Skip to comments.Kagan Botches Oral Argument In Supreme Court Appearance At Citizens United Lawsuit
Posted on 05/11/2010 8:11:43 AM PDT by raybbr
Hot Air explains how Solicitor General Elena Kagan muffed her argument in front of the Supreme Court on the Citizens United v. FEC case: In fact, the crux of the case was the issue of limiting expenditures as an expression of political speech, not contributions. Kagan started off her argument by misconstruing the issue and then offering a factually incorrect reading of precedent. Both Scalia and Kennedy objected to it before Kagan even had time to get the argument completed, although as the transcript notes, she didnt pay much attention to them.
ORAL ARGUMENT OF ELENA KAGAN
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLEE GENERAL KAGAN: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:
I have three very quick points to make about the government position. The first is that this issue has a long history. For over 100 years Congress has made a judgment that corporations must be subject to special rules when they participate in elections and this Court has never questioned that judgment.
Number two -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait, wait, wait, wait. We never questioned it, but we never approved it, either. And we gave some really weird interpretations to the Taft-Hartley Act in order to avoid confronting the question.
GENERAL KAGAN: I will repeat what I said, Justice Scalia: For 100 years this Court, faced with many opportunities to do so, left standing the legislation that is at issue in this case first the contribution limits, then the expenditure limits that came in by way of Taft-Hartley and then of course in Austin specifically approved those limits.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
From David Horowitz's
PROFILE: ELENA KAGAN
As an undergraduate at Princeton, Kagan wrote a senior thesis titled
"To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933."
In the "Acknowledgments" section of her work, she specifically thanked her brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas. In the body of the thesis, Kagan wrote:
"In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalisms glories than of socialisms greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nations established parties?...
"Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialisms decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight ones fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope."
Lots more on Kagan here:
Jesus... she’s toeing the Obama line with every talking point he’s muttered. This woman(?) needs to be filibustered or denied. 25 - 30 years of this sort of liberalism would be devastating to our country and our Constitution.
Just what we need- a dumbass butch on the supreme court
There can be no doubt Obambi is trying to ruin this country for good.
just another example of social justice and the progressive parties drive to put their people in all places, irregardless of their qualifications.
like the current resident, this person is just not qualified.
Heh heh, they said "muffed".
HA....most of Congress is “not qualified”....
Can’t be worse than the ridiculous lib she’s replacing.
Standing in front of the Bench is a hell of a lot different than sitting behind the Bench and attempting to enforce the Constitution.
I formally request that we avoid using her name and “oral” in the same sentence. Thanks.
I can appreciate your standpoint, but that’s exactly the problem we have with the USSC. The Pubbies roll over because “she’s just replacing another liberal.”
That’s not the point! We’re talking about the Constitution here.
I think it’s very interesting and telling that no one in the MSM is talking about the historic nature of this nomination. She would be the first openly homosexual Supreme Court justice.
Sometimes, the gay community take the position that “we’re here, we’re queer” and proudly announce their homosexuality to the world. Other times, it appears that they want to hide it.
We’ve been told how damaging it has been for people to have been “in the closet” and all that. We’ve been told that homosexual rights is the next big civil rights battle. Yet a conscious decision has been made to not sell her as the historic 1st openly gay Supreme Court justice.
Justice Stevens was a liberal, but more wise and more old school liberal. This Kagan is a fool as her argument noted here shows. She is so dim, she went ahead parroting what her minions at the office wrote for her without having the analytical brains to see it was a misreading of the issue at hand. Why, because she is outcome and agenda based, not caring or seeing the particular issue at hand.
i don’t get it
I’ve never heard, until the past few days with this lame-o the term “General So and So” for the Soliciter General. Unreal.
And you think Kagan, of all people, would be skilled at “oral presentations”
Boy, her, Ginsberg and the “wide Latina” Call them the “Lee Sisters”
Bring in Michelle as the fourth one “UnGod-Lee”
A must read
Don’t get me wrong. I think we should fight it. I just don’t think we’d see any different votes from her than from who she’s replacing. That goes for anyone Obama will appoint, imo. They will all be indoctrinated liberals.
I’ve seen some liberal criticism that obama chooses to keep her lesbianism under wraps. Sort of like the White House version of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.