Tag Archives: elena kagan

Networks Paint ‘Trailblazer’ Kagan as Hilarious Wit Who ‘Can Take a Punch’

“For the first time, Americans got to see the woman President Obama called a ‘trailblazer’ in action,” ABC anchor Diane Sawyer trumpeted Tuesday night before Jonathan Karl framed his story on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s hearing around how “a confirmation hearing isn’t usually a laughing matter, but if we learned one thing about Elena Kagan today, it’s that she has a sense of humor.” Like NBC, Karl featured Kagan joking about how she was probably at a Chinese restaurant on Christmas day. The three broadcast network evening newscasts, as well as CNN and FNC, highlighted Senator Jeff Sessions pressing Kagan on her treatment of military recruiters. Karl used the exchange to praise Kagan: “We also learned that Elena Kagan can take a punch. As when Republican Jeff Sessions slammed her decision as Harvard Law dean to ban military recruiters from the school’s career office….She made no apologies for taking a strong stand against the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.” CBS’s Jan Crawford declared Kagan “held her own, she was confident, showed flashes of wit, but she didn’t break a lot of new ground,” while NBC’s Pete Williams touted how “she displayed flashes of humor.” ( CNN expressed concern Kagan wasn’t liberal enough : “Some of her answers on hot-button issues may not please all of her fellow Democrats.” More below.) NBC’s Peter Williams raised her liberal position on one issue: “She was pressed about gun rights in light of a 1987 memo she wrote as a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. ‘I’m not sympathetic,’ she wrote about a Washington, D.C., man who said a law banning handguns violated his right to bear arms.” On FNC’s Special Report, however, Carl Cameron pointed out the previous court nominee flipped on guns from the position she presented to the Senate committee: CARL CAMERON: She urged a ban on assault weapons during the Clinton administration that many consider a threat to gun rights, but she was unequivocal about Monday’s Supreme Court decision upholding the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. KAGAN: That is binding precedent entitled to all the respect of binding precedent in any case, so that is settled law. CAMERON: …But President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, also said the 2nd amendment was an individual right in her confirmation hearings, then once on the court joined dissenting justices who said the right is not fundamental. CNN’s The Situation Room highlighted a controversy where in some notes Kagan seemed to equate the KKK and NRA, but the topic disappeared from CNN’s story reviewing the hearings. Setting up a panel discussion in the 5 PM EDT hour, fill-in anchor Suzanne Malveaux related: One of the things that they talked about was this 1996 hand-written note that conservative commentators went after, saying that they believe that she was against [for] gun control because of some comparisons she made between the NRA and the KKK. Senator Jon Kyl called her out on this, and here’s how she responded. But at the top of the 6 PM EDT hour, Dana Bash checked in with a rundown of the hearing and didn’t mention the NRA/KKK matter as she concluded by conveying liberal fears that Kagan may not be liberal enough: Some of her answers on hot-button issues may not please all of her fellow Democrats. For example, on gun rights she said that she considers recent cases before the Supreme Court, rulings upholding the 2nd amendment, a good precedent going forward. From Monday night, “ Kagan Hearings, Day 1: Evening Newscasts Downplay; NBC Offers Just 24 Seconds ” The MRC’s Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide these transcripts from Tuesday night, June 29: ABC’s World News: DIANE SAWYER: And next, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Senators began questioning her today – the former Harvard Law School dean – and, for the first time, Americans got to see the woman President Obama called a “trailblazer” in action. What did we learn about her? Jon Karl was in the hearing room. Jon? JONATHAN KARL: Diane, Kagan faced some tough questions. And while she may not have won over her critics, she certainly held her ground. A confirmation hearing isn’t usually a laughing matter, but if we learned one thing about Elena Kagan today, it’s that she has a sense of humor. This is what happened when Senator Lindsey Graham pressed her on where she was when the Christmas Day bomber was read his Miranda Rights. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Christmas Day bomber, where were you at on Christmas Day? ELENA KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) KARL: The humor was contagious. SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): We have to have a little back and forth every once in awhile or this place would be boring as hell, I’ll tell you. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) KAGAN: And it gets the spotlight off me. KARL: We also learned that Elena Kagan can take a punch. As when Republican Jeff Sessions slammed her decision as Harvard Law dean to ban military recruiters from the school’s career office. