Tag Archives: supreme-court

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’

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?

What questions would you like to see Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan answer?

Today is the second day of Senate confirmation hearings for Obama's second Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. With the 2010 elections approaching, plenty of Senators are expected to use this as an opportunity to do a little campaigning before a national audience. But outside of partisan positioning – what questions would you like to see her answer? What are the biggest questions facing out Supreme Court these days? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/us/30kagan.html added by: afitzgerald

What Questions Should Kagan Answer?

The Supreme Court nominee is on her second day of confirmation hearings.

Read the rest here:
What Questions Should Kagan Answer?

Salon’s Walsh Jumps the Shark — Calls GOP Senators Bigots for Invoking Manhattan’s Upper West Side

Did you know that calling attention to an area where a Supreme Court justice nominee is from, which happens to be a well-known bastion of liberalism, is bigoted ?  If you didn’t, you want to take a look at the wisdom of Salon.com’s Joan Walsh. In her June 28 post “It’s not even coded bigotry anymore,” Walsh argued that references to SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan’s Upper West Side of Manhattan roots are bigoted -since the neighborhood has Jewish features, references to it are anti-Semitic and as she puts it, “not even coded.” “That said, Republicans on the Senate Judicial Committee are trying to make the case she’s outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence, by attacking her clerking for (and admiring) legal giant Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Supreme Court justice, while singling her out as a denizen of ‘Manhattan’s Upper West Side’ – you know, the neighborhood known for Zabar’s and bagels and, well, Jews,” Walsh wrote. Walsh wasn’t clear about what she thinks these Senate Republicans are trying to accomplish. Conventional wisdom suggests Kagan will be easily confirmed, but pointing out the neighborhood she is from, with documented evidence of having an ideological liberal leaning , is going to accomplish what? She also took a stab at ranking Senate Judiciary Committee Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, with her own efforts to be coded – by invoking his middle name, “Beauregard.” (Remember when liberals hemmed and hawed over using President Barack Obama’s middle name, “Hussein,” as if that were a coded effort to suggest he was Muslim ?) Her beef with Sessions was that he voiced his disapproval of judicial activism. “Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions of Alabama, who wasn’t crazy about Sonia Sotomayor, you’ll recall, denounced Kagan having ‘associated herself with well-known activist judges who have used their power to redefine the meaning of our constitution and have the result of advancing that judge’s preferred social policies,’ and he cited Marshall, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund leader who argued Brown vs. Board of Education,” Walsh wrote. Therefore with that evidence, Walsh declared any GOP senator that opposes Kagan a bigot. “So there you have it. Unable to find any personal statements by Kagan they can use to prove she’s beyond the pale, so to speak – no ‘wise Latina’ moments on her transcripts – they deride her for coming from the Upper West Side, and admiring one of the heroes of American justice, who happens to be black,” Walsh wrote. “Stay tuned for more not-so-coded bigotry from the GOP.”

Original post:
Salon’s Walsh Jumps the Shark — Calls GOP Senators Bigots for Invoking Manhattan’s Upper West Side

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’

Video Compilation of Police Violence at Toronto G20

From assaults on journalists to attempts by the police force to demonize black blocs for the cops' inexcuseable conduct, multiple videos at link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7OA920pbv8&feature=player_embedded added by: animalia_libero

Ultimate Stress buster? iPhone 4 shot at, microwaved!

New gadgets are always put to vigorous tests to check for durability and stability. With the iPhone 4 technology has gone to a new level and so did the tests. http://itgrunts.com/2010/06/28/ultimate-stress-buster-iphone-4-shot-at-microwave… added by: itgrunts

Supreme Court Rules Against Christian Student Group

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that a Christian student group that bars LGBT members and their allies cannot receive official recognition and funding from a public law school. The case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, centered on the Christian Legal Society at the University of California Hastings College of the Law. The student group refused membership to LGBT individuals and those who advocate for them, and sued when the university denied institutional support to the group in response. According to the Associated Press, “The court on Monday turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. added by: TimALoftis

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’