Kagan has already demonstrated that she is unqualifed to be on SCOTUS, let alone be on any bench

In the SCOTUS-bound case Monsanto v Geertson Seed, which pits agribusiness giant Monsanto against a rival seed company, Kagan is, as Solicitor General, http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/05/elena-kagan-toward-a-pro-gm-supreme-court/56587/">intervening on behalf of Monsanto. However, the United States government is not a defendent or a party in this case. Therefore, Kagan has overstepped -- abused, really -- her role as Solicitor General.

Ideally, Kagan should be facing an investigation over her activities, not facing a SCOTUS nomination hearing.

This was never just about Monsanto and Geertson Seed Farm. APHIS (ie the Department of Agriculture) was involved from the beginning.

for Monsanto, Kagan was doing her job in representing her client, the US Government. Our anger needs to be placed towards those who are enabling Monsanto as AG policy.

APHIS is not named as a party in this appeal to SCOTUS, though it originally was in when Geertson first petitioned the Northern California district court and in the subsequent appeal to the 9th. Monsanto, not APHIS, is now bringing this final appeal to SCOTUS, and Kagan, even though the solitor general's office was not obligated to do so in the least, made the decision to intervene on Monsanto's behalf.

Do you have any concept of what being the federal respondent in a case is?

Or did the legal analysis from the Gourmet food editor not explain that?

says that Kagan shouldn't have done her job.

I mean, of course the legal analysis of a food writer should be seriously considered in the search for a SCOTUS pick...

then it is likely, is it not, that Russell Feingold and Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer and other consistently progressive Senators will be so morally outraged by the notion of Kagan's serving on the HIgh Court that they will in fact undertake investigations into her role in the case you cite.

We will all await the announcement of those hearings.

The Solicitor General was making a highly technical argument under rule 65.

When you intervene in a case like this, you MUST intervene on the side of the entity getting the default of the court action that you disagree with---thus the ACLU intervened in Rush Limbaugh's drug/medical records case--on HIS side--even though they cordially hate each other. Did the ACLU's intervention on that case mean that they supported and liked, and defended Rush? NO--they supported a technical aspect of the case regarding medical privacy.

That's precisely what happened here. Kagan was entirely correct in her assessment that a permanent injunction was improperly granted, and she was entirely correct in her choice to file on behalf of government agencies who would then be subject to a bad standard.

She made no argument on the merits. She did not dispute that APHIS violated NEPA.

This talking point is legal hackery.....it may play well to people who don't know the law, but it won't win you the respect of people who do. It's like Faux News arguing that because the ACLU files an intervenor brief in Skokie, they MUST be Nazi's and anti-Semitic.

The solicitor general's office had zero obligation to intervene in this case.

"Kagan was entirely correct in her assessment that a permanent injunction was improperly granted, and she was entirely correct in her choice to file on behalf of government agencies who would then be subject to a bad standard."

Based on, uh, what? I see a conclusion in your post, but no supporting argument. The Northern California district court and the 9th Circuit both ruled otherwise. You're not on Monsanto's legal team, are you? (you're arguing their case).

The US was not a party to the lawsuit, therefore the government's intervention on the side of Monsanto shows that the Obama Administration doesn't give a hoot about public health, only about the corporate profits.

Are you aware that a party may be affected by a court case, even without being a listed defendant, or plaintiff? Thus, intervenors.

That's why the ACLU intervened in Rush Limbaugh's drug case. Did they support Rush? No--the point was medical privacy.


As I noted above, just because you intervene in a case doesn't mean you agree with either side--you may be arguing, as Kagan was here, on a very technical point of procedure.

If you have no idea what a federal respondent is, then you look a little silly asking the questions you do.

But keep using a very facile analysis put forth by a former editor of Gourmet magazine---truly, it will convince other legal scholars.

miss the fact that the government was enjoined? Did it not include the fact that as federal respondent, they were obligated to do just that?

Which is why the Solicitor is involved?

Do you realize that a case can affect people who aren't the plaintiff or defendant, or that intervenor status doesn't mean you support either side?

Let me tell you about the case where the ACLU intervened in a case against NAMBLA.....

Yet Another Poster With A Hidden Agenda

this is one of the originals ... he's an OG in this game.

Truly Epic Fail.

:spray:

Seriously, you're making an argument that makes no sense. The seed is federally regulated, in a federal-level dispute.

Unlike dwelling on how she does not cross her legs or that she plays softball or that she once dated a man during the Carter administration.