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it’s unconnected to reality. I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy. I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy. KAGAN: I respect, and, indeed, I revere the military. My father was a veteran. KARL: She made no apologies for taking a strong stand against the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. KAGAN: I have repeatedly said that I believe that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is unwise and unjust. I believed it then and I believe it now. KARL: We also learned she favors televising Supreme Court proceedings. KAGAN: I think it would be a great thing for the institution, and, more important, I think it would be a great thing for the American people. KARL: But even that recommendation came with a joke. KAGAN: It means I’d have to get my hair done more often. KARL: As for Kagan’s now-famous criticism of previous nominees for turning hearings into a vapid and hollow charade, she acknowledged that things looked a lot differently now that she is the nominee. So when it came to specific questions of the law, Diane, she kept things just as vapid and hollow as her predecessors. SAWYER: All depends on where you sit – in her case, really sit. Thank you, Jon. Following Karl, Terry Moran reviewed what happened at Harvard with the military recruiters, noting Kagan’s passion in place of legal reasoning: “…but she kept fighting, joining several other law professors in a case against the military which the Supreme Court rejected eight to zero.” CBS Evening News: ERICA HILL: Things got a little tougher today for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. After mostly listening on day one of her confirmation hearing, today she answered sharp questions from Republican Senators. Jan Crawford is our chief legal correspondent. Jan, good evening. JAN CRAWFORD: Good evening, Erica. You know, the first questions were also some of the toughest, and they focused on her efforts when she was dean at Harvard Law School to limit military recruiting there on campus because of the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Now, Kagan tried to explain that today, but Republicans weren’t buying it. ELENA KAGAN: The military at all times during my deanship had full and good access. Military recruiting did not go down. Indeed, in a couple of years – including the year that you’re particularly referring to – it went up. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it’s unconnected to reality. I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy. KAGAN: Later sessions questioned her intellectual honesty during that part of her testimony, and that wasn’t the only issue Republicans hammered her on. They also focused on gun rights, coming off yesterday’s Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights nationwide. Now, Erica, Kagan said that she accepted that decision. She didn’t say, though, that she would have voted for it. And that’s that delicate dance these nominees try to do. So today she held her own, she was confident, showed flashes of wit, but she didn’t break a lot of new ground. NBC Nightly News: BRIAN WILLIAMS: On Capitol Hill, there were two critical events. We’ll begin with the first day of questions from the Senate for Elena Kagan, the woman nominated to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. As our Justice correspondent Pete Williams reports, she faced a range of questions, beginning with her position on one hot-button military issue. PETE WILLIAMS: Republicans accused Elena Kagan of treating the military unfairly when she was Harvard Law dean, enforcing an anti-discrimination policy that kept recruiters out of the school’s placement center because of the ban on gays in the military. But she said recruiters were never barred from campus. ELENA KAGAN: Military recruiting did not go down. Indeed, in a couple years – including the year that you’re particularly referring to – it went up. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy and deny those military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government of loss of federal funds. PETE WILLIAMS: She was pressed about gun rights in light of a 1987 memo she wrote as a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. “I’m not sympathetic,” she wrote about a Washington, D.C., man who said a law banning handguns violated his right to bear arms. KAGAN: The state of the law was very different. No court – not the Supreme Court and no appellate court – had held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. PETE WILLIAMS: Her answers to some questions were, for Supreme Court hearings, unusually straightforward. Example, would she favor televising Supreme Court cases? KAGAN: I think it would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the courtroom. PETE WILLIAMS: And she displayed flashes of humor, especially in response to some unfocused questions. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Christmas Day bomber, where were you at on Christmas Day? KAGAN: I’m assuming that the question, you mean, is whether a person who was apprehended in the United States is- GRAHAM: No, I just asked you where you were at on Christmas? (AUDIENCE AND KAGAN LAUGH) KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) PETE WILLIAMS: The questions continue tomorrow and possibly Thursday. Pete Williams, NBC News, Washington.

