Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Friday, July 2, 2010 8:47 pm

Shorter Thurgood Marshall Jr. …

… to Republican Senators: You want to fight about my father’s legacy? Bring it on, beehortches!

Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:30 pm

He left out the hat and robe. FAIL.

Filed under: Aiee! Teh stoopid! It burns! — Lex @ 8:30 pm
Tags: , ,

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., sketches Ranking Minority Member Jeff Sessions, R-KKK, during Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Franken also fell asleep, which I totally don’t blame him for because, as the committee member with the least seniority, he had to listen to everybody else talk before he got his turn and there hasn’t been any real drama in a SCOTUS confirmation hearing since Clarence Thomas in ’91. Not to mention the fact that senators don’t even ask real questions in these hearings anymore anyway, probably because not a damn one of ’em knows how.

Friday, May 14, 2010 8:22 pm

Quote of the day

Filed under: Aiee! Teh stoopid! It burns! — Lex @ 8:22 pm

I remain convinced that Obama could have picked a far better candidate for the Supreme Court than Elena Kagan. That said, this observation by John Cole is full of WIN:

… the most depressing thing about the blank slate folks like Elena Kagan is that she is obviously very smart, but has to be careful what she says lest she be punished for her thoughts. Meanwhile, deeply stupid people like Mike Pence, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman, Joe the Plumber, and so on, are unfettered by similar restraints and in fact rewarded for their idiocy, often with great sums of wealth and power and status well beyond what they deserve. As such, the smart people are quiet, and the morons run around polluting our discourse.

Of course, Kagan’s self-imposed restraint is only temporary in that within a few months, either 1) she’ll be confirmed and she can spend the next 40 years saying whatever she damned well pleases and — BONUS! — what she says may well become part of the Supreme Law of the Land; or 2) she will be rejected, and because she obviously would never be considered for a federal bench seat again, she can spend the next 40 years saying whatever she damned well pleases, only without the BONUS! Supreme Law of the Land part.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 10:58 pm

Quote of the day

Filed under: Aiee! Teh stoopid! It burns!,Journalism — Lex @ 10:58 pm
Tags: , ,

… from Tintin at Sadly, No!:

“Apparently one way to become a member of CNN’s “Best Political Team on Television” is just to make s— up.”

Because, no, Erick Erickson, Elena Kagan would NOT be replacing “the last military veteran on the Supreme Court.”

Saturday, May 8, 2010 9:55 pm

Why Elena Kagan will be Obama’s Supreme Court pick

Filed under: Odds 'n' ends — Lex @ 9:55 pm
Tags: ,

Because, as Glenn Greenwald points out, the liberals hate her:

(1) University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos, who previously expressed shock at the paucity of Kagan’s record and compared her to Harriet Miers, has a new piece in The New Republic entitled (appropriately): “Blank Slate.”

(2) Digby examines what a Kagan selection would reveal about Obama, and she particularly focuses on Kagan’s relationship to Goldman Sachs.  That relationship is relatively minor, but it is illustrative in several ways and will certainly be used by Republicans to advance their attacks on this administration as being inextricably linked with Wall Street.  The Huffington Post‘s Sam Stein has more on the Kagan/Goldman Sachs connection.

(3) Following up on the article published yesterday in Salon by four minority law professors — which condemned Kagan’s record on diversity issues as “shocking” and “indefensible for the 21st Century” — Law Professor Darren Hutchinson of American University School of Law today writes that Kagan’s record is “abysmal.”

Regardless of your particular views on these matters, that diversity is both vital and fair in the hiring process has long been a central plank in progressive thinking.  It takes little creativity to imagine what Democrats would say about a Republican Supreme Court nominee with a hiring record similar to Kagan’s.  The question is whether they will be as consistent as these law professors are in applying their claimed beliefs to their own side.  This is the issue that caused Linda Monk to rescind her endorsement of Kagan.  Will Kagan-defending progressives now suddenly say that diversity is irrelevant?  Will they try to claim that there were no qualified minorities for the Harvard Law School faculty?  How will they reconcile everything they’ve always said about diversity with Kagan’s record as Dean?

(4) This headline, from, is a darkly amusing and quite revealing one to read about the Obama White House’s front-runner to replace John Paul Stevens:  “Supreme Court Watchers Wonder:  How Conservative Is Kagan?

(5) Law Professor Jonathan Adler persuasively argues why Diane Wood would be easier to confirm than Elena Kagan.

(6) The New York Times‘ Charlie Savage today explains that executive power is one key area where Obama’s choice could bring about major changes to the Court, given that his selection would replace Justice Stevens, who was so stalwart about imposing limits on such power.  As Savage writes, Kagan’s record (to the extent such a thing even exists) “suggests she might generally be more sympathetic toward the White House than Justice Stevens.”

(7) Perhaps most revealing of all: a new article in The Daily Caller reports on growing criticisms of Kagan among “liberal legal scholars and experts” (with a focus on the work I’ve been doing), and it quotes the progressive legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as follows:  “The reality is that Democrats, including liberals, will accept and push whomever Obama picks.”

Now there are two dynamics at work here.

One is that it is conventional wisdom in Washington that to be Taken Seriously, you have to punch a hippie. That means no picking a truly progressive nominee. And if there is one thing that Obama has shown in his time in office, it is the ability and willingness to punch a hippie, on subjects ranging from torture to health care.

The other is the notion that the hippies will take the punches and like it because they have nowhere else to go.

Greenwald, to his credit, says that anyone who really does think that way shouldn’t — that if they have serious philosophical or policy differences with Obama or his nominees, then they ought to, well, differ. If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same thing he said back in 2006 about Republicans/conservatives who differed with Bush. Of course, back then it was just Glenn being partisan.

Me? I think any potential nominee of either party and whatever political philosophy who can be mentioned in the same breath as Harriet Miers without the speaker’s being laughed out of the room has no business on the Supreme Court. But beyond that, I have no idea.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: