Judiciary Committtee Approves Elena Kagan for Supreme Court

No surprise here, but the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the nomination of Elena Kagan for Supreme Court Justice.

Newsweek reports that Lindsay Graham's support for Kagan kills any chance of a filibuster.

President Obama lauded the vote calling it a "bipartisan affirmation."

Today's vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee is a bipartisan affirmation of her strong performance during her confirmation hearings.

I think some would disagree with that characterization. I just wish he'd stop harping on the need for bi-partisanship and remember that Republicans didn't elect him, Democrats did, and it's not only okay to be partisan, it's what we expected when we voted for him -- change and all that.

< The Tea Party v. Alexander Hamilton | Politics At Its Ugliest And Stupidest >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So .. (none / 0) (#1)
    by nyrias on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    "it's not only okay to be partisan, it's what we expected when we voted for him"

    Was it ok to expand the war, and torture when we re-elected George Bush?

    If the republicans retake the house (or senate), it is ok for them to roll back HCR and give us more tax cut?

    Partisanship can go both ways and democrats are not always the ones in power.  

    Ever hear the expression, "make hay (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 03:24:10 PM EST
    while the sun shines?"  If not, what it means is that one has to take advantage of one's opportunities when they present themselves - something this Democratic-majority Congress has consistently failed to do.

    It has been way too many years since Democrats had an opportunity to put their more liberal (or "progressive," if that's a label you prefer) stamp on the Court(s) via nominations, and to effect positive change in people's lives via legislation.  I guess the biggest stumbling block in this case is that the country did not elect a liberal, or a progressive, as president, and so, there was never any possibility - as far as I'm concerned - that we would finally have the opportunity we needed.

    Obama's almost-obsessive need to please everyone - most especially the Republicans and "savvy" businessmen - has given us so-so nominations, and legislation that bears little resembles to any traditional Democratic philosophy that I am familiar with.  Yes, I know Obama does not make the laws, Congress does, but our Democratic members of the House and Senate have been functioning as an arm of the WH instead of as part of the independent branch of government Congress is, and have happily been catering and kow-towing to the GOP - and their corporate donors - like the good little sycophants they have unabashedly shown themselves to be.

    If members of any political party in power are not committed to legislatively advocating for the positions they are supposed to represent and support, what is the point of electing them?


    wow (none / 0) (#2)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 02:27:37 PM EST

    Yes, in fact Sen Graham said as much re: (none / 0) (#3)
    by DFLer on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 03:12:44 PM EST
    I think some would disagree with that characterization. I just wish he'd stop harping on the need for bi-partisanship and remember that Republicans didn't elect him, Democrats did, and it's not only okay to be partisan, it's what we expected when we voted for him -- change and all that.

    I heard on the radio, so I paraphrase, Lyndsay saying, that while Kagan wouldn't be his choice, she was qualified and that elections have consequences, namely a "liberal" President gets to appoint a "liberal" Judge.

    My senator-- (none / 0) (#4)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    my goodness me!

    oh yes, and he was the one GOP yea vote out of (none / 0) (#6)
    by DFLer on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 03:56:25 PM EST
    committee, I believe.

    Good news for worried conservatives. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Yes2Truth on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 05:57:16 PM EST
    At least uninformed, unsophisticated rightwingers
    who haven't yet snapped that O wouldn't betray his

    were you living in a cave, (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:04:21 PM EST
    for the years 2001-2006?:

    Partisanship can go both ways and democrats are not always the ones in power.  

    this would be the period that republicans controlled both houses of congress, and the oval office. bush and his republican colleagues were very insistent that they didn't care what the minority democrats thought or wanted.

    jeralyn, this is exactly (unfortunately) what i expected from an obama white house, and one of the main reasons i voted for clinton in the primary.

    And just how large of majorities (none / 0) (#9)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:14:51 PM EST
    did the Rs have in both houses?  Especially the Senate - and the filibuster rules were the same as now.  That argument gets wiped out with the actual size of the "majority control".

    No (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:23:33 PM EST
    Your argument gets wiped out because size matters than acting in lockstep. The GOP acted in lockstep, the Democrats do not have a lockstep majority, or supermajority as the GOP have forced.

    A party that acts in 100% unity, because they know stepping out will ruin their career, (illegal wiretapping was not just for terrorists), is very different from a party that has a near supermajority but does not vote in lockstep.


    And Obama voted for the wiretapping (none / 0) (#11)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:26:54 PM EST
    you are moaning about.  Just to address that little side point you raise.  Oh, BTW, so did the majority of the Dems in both houses.  Swing and a miss squeaky.

    The R majorities were too small to run rough shod over the Ds.  Again, that dog don't hunt.


    Sorry For Being Unclear (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:51:56 PM EST
    The GOP during BushCo voted in lockstep.

    The Democrats do not vote in lockstep.

    The GOP are obstructionists

    That accounts for the difficulty of the current Congress getting legislation passed and mitigates the advantage of a near supermajority.

    The reason that the GOP voted in lockstep could only be because Delay, Rove et al had enough information to ruin their lives if they strayed from the Plantation. Hence my reference to illegal wiretapping by BushCo.


    When you have the majorities that the Ds (none / 0) (#13)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:12:41 PM EST
    currently enjoy AND offer up rational and compelling legislation, then it should be a slam dunk - reference the voting records of Snowe, Brown and Collins just to name 3.  

