......really.

Im glad to be here, thanks.

as Dellinger said. Many should think about this.

and a rather insulting one, if you were Justice Kennedy.

that was my conclusion based on the discussion that took place.

Did you watch the show at all? I gave a link.

including the run up to the Sotomayor nomination.

So I didn't realize that being able to persuade wasn't an asset,
and is only used to deflect while Obama (worse than Bush) fills
the SC with centrists who are shifting the court to the right,
even if they vote with the left.

which as I said- or perhaps, I should clarify: would be insulting to me if I were Justice Kennedy.

I have no idea how malleable Kennedy thinks his principles and jurisprudence are.