Continue reading here:
Networks Paint ‘Trailblazer’ Kagan as Hilarious Wit Who ‘Can Take a Punch’

Fun Fact: David Weigel Appeared Far More on MSNBC Than In the WaPo Pages This Year

It shouldn’t be the slightest bit surprising that David Weigel has become an “MSNBC contributor” after the Washington Post dismissed him. Since the Post announced his hiring on March 23, Weigel appeared on MSNBC 20 times — 16 on Countdown, 3 on Hardball, and once on The Rachel Maddow Show. While the Post hosted Weigel’s “Right Now” blog, he was almost completely absent from the actual newspaper. His byline count since he was hired is….one, a snarky May 29 Style section piece on Sarah Palin’s new journalist neighbor Joe McGinniss suggesting she’s a witch. (This doesn’t count after-the-story credit lines like “David Weigel contributed to this report,” of which there were a handful.) Twenty MSNBC appearances to one Post byline. It seems like he should have been paid by NBC-U the entire three months. Weigel also appeared on Countdown five times and Maddow’s show once in February and the first three weeks of March before the Post announcement. The Post may have made their hiring decision based on the TV appearances. Here’s a list of the show dates. Before the Post hiring: The Rachel Maddow Show: February 8. Countdown: February 11*, February 12, February 19, February 26, March 8.  During Weigel’s Post tenure: Countdown: March 29, April 1, April 7, April 12, April 20, April 26, May 7, May 14, May 19, May 24, May 26, June 9, June 11, June 17, June 18, June 24. Hardball: April 28, May 12, May 20. The Rachel Maddow Show: April 9. *On February 11, Weigel’s segment was cut short by breaking news, so his interview the next night was a makeup appearance.

Read the original post:
Fun Fact: David Weigel Appeared Far More on MSNBC Than In the WaPo Pages This Year

Will Kagan Do A Sotomayor?

Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor came off as a 2nd Amendment defender when she was being questioned during her confirmation hearings. She voted the other way when a gun rights case came to The Court. Can we now trust Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan?

Follow this link:
Will Kagan Do A Sotomayor?

Senators Trash Thurgood Marshall on Elena Kagan’s First Day [Supreme Court]

You all see that Elena Kagan hearing yesterday? Too exciting, what with each senator giving a vapid, grandstanding speech, one after another, all day. And the Republican attack line was crisp: exploit her connection to history’s greatest monster, Thurgood Marshall . More

Why Presidential Elections Matter

Because of some things we have to live with, long after they are out of office.

Read the original:
Why Presidential Elections Matter

Chris Matthews Thinks Sen. Sessions’ Criticism of Kagan Was a ‘Brutal Assault’

