« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Silver Lining in Kagan Confirmation

In an op-ed in the Daily Caller, I conclude that

[B]elievers in the rule of law have several things to cheer in the Kagan confirmation battle. Republican senators mounted their strongest opposition in more than a century, sending strong signals to the White House about future Supreme Court picks, while teeing up important issues for this fall’s Senate races. The confirmation fight also saw the continuing repudiation of the Left’s living Constitution philosophy and the solidification of a profound change in the politics of judicial confirmations wrought by the prominence of gun rights for the second time in two summers.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

    That’s comedy, right?

    “…sending strong signals to the White House”.

    We waived the white flag really really hard there at the end! That oughta show him. Show him what, that for his next insane Marxist pick he’s got to find a sitting judge?

    And we got a Democrat, Ben Nelson (D-Warren Buffett), to vote against the confirmation. But he voted to break the filibuster, and more importantly announced that we would vote against the filibuster. It was all a sham, and you do your readers no good to pretend otherwise.

    The NRA? It took a member revolt to get them to come around, after the deal was already sealed. Supreme Court confirmations have to be opposed loudly and immediately, with no cover given. That didn’t happen.

    Nero just got his horse appointed to the Senate, and you’re impressed at the daring opposition sending a signal with their tepid applause.

    Washington.

    • http://www.moccasincreekminutemen.com VizBiz

      I would say the only good that has come out of this is the exposure of clueless republicans like Graham, but then we already knew that. I’m hoping those folks in SC are biting at the bits to throw him out.

      These republicans are going to thwart repeal efforts next year and may caucus with the Dems. I’m really starting to loose faith for our shot at ending this nightmare.

    • usadying

      He’s trying to save his job. If Reid had needed his vote, he would have voted yes. It’s Lugar’s vote that mystifies me.

      • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

        He’s naively trying to play nice with the Marxists on the hope that a GOP President would get the same treatment.

        But a GOP President, if he picked a corporate lawyer or hack with analogous credentials to Kegan, would not ever receive the kind of fawning deference a Dem will.

        Senators need to recognize that the collegiality of the Senate works only one way with these clowns. And I think it’s always been that way, but the Republicans have been too cowed to face up to it.

  • fbks

    resulted in the constitution being “borked” again. We need a senate that will end this abusive practice and actually uphold and defend the document which forms the foundation of the nation.
    I asked a friend going out of state if he was absentee voting. He said his one vote wouldn’t matter…….. Hard to believe this mindset from otherwise good people is as prevelant as it is.

    • gekster

      He leads by one vote.

      • tngal

        Are three pieces of work expected to land in her lap in the short run. Can we take bets on how she’ll rule? Now, imagine a lifetime of similar rulings.

      • tngal

        I’m wondering if we can get ANYTHING out of this piece of silver?

        • gekster
          • acat
          • gekster

            is three happy meals or a 12 pack of beer.

          • tngal

            beer? happy meals? beer? happ…BEER! :)

          • gekster

            beer.
            But when I’m with the grandkids, it says happy meals.

  • wolfgang

    This is the woman Hiussein Obama is counting on to make sodomy and bestiality the law of the land, and she’s been confirmed.
    Uttering a statement like that is somewhere along the lines of saying that Stalingrad was technically a victory for the German Army in 1943.

    • wannabeanncoulter

      This is the woman Hiussein Obama is counting on to make sodomy and bestiality the law of the land, and she?s been confirmed.

      So that’s why my neighbor’s Rottie was looking at my funny yesterday….

      • NoDoze

        n/t

        • wannabeanncoulter

          Me. I meant me. (I am blushing.)

          • NoDoze

            My editor’s eyes just naturally pick those things up. I thought it was very funny.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    …is that they’re still playing from the ladies’ tee.

    Otherwise, your observations are fair enough. If we can get to and thru November, I agree, this was Obama’s last leftwing nomination.

