Glenn Greenwald v. Lawrence Lessig: A Debate On Elena Kagan (Democracy Now Video)

Good stuff right here - http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/12/glenn_greenwald_v_lawrence_lessig_a

Recommended.

I relish intelligent, illuminating discussions about big issues like presented in the video. They reassure me that we are, indeed, on the "right" side.

the media news programs but which is missed on purpose.

CNN is news by omission. FOX is vile propaganda. Etc.

The web has kind of advanced more dialogue on-line than the public square used to.

:evilgrin:

It's probably the finest substantive debate about the Kagan nomination I've come across, and both participants are on "the left".

The only explanation is that "fanboys" of one side are embarrassed by the performance of their guy. Shame on them.

since he failed to make the case against her.

Not for lack of effort, of course!

Lessig- I have known her for 20 years and she has exactly the right temperament and values we need to try and push the court to left.

Greenwald- I have been arguing for a month that I don't know anything about her.


It was like Mike Tyson taking on Gary Coleman in the boxing ring. Then again when you pit a noted Harvard Professor and co-founder of Fix Congress against some blogger the outcome was never in doubt.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

I appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show last night to articulate the case against Elena Kagan, and was then followed by Kagan friend and defender Larry Lessig of Harvard Law School, who spent five minutes (in my absence) trying to discredit me and what I said (video of the two segments is below). Although I would have preferred an opportunity to address the accusations Lessig was making about me through an interactive exchange, I was glad Rachel presented both sides of the debate. But there is one serious accusation that Lessig spouted that is so blatantly and inexcusably false that I feel compelled to highlight it, particularly since I was unable to respond last night. This is what Lessig said when referencing "this work had written when she wrote this piece for the Harvard Law Review" in 2001:

This is another area where Glenn has just flatly misstated the case. In his piece on Democracy Now on April 13, he said that in that article, she talked about the power of the President to indefinitely detain anyone around the world.

Now, that article was written before George Bush, before 9/11, and before George Bush articulated anything about this power. It has nothing to do with the power of the President to detain anybody. The power of the unitary executive that George Bush articulated -- this kind of uber power of unitary executive -- was nowhere even hinted at in Elena's article. Yet Glenn has repeatedly asserted that she is George Bush, and that is just flatly wrong.

If I were listening to that and had no familiarity with what I had written, I'd have thought: Wow, that Glenn Greenwald is either completely dishonest or a total idiot; how can he go around claiming that Kagan's 2001 law review article defended Bush detention policies when it was written before those policies were even implemented and had nothing to do with those policies? People questioning the Kagan pick obviously have no credibility. And that, of course, is exactly the impression Lessig's accusation was intended to create.
-----------------------------------------------------
The next sentence in the article states the accusation and resulting impression is totally false. For those who are interested in hearing the other side of the story, Mr. Greenwald defends himself quite well at the above link.

Here you go injecting reality into the fellas pajama party. They are not amused nor are they interested in honest debate.

Cheers!
:)

and spews more lies and bile. An ugly reality but one we need to face.

so he goes back to hiding behind his computer and spews more bile and venom at the people that made him look bad

I don't care. I didn't post it for you. I posted it to stop what has tended to become a one-sided debate around here far too often. And by the way, I don't like House either.

hey it may not be honest but it meets the "it attacks President Obama" criteria

policies, you wouldn't be hearing from me. By the way, that canned interview between Kagan and an unknown White House person that was handed to reporters yesterday? Not a particularly smart or cool thing to do.

President is ABSOLUTELY UPHOLDING DEMOCRATIC VALUES in the finest of traditions of RFK and JFK.

I left the republican party 25 years ago because of the garbage they were pulling. It infuriates me to see Obama doing the exact same thing.

about what MY party's values are

I guess you picked an appropriate moniker

"I left the republican party 25 years ago because of the garbage they were pulling. It infuriates me to see Obama doing the exact same thing."

Really?

What things are Obama doing that are similar to Republicans from 25 years ago?

a "gay disease", deregulating Savings and Loans so the government could spend a trillion dollars bailing them out, violating the Constitution with the Iran Contra deal, supporting right wing deaths squads in South America, working to end Abortion choice rights, busting unions and so on. To suggest that President Obama is doing these sort of things is a complete disconnect from reality.

that you are wasting your keypunches on that one, lol.

Keep digging, please.

Hey, that's not right....

Greenwald's actual statement makes it clear he was wrong as hell



Video

In fact, Greenwald's already walked it back. Search around and you'll find it.

then again I would imagine he is in damage control mode trying to salvage his tattered reputation.

I bet Lord High Douchenozzle Greenwald is sore from that ass kicking

Cheney/Bush says the constitution gives the president absolute power over the Executive branch. Greenwald tries to paint Kagan as if she was in the Cheney/Bush camp.

Lessig argues, citing Kagan herself, that Congress gives (and can constrain) the power the president has over the executive branch. Their power is not absolute. Kagan provides EXACTLY the counter-argument to the Bush/Cheney position.