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews framed Sen. Jeff Sessions’ criticism of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a “brutal assault,” during MSNBC’s live coverage of the Senate hearing Monday afternoon. “It’s a brutal assault on this nomination,” Matthews complained about the Alabama Republican’s remarks. Matthews also seemed to cast Sessions as an unsophisticated country bumpkin challenging Kagan’s prestigious Ivy League background. “It’s a strong cultural shot at her, and she does represent, if you will, academic excellence of the highest degree, coming from the best schools, dean of Harvard Law,” Matthews crooned. “It’s hard to get above that, to a person out in the country, from Alabama, like Jeff Sessions represents. That is probably a pretty rich target.” He accused Sessions of describing Kagan as pro-terrorist and tried to get liberal Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) to say that Sessions’ “assault” would whip up a storm. “You know, back not too many years ago, some Republicans paid a heavy price for being tough with Anita Hill when she came to testify in the Clarence Thomas hearings,” Matthews insisted. Have we gotten past that era of sensitivity about a bunch of guys going after a single woman here, just bashing her?” “Can these guys like Jeff Sessions just go at her like this without any fear of rebuke?” Matthews later asked. Durbin tempered the debate by saying that, although he might not agree with Sessions, his colleague was doing his job in raising issues with Kagan. “I think it’s fine,” Durbin replied. “Jeff has raised issues, and that’s important. I may disagree with the issues. But it is not personal. I don’t see it reaching the level that would cause that kind of a backlash.” The transcript of the two segments, which aired at 12:53 p.m. and 1:07 p.m. EDT, respectively, are as follows: MSNBC June 28, 2010 12:53 p.m. EDT CHRIS MATTHEWS: Andrea Mitchell, I’ve got to get your reaction. Very tough opening statement by Jeff Sessions. ANDREA MITCHELL: Well, he has laid out the Republican line against her. And it was tough, and he is the ranking Republican. He said earlier today that he would not even rule out a filibuster, which has never happened, as Ron Brownstein pointed out earlier, when the same party controlled the Senate in a Supreme Court case. So this is a very tough – particularly on the issue of the military, on the terror law – he went through all of the top talking points from the Republicans. And she’s going to have a tough time defending that. MATTHEWS: (Garbled) …she’s anti-military, pro-terrorist, pro-illegal immigrant, and a socialist. It’s pretty tough. And by the way, I’ll go back to it – maybe an infelicitous reference, but it is a voodoo doll – she is being used as Barack Obama in that chair- EUGENE ROBINSON, Washington POst: This is throwing stuff against the wall, seeing – (Crosstalk) – trying to create an atmosphere and an image that goes beyond her that also envelops the President and the whole administration. She’s trying to say this is an elite, Ivy League, out-of-touch – MATTHEWS: Well, it’s a strong cultural shot at her, and she does represent, if you will, academic excellence of the highest degree, coming from the best schools, dean of Harvard Law, it’s hard to get above that. To a person out in the country, from Alabama, like Jeff Sessions represents, that is probably a pretty rich target. # # # MSNBC ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS June 28, 2010 1:07 p.m. EDT CHRIS MATTHEWS: Now take a look at, what I think so far has been the toughest attack on this nomination. This is Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican. He is from Alabama. He was especially tough, as I said, in his opening statements. Let’s look at a montage of his toughest shots at the nominee. (Clip) Sen. JEFF SESSIONS (R-Ala.): Ms. Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years, and it’s not just that the nominee has not been a judge. She has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration from which I think a real legal understanding occurs. Her actions punished the military, and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting for our country in two wars overseas. Ms. Kagan has associated herself with well-known activist judges who have used their power to re-define the meaning of words of our Constitution and laws in ways that, not surprisingly, have the result of advancing that judge’s preferred social policies and agendas. (End Clip) MATTHEWS: Joining us right now is Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. He’s the Senate Majority Whip. Senator Durbin, if you listen to Jeff Sessions, your colleague, it’s a brutal assault on this nomination. She’s pro-terrorist in a sense, she’s anti-military, she’s a socialist, she’s for expansion of the government. He just about hit her on every cultural, political, ideological issue you can, and basically said he is definitely voting against her. He may lead a filibuster, based on his tone. Sen. DICK DURBIN (D-Ill.): I can just tell you, my Alabama colleague did not surprise me. He dismissed Elena Kagan out of hand and didn’t really get into the whole question of her role in Supreme Court. And then came the bill of particulars for the election in November. This was the Republican National committee bill of particulars, all of the things they want to accuse the Obama administration of. Socialism, secular humanism, you name it, went through the long litany. You get an idea of what this hearing is going to be all about. MATTHEWS: Well, do you think it’s really a hearing or is it something else? Is this going to be like a political convention on the right? Sen. DURBIN: Well I’m afraid it looks, from Senator Session’s statement, that there are going to be political overtones. And it’s not surprising, Chris, let’s be honest. If the shoe were on the other foot, and a nominee came along, we would be making points on our side of the aisle, too. But in fairness to Elena Kagan, At the end of the day, you have to look at what she has done, how she’s been cleared by this committee to be Solicitor General of the United States, her own achievements, and where she stands.  MATTHEWS: You know, back not too many years ago, some Republicans paid a heavy price for being tough with Anita Hill when she came to testify in the Clarence Thomas hearings. Have we gotten past that era of sensitivity about a bunch of guys going after a single woman here just bashing her? Sen. DURBIN: Well I think so. But I tell you, the record shows – MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. You think we have gotten past we’re that insensitive? Can these guys like Jeff Sessions just go at her like this without any fear of rebuke? Sem. DURBIN: I think it’s fine. Jeff has raised issues, and that’s important. I may disagree with the issues. But it is not personal. I don’t see it reaching the level that would cause that kind of a backlash. And I think we’re learning. Just remember, this is our fourth time in history to entertain a woman as a Supreme Court justice – four times, out of 111, this is the fourth. And I think there were lessons learned in the past. We do know that women nominees tend to get tougher questions. Think of what Sonia Sotomayor went through over one phrase, “Wise Latina.” You would think that the woman had declared that she was a traitor, treason on the United States. And instead they made that one phrase the focal point, they just went overboard on it.