    • fpete13527

      I would say more like the junior Camp Fire Girls tee….not even

  • izoneguy

    hatched by these 5 Repubicants?

    Maybe they think by putting Kagan on the court she will be a disaster for Obama?

    Maybe they think by putting Kagan on the court the Democrats will love them again?

    I know one thing – by putting Kagan on the court – these five will find getting re-elected a near impossible task.

    Either way – Kagan is a disaster for America. My best wishes are not for her success but for her early demise.

    • RedBeard

      I wish I could agree, because those five really need to go, but it will be difficult to dislodge them.

      Maine and New Hampshire voters seem to like squishy Republicans without core principles, and Indiana voters seem unable to grasp that their old familiar favorite son has abandoned Indiana interests in favor of being a senator from D.C.

      Lindsey “I’m about to cry” Graham might be the vulnerable one, given the awakening in his state. We can hope, since his erratic and unpredictable behavior (except when it comes to coddling illegals, where he is very consistently wrong) makes him the worst of the lot, in my opinion.

      • acat

        And the good news is Stutzmans’ showing against old war horse Coats was pretty good – if Stutzman is up for another round, he could do even better. Truth on his side and all that.

        Mew

      • indylawyer

        Lugar is up for re-election in 2012, but I have no idea what is going to happen with his seat. He might retire – he’s certainly old enough. But people with better connections than me say they hear he’s going to run again. If so, I’d be somewhat surprised if he doesn’t get a primary challenge. Probably not Stutzman now that he’s getting a fairly safe house seat. But maybe Hostetler. Or we have a conservative state senator named Mike Delph who is certainly behaving like he has bigger ambitions.

        Incidentally, it’s tough to gauge how popular Lugar really is because he hasn’t had a serious challenge since 1982. Hasn’t gotten less than 65% since. In 2006 the Democrats didn’t even put up a candidate. I attended the GOP state convention here in June and realized afterwards that I hadn’t even heard his name mentioned. Not only did he not show up, he didn’t have a booth or any volunteer presence. I don’t recall any of the other candidates touting their relationship with him or endorsements from him, and I don’t recall hearing any of the delegates talking about him. He was just invisible.

      • Scope

        I thought Judd Gregg was retiring, and, he could care less what he does now. I agree Graham will have a hard time as a bunch of GOP committees in his state have been publicly speaking out against him, and his erratic behavior. The Maine Brains have been both stepping up their support of Democrat disasters, and, hopefully they will cross the line of what even those in Maine will tolerate. They are both not spring chickens, and, they may be considering retiring anyway. We will know when the Lame Duck session hits. I don’t know much about Lugar, but, it seems that I have heard his name in negative ways before.

        • RedBeard

          He never was a conservative, but when he first went to Washington he was at least a sensible man. His problem seems to be the same one that afflicts so many long-time Republican members of Congress; the self-defeating yet overwhelming need to be “collegial” and well-liked. Democrats laugh up their sleeves at the suckers on the other side of the aisle who buy into that nonsense.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    The judiciary is quickly becoming a perdurable bastion of whimsical oligarchs who enforce the liberal?s proclivity to steal freedom in the name of righteousness. This unelected, unrepresentative branch with terms for ?life? continues to defy the will of our citizens who are the rightful owners of this government.

    I believe ?Brutus? was right and you would do well to read, or perhaps reread his warnings;

    ?The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature.?

    Congress will come and go, yet this scourge which seeks to litigate our rights, overrule the general will and unabashedly contravene our Constitution through the use of legal inventions based on foreign precepts and manufactured facts, is here to stay. Accordingly, the courts have proven, and will continue over time to remain the greatest threat to our republic and fundamental liberties. They have displayed a remarkable ability to plunder our Constitution in the pursuit of goals which have nothing to do with legal interpretation, but are rather more an exercise of tyranny, designed to align our society with the goals of a minority who is otherwise powerless under our separate, ?equal? and specifically articulated branches of government.