    If the Rs legislation was sooo bad, then why did so many Ds vote Yea?  

    Sorry, but the logic in the argument is not passing the reality test.


    The Dems (none / 0) (#14)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:27:34 PM EST
    use the "we don't have 60 or a veto proof majority" as the excuse for not fighting for what they supposedly believe in.  They either in fact have different values from many of the rank and file, or lack will to govern.  It's as though, in reaction to their treatment as non-existent during the Bush years as a silenced Congressional minority, the response has been to plead to be liked, rather than triumphant, and finally free to lead.

    Slight correction... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 09:27:52 PM EST
    they use the we-don't-have-60-votes line in the final act of this ongoing play in which the earlier acts are all about making the "audience" believe they're engaged in "fighting hard" for the issues they've campaigned on, issues they've used to tease money out of the pockets of ordinary people who are desperate to "believe;" it's theater, wrapped in red, white and blue bunting.

    And they weren't so much non-existent in the Bush years, as they were complicit in the Bush agenda by their lack of focus, lack of unity; they had as much ability to obstruct the GOP as the GOP has to now obstruct the Dems - but they didn't.  

    They didn't.  And now that the time is finally here - the magical, mythical time of when-we-have-the-majority that we've been hearing about for years - they've been exposed for what they're really interested in: themselves.


    Thanks, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 09:32:57 PM EST
    Well Good To Know (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 09:34:00 PM EST
    That the bipartisanship at TL is going swimmingly well.

    At the very least you, BackFromOhio, et al. are all on the same page as BTAL, one of out GOP scouts.


    I'm not interested in bipartisanship, (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:22:29 PM EST
    and I have even less interest in your lame attempts to paint me - or anyone else who has had it with what the Dems have done and where they've taken us - as a GOP sympathizer, GOP wannabe, GOP scout or whatever other with-us-or-against-us labels you keep trying to get to stick because there is no other way for you to defend the execrable and dishonest way in which our faux-Democratic president and the craven and pathetic Congressional Dems have carried out their representation.

    Being disgusted with the Democrats does not equal being enamored of GOP policies; this "bipartisanship" you seem to be yearning for has so blurred the lines between the two parties that I see little difference between them, and have, in fact, argued that I don't see either party, or the Tea Party, as being the answer to what ails us.

    If you want to defend these a$$hats, by all means, go for it; I'm sure we'll all be waiting with bated breath to see if you can do it without dragging the rest of us into it to make your case.


    OK (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:48:26 PM EST
    Just pointing out that, BTAL a GOP supporter totally agrees with you. You make his case, in this thread.

    Well, I guess your work here is done... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:53:35 PM EST
    I'm sure you'll sleep well tonight.

    Give the lady a cigar (none / 0) (#22)
    by Yes2Truth on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 08:35:21 AM EST

    Like another lady once said - "live it, or live with it".

    Straight ahead, Anne.  I'm with you all the way.
    (from just across the Bay)


    I not only have no interest in (none / 0) (#23)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    bipartisanship, but ad hominem arguments as well.  The Repubs think this or that, therefore the idea is bad, etc. is just not persuasive when the focus is on the value of the ideas.  If your argument, Squeaky, is that joining company with Repubs (the ironic bipartisianship here doesn't escape me) on any matter critical of the current Dem administration may politically weaken that Admin, make that argument, rather than trying to shame me or anyone else into withholding our ideas because they may find strange bedfellows in non-Democrats.  

    Fine (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:08:55 PM EST
    All I am saying is that it is not a good thing to shoot oneself in the foot because a GOP political operative, whose objective is for the GOP to win, is arguing that the Democrats with more seats are doing worse than when the GOP had a majority.

    As much as you dislike Obama and the lackluster Democrats, doesn't mean that the lockstep GOP are in anyway a desirable alternative.


    Please don't claim to know (none / 0) (#25)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:39:14 PM EST
    who I like and don't like - it's more of the ad hominem mode of non-analysis.  I respect that you want to support Obama vs. the Repubs.  But I expect you to support my different take, while you have every right to state your opinion. In other words, don't call me names or impute negative opinions to me about certain public figures.  I, for one, do not personally dislike our Pres, but I disagree with many positions he has taken. There is a difference.  There's much too much name calling around the blogs, and I don't like it when used against you, any other Dems, or indeed, Repubs.  Name-calling ads nothing to the discussion.  It distracts everyone from the important issues and gives undue weight to emotion-laden arguments of who is with us or agin us.  I have a lot of respect for the tolerance shown in your comments here for people of diverse backgrounds, but find your laudable tolerance undermined by your constant labeling of commenters here as having ideas that agree with the ideas of Republicans or that reflect "dislike" for Obama.  Some take their politics very personally, and I at times do as well.  But I try to stick to the issues when presenting my posts here about my thoughts as well as my disagreements with the ideas of others.  

    Stuff It (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:46:48 PM EST
    I was responding to BTAL, Anne and you jumped in, which is fine.

    I responded to Ann, you responded to me, and I responded back.

    I did not "resort to ad hominems".


    BS (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 08:33:27 PM EST
    They are fighting for what they believe in, it is just that they do not all believe in the same things.  

    And, even if the Dems could be lockstep, there is no way that they could elude a particularly nasty obstructionist GOP.

    I have to give you ego points, though,  because for you imagine that even a small majority of the Democrats share your political viewpoints, is pretty grandiose.