Go here to see the original:
Chris Matthews Thinks Sen. Sessions’ Criticism of Kagan Was a ‘Brutal Assault’

AP for Apple Polishers : Elena Kagan ‘Excelled by Dint of Hard Work, Smarts…and Good Situation Sense’

Are the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings an occasion for media explanation…or celebration? The Washington Post Express tabloid ran this headline Monday: “Kagan’s Big Day Finally Arrives.” The copy underneath by AP reporter Nancy Benac sounds like a proud mother more than an objective journalist. She suggested “it may be her own words that best explain her success at charting an undeviating course to the front steps of the high court.” She elaborated about Kagan’s career, in sympathetic tones:  She’s excelled by dint of hard work, smarts and what she describes as good “situation sense” – the ability to size up her surroundings and figure out what truly matters, as she put it during confirmation hearings for her last job, as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general, the government’s top lawyer. It’s what allowed Kagan to channel the thinking of legal giant Thurgood Marshall when she was a “27-year-old pipsqueak” clerk to the justice. It’s what allowed Kagan to navigate through the land mines of government policy on abortion, tobacco and other contentious issues as an adviser to President Bill Clinton. It’s what allowed Kagan to thrive as the first female dean of Harvard Law School and even foster detente within its famously fractious faculty. Now, 50-year-old Elena Kagan stands before the Senate, confident she will be judged ready to join the justices whom she’s calls “fabulously smart, fabulously interesting people.” Only in the last paragraph of the seven-paragraph Express item is there an admission that “Republicans have done plenty of grumbling about her liberal views,” but “all sides anticipate she will be confirmed.” Earlier: AP’s Nancy Benac Excited ‘Bold Colors’ and ‘Squiggly Lines Have Arrived’ on Obama White House Walls

Here is the original post:
AP for Apple Polishers : Elena Kagan ‘Excelled by Dint of Hard Work, Smarts…and Good Situation Sense’

Chicago Tribune: Supreme Court ‘Extends Gun Rights’

“Supreme Court extends gun rights” a headline on the Web site for the Chicago Tribune erroneously claims today. The link on the page brought readers to a story entitled “Supreme Court extends gun rights in Chicago case.” Here’s the opening paragraph: WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court reversed a ruling upholding Chicago ‘s ban today and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe the “right to keep and bear arms.” But that language suggests that the Court invented a right out of whole cloth rather than grounded its decision in the Constitution itself. In truth, what the Supreme Court found in McDonald v. City of Chicago was that the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the individual’s right to firearm ownership is incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. “The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an even handed manner,” Justice Alito wrote for the Court.  The bottom line: The Supreme Court recognized that the City of Chicago was in violation of the the 2nd and 14th Amendments to the federal Constitution. A more accurate headline would have been “Supreme Court finds Chicago gun ban violates Constitution.” Of course, that presupposes the liberal media in Chicago are interested in shooting straight when it comes to reporting developments with which they have an ideological disagreement.