    There is also nothing to ?cheer? or celebrate in a minority who purportedly represents those still calling themselves ?Republicans?, led by people such as McConnell, Graham, Collins and Snowe who are largely responsible for our current predicament, advancing a few appealing political arguments for the gallery then ultimately, ?hands in the air?, saying we gave it the old college try or perhaps better luck next time. In fact, it sounds like d?j? vu or perhaps more ignis fatuus from people who have no idea they just carried the Barbarian leader through the gates of Rome.

    • aesthete

      is looking all the more prophetic every time I chance upon it. Sadly, it did not have to be so.

      • Marcus_Traianus

        And how about Federalist #78? I bet Hamilton would like to take those words back.

        I am going to wander over to Trinity- I have a bone to pick with him.

        • aesthete

          “Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

          Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ‘to raise money for the general welfare.’”

          How tragically like Cassandras the Anti-Federalists have shown themselves to be in this latter hour!

  • d_lamar

    I agree with the posts here that there is no silver lining for the confirmation of Kagan. The Republicans continue to act like this is no big deal.

    It is a huge deal that another marxist is now on the Court and will be there for another couple of generations. Real conservatives should have shouted, organized, and informed the people that our Constitution is being hijacked by a bunch of loonies that don’t give a da*n about the Constitution.

    A movement should be started to ignore the decisions of the federal courts, such as the recent decisions in Arizona and California which have no constitutional basis. Impeachment proceedings should be started against these so-called judges.

    The people of this country are sick and tired of this tyranny by the federal courts.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    1) Health care – Almost, but O still wins.
    2) Special Elections – almost, but Dem incumbants hang on.
    3) This appointment – great effort guys, enjoy reading her rulings for at least 25 years.

    We have to get it done. Moral victories don’t send that Matthews Tingle up my leg anymore.

    Benishek is ahead by one vote. Franken won a Senate Seat by about -500.

    We need to be more determined than they are.

  • http://www.2010blog.net jsanzone

    Who, while quite imperfect, is not as horrific as Kagan when you get down to the brass tacks.

  • tomkinney

    Of Kagan, I had previously thought, ‘at least she’s not as bad as nearly any other progressive hopeful Obamageddon might choose to visit on us’. That was beforel I read several posts on redstate recently.

    Sharia is a pox on modernity and civilization itself and if Kagan is predisposed either in favor of, or simply indifferent to, the dangers of Sharia, a pox on her house as well.

    The only salvation for Islam in the long run is a robust reformation as was experienced by Christianity some centuries ago. What reformation has done for Christians is to peel away the stranglehold that the religion had held over the body politic of the nation state, allowing nascent nations to breath, to move ahead, and in short, to modernize. It also served to blunt the literal readings of some older passages in the Bible as well as some in the New Testament that have been too often acted on via historical misinterpretation. For example, Revelations looks with great fear and consternation at the world of the first century, mostly because of threats from the Roman ‘s attempted extermination of early Christians. Commonly thought to be written by the Apostle John, these were very real dangers then, but they are too often today generalized to apply to modern scenarios of which there are an abundance. But Revelations was not written for the 20th or 21st centuries, unless you are a literalist who is willing to apply those time-specific “warnings” through projection. Without the redemption of reformation, those old tracts remain relevant because they are given literal currency as the ?word of god?s will.? Post-reformation, and especially via modern archeology and other sciences, Revelations slowly began to be seen in context as histories, not as prophesies that could be pegged to any crisis down through the ages. Not as Apostle John as Nostradamus.

    If Islam can successfuly achieve reformation, its literal readings by its fundamentalists, particularly terrorists, will be seen as the historic narratives they were designed to be.