Greenwald is a fool.

Nice summary of the basic argument.

There's zero evidence anywhere that Kagan supports the "unitary executive" / "inherent powers" conception that neocons have promoted, and rationalized based on their interpretation of the Constitution. Surely, Greenwald knows this. He's either a fool or an crude attention-seeker?

But he appears to be walking back his criticisms a bit - and taking the old "I'm just asking questions" approach. How Glenn Beckian of him.

nomination is your right, but if the suggestion is that only Greenwald has pointed out concerns, that
is incorrect. This is from Scott Horton:

snip* However, several of her works deal with presidential power, particularly her article “Presidential Administration” (LEXIS password required). This is a beautiful, extremely perceptive work, closely observed, brilliantly reasoned, and cautious. In it, Kagan notes the increase of presidential power as Congress builds the administrative and regulatory state. The powers that Congress vests in regulatory agencies are necessarily assumed and controlled by the president. Kagan writes as a detached observer, yet there is much to suggest her admiration for the evolution of the strong presidency in the period after World War II. Her career choices, often pushing back her academic career to accept appointments in Democratic administrations, reflect an attitude of engagement with it. All of this leads to the assumption that as a Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan will be no enemy to the powers of the executive. As my readers know, I am not sympathetic to this attitude. But I am impressed with Kagan’s powers of analysis and presentation just the same. My suspicion–and it’s only a suspicion–is that Kagan is a liberal in the sense of the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, someone who has faith in the power of the executive to shape a better and more just state. She pays lip service to the limitations on executive authority contained in the Constitution, but she’s generally in the thrall of executive power.

On this point the Kagan choice probably reflects the perspective of the man who made it, Barack Obama: not the Obama of the 2008 presidential campaign but rather the Obama who has governed since January 20, 2009—broadly continuing the strong executive posture of the Bush team in national security matters.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/05/hbc-90007020

Robcon is exactly correct: "Lessig argues, citing Kagan herself, that Congress gives (and can constrain) the power the president has over the executive branch. Their power is not absolute. Kagan provides EXACTLY the counter-argument to the Bush/Cheney position."

to the executive branch. The forward you snipped from his conclusions speaks to his respect to her work and her legal
mind, which is appropriately due her...but nonetheless, the concerns on executive power are shared.

Note too, that Horton does not share the same level of objection to her being on the court as Greenwald, which gives
his opinion greater weight on the issue in question.

right and wrong are not subject to the whims of popular vote

First, Horton does not suggest Kagan supports the neocon vision of a constitutionally-vested unitary executive. He specifically references Kagan's apparent support for enhanced executive powers as being based on the idea that "Congress vests in regulatory agencies are necessarily assumed and controlled by the president."

Second, I never said Greewald is alone in his opinion. Obviously, there are many critics of Kagan - the lion's share on the right and a few vocal malcontents on the left.

I think he makes himself pretty clear in that statement what he thinks of Obama's use of executive power.

respecting Congressional oversight.

clear and I also stated earlier, yes, Horton does not share the same position as Greenwald about her being confirmed.

That does not change Horton's conclusions of Kagan's view on executive power.

strong doesn't mean same

Greenwald has completely misinterpreted Kagan's views.

I thank you for the respectful conversation.

Both men made some good arguments. I found Greenwald more convincing, but of course I was rooting for him a bit.

I think that Lessig has again failed to respond to the central charge that too little is known of Kagan's views on the issues to conclude that she will be a strong advocate for progressive values. "If you only knew her like I know her" is simply not good enough, and never will be for me. Lessig's argument that demanding some record of a nominee's views would eliminate most candidates was totally pathetic, and his response to Kagan's damning flip-flop on the nomination process was also quite weak.

If Lawrence Lessig is so certain of Kagan's positions on many issues, how about FILLING US IN, BUDDY? That's the one question that I wish Greenwald would have asked.

That is what bothers me about this debate. One side is pointing out the lack of info and the other side is saying trust me if you knew her privately like I do you'd like her. WTF?

OT: Is your moniker a reference to the music genre or is it more about lifestyle?

If it's the former, I just wanted to give you a "shout out". I've just (in the past month) been introduced to the genre and can't get enough. How the hell did I miss out on the Meat Puppets - cowpunk band extraordinnaire - the first time around?

Also I'm from Nebraska where cows are such a prominent cultural fixture, you'd think we were all Hindus.

A couple of local cowpunk bands I like are Forty Twenty and The Filter Kings.

who said that academic debates could not be consumed rationally by the public without creating incomprehensible controversy. This whole episode has me rethinking my position. I respect Greenwald, however, the dude is in way over his head here. Sometimes debates are sparked by comprehension problems.

"No matter what is said here, there will be someone who will run with a tiny kernel of truth and mistake it for something else."

The trouble is, Greenwald and Kagen, agree on executive power. Now the stuff she did under the Clinton's need explanation (late term ab. as example).

he admits he doesn't know what her views are.

Just saying.

though in the long run it's going to be the hearings that decide this argument