Read more from the original source:
Chicago Tribune: Supreme Court ‘Extends Gun Rights’

Networks Defend ‘Consensus Builder’ Kagan; Downplay Military Recruiter Ban

The Monday morning shows on CBS, ABC, and NBC all worked to portray President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a moderate and open-minded legal scholar, downplaying her liberal views. All three network programs also minimized her controversial decision to ban military recruiters on campus while Dean of Harvard Law School. On CBS’s Early Show, legal correspondent Jan Crawford touted Kagan as “an intellectual heavyweight and consensus builder.” Crawford noted how Republicans had “several lines of attack” against Kagan and would “try to paint her as a liberal activist.” Crawford herself recently described Kagan as having “stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left.” On ABC’s Good Morning America, correspondent Claire Shipman did a fawning segment on Kagan in the 8AM ET hour, describing the former Dean as “intellectual” and “full of personal charm” during her tenure at Harvard. Shipman claimed that Kagan had “a determination to be open-minded,” despite banning military recruiters from the university’s campus over the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. On that issue, Shipman explained that despite Kagan’s decision being unpopular “among student military vets…. Iraq War veteran Kurt White says they were won over by Kagan’s persistent outreach , another example of her political skills.” Shipman failed to mention that White would be testifying on Kagan’s behalf during the confirmation hearings. Shipman went so far to portray Kagan as open-minded that she touted how “though her political views are quite different than his, she honored conservative justice Antonin Scalia at the law school a few years ago, calling him a great justice.” Shipman even argued: ” It’s an openness to all voices that worries some liberals, but colleagues argue Kagan’s style is just what the Court needs.” NBC’s Today did not provide quite as strong a defense of Kagan, but a report by legal correspondent Pete Williams did feature a soundbite from Kagan supporter and SCOTUS blog founder Tom Goldstein declaring: “Elena Kagan isn’t a political partisan.” Williams, like Shipman, attempted to downplay the military recruiter ban: “Republicans also accuse Kagan of treating the military unfairly when she was dean of Harvard Law….But student military veterans say she made them feel welcome at Harvard and praised them for their service, even though she strongly opposed the policy on gays in the military.”   Here is a full transcript of Shipman’s June 28 segment on Good Morning America: 8:15AM GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is preparing to take the stand for Senate confirmation hearings this afternoon, and they’re meant to tease out the nominee’s judicial philosophy. Well for some clues, Claire Shipman talked to some people who knew Kagan during the most substantial legal job of her career, the first woman dean of Harvard Law School. CLAIRE SHIPMAN, ABC correspondent: Good morning, George, well that’s right. We decided to look for clues at Harvard Law School where she had a very distinctive style. She was only there for six years, made a large number of changes. She was intellectual, yes, but also full of personal charm, say colleagues, and a determination to be open-minded. It’s an institution usually resistant to change, some might say an immovable object, until it was confronted with the irresistible force of Dean Elena Kagan. ELENA KAGAN: This is a wonderful time, and it’s so good to be with you. LAURENCE TRIBE, Harvard Law professor: I’ve watched Harvard Law School go through lots of transitions, but there has never been anything like Elena Kagan. MARTHA MINOW, Harvard Law dean: She was going to turn over every stone at this institution and figure out a way to make it better. SHIPMAN: She thinks big. MINOW: She thinks big. SHIPMAN: But she was savvy enough at times to start small, offering perks like free coffee for students. Then bigger battles, fighting to hire more conservative professors like John Manning.   JOHN MANNING, Harvard Law professor: She felt that her job as dean was to foster an atmosphere in which all sorts of ideas would be presented. SHIPMAN: And selling a total curriculum overhaul, the first in a hundred years. KAGAN: For the most part, a first year curriculum now looks like what it looks like back in 1880. SHIPMAN: Some say her meteoric rise is impressive, but also suggests a calculating careerism. Two of her best friends, roommates at law school, say she’s just always just reveled in the work. JOHN BARRETT, friend of Kagan: A visual that I have, a memory, is her sitting at her desk with a cigarette and a pen and a book and a little desk lamp, and she could kind of grind it out for a long time. UNIDENTIFIED FRIEND OF KAGAN: I think what was clear was that she really loved the law, and reading about it, and thinking about it, and talking about it. SHIPMAN: Her time as dean wasn’t without controversy. She decided to renew a ban keeping military recruiters from using the career services office because of opposition to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Support was high on campus, but not among student military vets. KURT WHITE, Harvard Law student: It didn’t seem like banning military recruiters from the law school campus was going to be something that was likely to lead to a change in this law. SHIPMAN: Still, Iraq War veteran Kurt White says they were won over by Kagan’s persistent outreach, another example of her political skills. WHITE: It was really her showing her appreciation for the military and being very supportive of us. SHIPMAN: And though her political views are quite different than his, she honored conservative justice Antonin Scalia at the law school a few years ago, calling him a great justice. MANNING: She as dean was able to recognize his accomplishments and celebrate them without reservation. SHIPMAN: It’s an openness to all voices that worries some liberals, but colleagues argue Kagan’s style is just what the Court needs. TRIBE: I think that her ability to find common ground, bring people along, see long-term implications, will make a very large impact on the Court. SHIPMAN: It’s certainly a good place to start hearings as a potential liberal justice when you have the support of a conservative justice, like justice Scalia. George, but of course the hearings will still be heated, they’ll look at that military recruitment issue, and also try to pin her down specifically on how she might rule on some controversial issues. STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s right, and in an election year, likely to get a lot of no votes as well. Okay Claire Shipman, thanks very much.