    Islam needs a reformation before Sharia in its more toxic modern forms can be dispelled; before a two-state solution can take effect in Israel; before Muslim countries can join the global community of nations as anything other than super-sized, rogue irritants. A study a few years ago clearly showed that the majority of global “troubles” occur at the interface of Islam and its neighbors. And this is so all over the world. In other words, stop the toxin leaking out from the terrorist applications of Sharia, and you staunch most of the skirmishes plaguing the planet. This is to some degree true irregardless of terrorists, as the irritant is just as often mainstream Islam itself even in its moderate forms, and it occurs because Islam has yet to walk through the cleansing fires of reformation.

    Sharia is but the latest expression of the absence of reformation.

    I?ve often wondered, in this context, why Judaism, which to my knowledge has never had a reformation per se, has retained its sanity as a global religion. I suspect it has to do with the fact that it does not proselytize, like Buddhism, and has never been a global power. Those two elements are related. If you fail to push your religion aggressively upon your neighbors, you remain relatively powerless; without that power you have no need to dominate your neighbors and all the unsavory behavors that come along with conquest and dominance.

    In any regard, if this disinterest of the dangers of Sharia Law is to any degree true of Kagan, then her naivete is a big problem, though I hope that she will come to abandon her naive ways. But we know full well that extreme ideologues rarely shed their skins.

    And just an FYI: Having traveled extensively by foot in the Mideast, North Africa, and down the largely Muslim east coast of Africa, I do not blame the people of Islam for Islam?s problems. They are a fine and legendarily hospitable people, and the legend is true to a fault. And we can see that most Muslims who immigrate here experience success and are ready for modernity. They are a cultured people long readied for modernity. Conversely, we see that because of their familial and cultural insularity, the children of Islamic immigrants are too often attracted to the thrill of terrorism, despite the enhanced lifestyle they have enjoyed here and in Europe.

    It?s reformation or bust for Islam. If you believe, as I do, that the symptoms of a reformation include a prolonged period of violent and anti-social behaviors, as we are witnessing throughout the Islamic world, it is my great hope that it is precisely that reformation that we are experiencing right now. And while reformation’s symptoms are ugly and unsettling, we know from our own experience that ultimately they are enlightening and pave the way for a better future.

  • AceInTX

    Republican senators mounted their strongest opposition in more than a century, sending strong signals to the White House about future Supreme Court picks,

    and how hard did Senate Republicans work to stop her anyway…I didn’t see any kind of coordinated message in opposition to her coming from them. Why weren’t they on the floor raising hell about her from the beginning

    • AceInTX

      silver lining my rosey read AXX!

      • renny

        as it should have been seven.

        Who is up to start running against the MN Gold Dust twins?

    • Richard Mullins

      and a filibuster is worthless at that point. Even Ben Nelson, the only Dem to vote No, would vote for cloture, thus making a filibuster worthless. Getting mad on the Senate floor is worthless, Dems don’t listen to that and it’s impossible to get those Republicans solidly for Kagan to vote no. It’s time to use the votes against Linseed and Lugar, since they aren’t retiring yet. Work on knocking off a few Dems(even Feingold is getting vulnerable) and unify in the right. Sorry pal, but at times you and puff too much.

      • AceInTX

        as far as the five go…I’m simply pointing out the folly of the OP about silver linings and a united Republican caucus

        What a sick joke THAT is!

        • AceInTX

          Sorry pal, but at times you (Huff?)and puff too much.

          Just once I’d like to see a fight from these worthless blowhards and self important boobs. we’ve gone from one Obamanation to another with nary a peep out of the bunch of them.

          yeah they’ve managed to keep 38 out of 41 Senators on board most of the time but there is never a consequence for the 3 that continally piss down our legs while telling us it’s raining and laughing at our outrage.

          For GOD’s sake..we just had a judge in CA overturn 70% of the voters decision there and I’ve seen hardly anything from any of them about judicial over reach. On the contrary…I get Lindsey Graham telling me that a president is entitled to his nominations just a few years after leaving skid marks on the backs of Etsrada and Brown in an effort to salvage the comity in the Senate!

