I'm just getting online today. Time management is becoming a serious issue, I've definitely got to learn some new tricks because I am not ready to give up blogging.

Sorry for my absence, I'll try to do better.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

I guess hating on Latinos will not be the centerpiece of the GOP platform in 2012:

Officials said the Phoenix bid was complicated by the high temperatures in August and the recent debate over the state’s new immigration law.

Florida, of course, is nice and cool in August. Maybe Florida was chosen to highlight how Charlie Crist is the new face of the GOP . . . oh wait . . .

AZ SB 1070, a resounding success already!

Speaking for me only

Open Thread.

This is Monday Morning quarterbacking (not in a bad sense), and we are past this stage of the Kagan Debate now, but Scott Lemieux provides a progressive critique of President Obama's decision to nominate Elena Kagan:

I never understand persons who proclaim their desire for "principled progressives" attacking those on the Left who actually, argue for, um, principled progressive positions. From No More Mister Nice Guy Blog:

[W]hile I'd like a president (and subordinates and appointees of that president) to be principled progressives rather than eager-to-please seekers of common ground, I prefer eager-to-please semi-progressive seekers of common ground to the sociopaths of the GOP, who'd happily burn this country to the ground if it meant they'd be the lords of what smoking embers remained. So I'll continue to voice objections to what displeases me about the Obama administration, but I'm not forgetting who the real enemy is.

Part of my frustration with Firebagging in general is that progressives simply lack the muscle to drag not just the administration but Congress and the country all that far to the left by sheer force of will, and Firebaggers don't seem to understand that. [. . .] We've got a lot of work to do to get our message across. We're not going to get there by regularly joining right-wingers in Obama pile-ons.

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course "joining right wingers in Obama pile-ons" is not a winning strategy. But NOT joining progressive criticisms (if you agree with them, as it happens I disagree with a lot of them- see me on Afghanistan, preventive detention, Kagan, free trade, etc.), or worse yet, excoriating progressives for criticizing Democrats from the Left sounds like a losing strategy for promoting progressivism too. More . . .

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, [. . .] to [. . .] appoint [. . .] Judges of the supreme Court - Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution

When discussing President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, I think it is important that we understand the process and what stage we are at. Many people are just joining the discussion now, after President Obama nominated Kagan. But the discussion began soon after Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement. That discussion centered upon who Obama should pick. Many, including myself, hoped Obama would choose a committed progressive voice with a clear record. For some of us, Pam Karlan would have been the dream pick. Judge Diane Wood, who appeared on the reported short lists, was the preferred short listed candidate amongst most progressives.

The President, exercising his constitutional power, chose instead to nominate Kagan. While discussions continue to rage as to why Obama preferred Kagan to Wood, from a Constitutional perspective, the issue now becomes the role of the Senate exercising its Advice and Consent power. It is my view that the Senate, in the exercise of its constitutional duties, must deeply explore the legal views of the nominee before "consenting" to the President's choice. More . . .

Open Thread.

Ezra writes:

[W]e simply don't know that much about Kagan's [views.] Her defenders point to her long history working for Democratic politicians and clerking for liberal judges as a record in itself, and they're not wrong on that. But at best, it's evidence of an orientation rather than a guide to Kagan's thinking. That's why Kagan's hearings will be an uncommonly high-stakes affair, as they're really the only avenue open to us to learn about her judicial thinking.

[. . .] Kagan has previously stated her belief that nominees should be extremely forthcoming during confirmation hearings. [. . .] It's worth pausing for a moment to look at where we are: A candidate who has impressed everyone she's ever worked with [. . .] but doesn't have the sort of public record that we associate with people vying for the job she's seeking. [. . . W]e need the Senate hearings to learn about Kagan. Testimonials and analogies are no substitute for hard information.

Precisely.

Funny stuff from Byron York:

When left-leaning activist groups, civil rights leaders and lawmakers in several cities called for a boycott of Arizona over the state's new illegal immigration law, they did more than make a point about illegal immigration. They also set off a war -- a war that no one will win.

[. . .] "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if that started, at any level, there would be reciprocation from Arizona," says Barry Broome, president of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council. "A boycott can only lead to harm."

Yep. Arizona will boycott the rest of the country, gawdammit! They may even boycott MLB and throw the Diamondbacks out of the state! The "concern" coming from one of the strongest advocates for AZ SB 1070 is just precious. Ha!

Boycott Arizona!

Speaking for me only

NYTimes editorial on why the Kagan Standard must be applied to Elena Kagan:

President Obama may know that his new nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, shares his thinking on the multitude of issues that face the court and the nation, but the public knows nothing of the kind.

[. . . A] search for her own views on dozens of other matters yields little. Though she has said that she respects precedents on abortion, she has said virtually nothing on racial preferences, gun rights or private property rights. [. . .] There is no record to suggest an answer.

[I]n one of Ms. Kagan’s few forcefully stated positions, she wrote in 1995 that she detests “polite and restrained” confirmation hearings, calling them a “vapid and hollow charade” and urging senators to fully explore a court nominee’s substantive views. We hope the Senate follows her advice and gets Ms. Kagan to open up a little.

The Senate must demand that Kagan open up a lot.

Speaking for me only

Glenn Greenwald approvingly links to Jonathan Turley's statement (see also Jeralyn) that:

President Obama has decided to nominate someone who is demonstrably more conservative than [Justice Stevens] on some issues [. . .]

Turley refers specifically to Kagan's stated views on preventive detention and designation of enemy combatants. I think Turley's claim is inaccurate. Whether one agrees with Kagan's views on the matter, what is clear is that Kagan's stated views do not diverge from Justice Stevens' stated views on this issue. To understand this point, it is necessary to review Justice Stevens' opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfled and the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia, which Justice Stevens joined in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Let's consider these opinions on the flip.

A healthy honest to goodness substantive debate has erupted over the nomination of Elena Kagan. For once, the debate of the moment is between what I would call Left progressives and Center progressives. (The Republicans are likely to oppose any Obama nominee en masse, so they are irrrelevant to the substance of the debate, but perhaps not to the process (more on that later.))

For the first time in a long time, I watched Keith Olbermann's Countdown and Rachel Maddow's show to watch the debate. Olbermann had Jonathan Turley on (not my favorite, but he was interesting last night) and Ezra Klein on the politics of the nomination (Ezra was pretty good too.) Maddow had the more interesting segment, with Glenn Greenwald and Larry Lessig. Here is the Maddow segment:

More . . .