Read more from the original source:
Networks Defend ‘Consensus Builder’ Kagan; Downplay Military Recruiter Ban

MRC Study: Media Blackout of Supreme Court ‘Battle’

When President Obama picked Elena Kagan to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the broadcast networks referred to the upcoming Senate confirmation process as “contentious” a “meat grinder” and a “battle,” warning Kagan was “in for a fight.” But a Media Research Center analysis of the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts in the six weeks since Kagan was nominated shows the broadcast networks have failed to cover the “fight,” and have ignored most of the controversies that could lead to suspenseful hearings next week. MRC analysts found that the broadcast network evening newscasts aired just eleven stories about Kagan since her May 10 nomination (six on CBS, three on ABC and two on NBC), plus another three brief items read by the anchor. All but one of those stories appeared during the first week after Kagan’s selection; only the CBS Evening News , in a June 3 report, has bothered to cover any of the thousands of pages of Kagan documents released in recent weeks. Both CNN and FNC provided substantially more coverage of Kagan during their 6pm ET news programs (10 full stories on CNN’s The Situation Room , 11 on FNC’s Special Report ) and offered in-depth coverage of Kagan controversies that the broadcast networks glossed over. The NBC Nightly News hasn’t mentioned Kagan since she met with senators on May 12; ABC’s World News hasn’t said a word about Kagan since May 16. For its part, the CBS Evening News aired one item on Kagan on June 3 aimed at bolstering the nominee against complaints from the Left that she isn’t liberal enough: CBS’s JAN CRAWFORD: Elena Kagan has kept her cards so close to the vest that some on the left have worried she’s too moderate….But documents buried in Thurgood Marshall’s papers in the Library of Congress show that, as a young lawyer, Kagan stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion. Crawford did acknowledge Kagan’s overt liberalism might wind up hurting her nomination: “While that may encourage liberals, it’s going to give Republicans a lot more ammunition to fight against her.” But neither CBS nor the other broadcast networks offered a follow-up, even as thousands of documents from Kagan’s stint in the Clinton White House were revealed. Networks Trumpeted Opposition to Roberts and Alito The networks’ disinterested approach to this year’s Supreme Court “battle” is at odds with how they covered the run-up to the hearings of the last two Republican nominees, when ABC, CBS and NBC all ran multiple stories in the weeks before each set of hearings began. On the July 26, 2005 World News Tonight , one week after President Bush picked John Roberts to replace Justice O’Connor, ABC correspondent (and future Obama spokeswoman) Linda Douglass highlighted Democratic demands for additional documents: “Democrats want Roberts’ more recent memos when he was crafting legal opinions for the first Bush administration. Republicans complain the Democrats are simply searching for reasons to oppose him.” The August 4, 2005 CBS Evening News amplified the Left’s criticisms of Roberts, including a soundbite from “Alliance for Justice” chief Nan Aron, who hysterically claimed material released up to that point “raises red flags about his commitment to civil rights, women’s rights, laws that have been in place for decades.” On November 14, 2005, nearly two weeks after Sam Alito’s selection, all three networks jumped on the release of a memo on abortion Alito had written twenty years earlier. NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams breathlessly wondered, “Is it a bombshell?” Reporter Williams conveyed liberal activists’ ire: “Women’s rights groups today pounced on the document, calling it proof that Judge Alito would restrict access to abortion” This time around, these same networks have failed to grant as much as a soundbite to any representative of a conservative group to talk about Kagan over the past six weeks. And the networks have aired no stories conveying GOP complaints about the need for additional Kagan documents from the National Archives or Clinton library. As for controversies, both CNN and the Fox News Channel have offered detailed reports about topics that the broadcast networks have either ignored or downplayed: ■ Kagan’s Princeton papers: CNN and FNC discussed Kagan’s senior thesis on the demise of the Socialist Party in the early 1900s, which she labeled “sad.” FNC’s Shannon Bream and CNN’s Lisa Sylvester both included soundbites from experts suggesting, in the words of Sylvester, that “it’s hard to conclude she herself is a socialist, more of a historian documenting a political movement.” But only FNC’s Bream noted Kagan’s op-ed for The Daily Princetonian , where she openly described herself a “liberal” and wailed about the “anonymous but moral majority-backed avengers of innocent life.” Bream added how “Kagan also said she looked forward to a time when a, quote, ‘more leftist left will once again come to the fore.’” ABC, CBS and NBC coverage of Kagan’s Princeton writings? Zero. ■ Openness to Regulating Political Speech: Both CNN and FNC explored Kagan’s handling of the Citizens United case as Solicitor General. Even though Kagan lost the 5-4 decision, the President had cited that case as an example of her commitment to fighting “special interests seeking to spend unlimited money to influence our elections.” On Special Report , Fox correspondent Major Garrett included a quote from Citizen United’s David Bossie saying Kagan offered “a fundamentally flawed view of the First Amendment, and I think it disqualifies her from the high court.” But CNN’s Kate Bolduan stuck to a positive recounting of Kagan’s style, saying her oral argument showed “she is light on her feet,” “clearly an intellectual” with “quick wit and personality.” As for the networks, ABC’s Jake Tapper and CBS’s Jan Crawford on May 10 made passing references to the case, but none of the broadcast networks explored the details of that case or suggested Kagan’s legal arguments showed a hostility to free speech. ■ Kagan’s ban on military recruitment. As Dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan blocked the U.S. military from using the school’s Office of Career Services because of the ban on open homosexuals serving in the armed forces, a policy Kagan said she “abhorred.” CNN’s Lisa Sylvester offered an in-depth story on May 11, followed by a debate between Lawrence Korb from the liberal Center for American Progress and conservative Frank Gaffney. FNC offered its own story on May 11, quoting two conservative critics of Kagan vs. White House chief of staff David Axelrod and a gay veteran who supported Kagan’s stance. As for the broadcast networks, ABC and NBC limited themselves to a couple of sentences referencing the controversy on the day Kagan was picked. CBS also mentioned the matter on  May 10, with additional coverage on the May 16 Evening News . Reporter Jan Crawford’s tone was sympathetic: “Kagan, like many law school officials, opposed having military recruiters on campus….” In the past, when liberal organizations chose to do “battle” with a Republican appointee to the Court, the networks chronicled the effort and showcased the complaints of left-wing groups. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, these same networks seem decidedly uncurious about the confirmation “fight” over Elena Kagan.

See the article here:
MRC Study: Media Blackout of Supreme Court ‘Battle’