          How about a little consistency from these clowns? How about some passion?…how about some fight?…how about holding an arrogant bunch of snobish elites accountable for their assinine behavior?….

          but no….I’ll keep griping…and everyone will keep telling me I need to sit down and shut up…meanwhile Obama keeps checking off the boxes of his radical agenda and these aXXholes will keep looking for ways to accommodate him all of them are a bunch of know it alls, and unprincipled jackasses who could give a DXXX whether this country collapses of it’s on weight so long as they end up on top of the rubble when it’s over and they’ll look down their noses at the rest of us who would like to keep at least something recognizable of the country I’ve lived and sacrifices for.

          So I Huff and Puff too much?

          heh!

      • cactusjack

        filibuster where they went on the Senate floor with a NY telephone book, liquid vitamins, a bed in the hall, change of underwear and saline packs for IV injection, and talked & talked a bad bill to death? Somehow those Senators dodged cloture vote, got on the floor and started talking, and then nothing could stop them is how I thought it worked. Can this be done now, did the rules change, just wondering?

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          … to make the job easier on everyone, because hey,t hey have fundraisers to get to.

  • Achance

    There is no silver lining to this. We didn’t do anything of consequence. The same old “we have to get along to get invited to the good parties” thing held. Some R’s just cemented their A-list credentials, and the rest could safely vote against the communist lesbian because they knew she would be confirmed in a “bi-partisan” vote – how nice! The real problem for Republicans is that we have idiots like you who can find something good in this.

  • fbks

    better beef up their secret service protection because we cannot afford to lose any one of them.
    The opposition to Kagan’s confirmation was pathetic and indicates a solidification of the Left?s living Constitution philosophy within the Court.

  • jmadisonfan

    thanks for your post, I feel sooooo much better.

  • SirGladiator

    I applaud the positive attitude and the attempt at finding a silver lining in this very dark cloud, but I must also respectfully disagree, there is no substantive silver lining here. Of course its nice, in its way, that we didn’t lose by a bigger margin, but in the end a loss is still a loss. Today we have one more ultra, ULTRA liberal member of the US Supreme Court. One more vote for abortion, one more vote for gay marriage, one more vote to take away our private property rights, one more vote for Obamacare, etc etc etc its a dark day indeed, and the fact that we lost the vote 63-37 instead of 73-27 or some such doesn’t change that.

    The silver lining you’re looking for won’t be found until November, when hopefully we’ll gain the kind of massive victory that really will send a message to the White House to change their far-left ways, and govern the way the American People want them to, which of course means, among other things, no more ultra liberal justices like Kagan. They may choose to ignore that message, as they did after the Scott Brown victory, but a big enough victory in November will at least do that powerful message-sending that your article speaks of, and we can only hope and pray that this time the White House listens.

  • blh1976

    Put down the crack pipe and head to rehab now.

    The only way to describe the GOP’s “opposition” to Kagan is that it was ineptness in motion. Pathetic.

  • NeoKong

    Gregg, Lugar, Graham, Collins and Snowe.

    Was that the face of our “strongest opposition”…?
    The Republican party is only as strong as it’s weakest links and brother we have some that are pretty damn weak.
    A lot of things that the Senate does are typical nuts and bolt legislations like appropiations and jobs bills and such. But there are times when something comes along that is just so damn wrong that they should not receive one single Republican vote.
    But yet they do.

    We are now stuck with Kagan, someone who will make decisions based on outcome and fill in the blanks after for possibly the next thirty years.
    She is an unqualified judicial activist who will be an Obama rubber stamp.
    She would spit on the Constitution over any liberal cause.
    The fact that any Republican voted for her at all is a disgrace and those five Senators can never be trusted again and we need to eject them the first chance we get.
    How many times must they betray the people who voted for them…?

    If we cannot count on our Senators to hold the line when so much is at stake then what difference do all those other votes make…?

  • Joliphant

    To primary the senators who caved

    Olympia Snowe
    Susan Collins
    Judd Gregg
    Dick Lugar of Indiana
    Lindsey Graham

  • Castor

    Gregg is out at years end,Lugar will probably retire in 2012.(Marlin Stutzman is waiting to pounce),Grahamnesty will be gone in the primary of 2014, but The Snobsy Twins of Maine will be difficult to get rid of.

  • Kyle-MI

    The vote for Sotomyer was worse as has been the vote for every one of the liberal justices.

  • RedBeard

    With five brain-damaged and irrational Republicans defecting to the Dark Side, and Dems united in their distain for the Constitution, I fail to see anything inside that cloud but more cloud.

    And the only message to Obama that I see here is reminiscent of: “…we shall take your castle by force.” Something tells me he couldn’t care less, as he continues to taunt us about hamsters and elderberries while he dumps fecal matter on our heads.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs

  • E Pluribus Unum

    I accept no silver lining, no moral victory. Clean house.

    NRA – gone!
    The Graham 5 – gone!
    McConnell – gone!

    That is the intwrnal housecleaning, so then we can focus on the real enemies of America.

    Democrat majority in the Senate – gone!
    Democrat majority in the House – long, long gone!
    Holder, Rangel, Pelosi – in jail!
    Obama – gone!
    Major national media -gone!
    Soros – gone!
    Health care takeover – gone!
    Kagan – impeached!
    UN – off our soil!
    Border fence – up!

    That’s what I savor, like blood in my mouth. Death to tyranny.

  • quill67

    By nominating someone who is obviously not qualified, Kagan will have very little intellectual influence on the moderate justices.

    Sure, she will be a vote for the “living document” theory of the constitution, but if Obama could have nominated an intellectual force that justice might have moved the weak moderate justices to the liberal position.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • jb13

    There is another item even Curt overlooked: by nominating and approving Kagan, the Left gave us a precedent. When we take back the White House, our guys are now free to nominate right-wing ideologues with no judicial experience and little real world experience of any kind.

  • indylawyer

    The result of this nomination was pretty well decided by the 2008 elections. Even with the Brown pick-up, the GOP needs absolute unity to filibuster successfully, or to get Democrats to replace any Republican defectors. And Olympia Snowe agrees with most of the things we are afraid Kagan will do. Especially since most of the caucus spent the Bush years insisting that judicial filibusters were unconstitutional, getting all 41 GOP senators to join one simply wasn’t going to happen. This time.

    But the 37 votes against Kagan showed that the GOP is at least getting close to finally joining the fight. Their small numbers put success out of reach this time, but if Obama gets another vacancy next year with GOP numbers in the high 40′s then there’s a real chance that they’d block someone like Kagan. If they break 50, then they might even be able to vote down a nominee outright, or defeat them in committee.

  • renny

    I don’t know it that’s a silver lining. He’s no Scalia.

  • IJB

    The most consequential part was the Brown of MA “No” vote.

    Of the others, Gregg is gone, Lugar & Graham will be gone after their next primaries, and the ME twins votes can *never* be counted on (just score ‘em as solid “D” votes, and move on…).

    That, and the fact that we gone one D “No” vote are all significant advancements over past behavior…

  • JSobieski

    is that left-wing noniminees increasingly try to sound like more conservative nominees when it comes to mentioning words and phrases such as “rule of law” and “founders”.

    I don’t remember Clinton’s nominees sounding like that. However, I am not sure this is a good development, since it makes it less likely that the general public will object to the nominee at the time of the hearing (the only time leverage can be applied).

    Using a war analogy, is it good news when the enemy becomes better at using stealth tactics if they are also winning the open field battles?

  • mustango

    I’d have said Rush, but I’m sure Rush would consider that too much of a demotion.

  • AceInTX

    and the fact that that’ll be taking the exact opposite position then than they took now won’t even make them blush

  • bk

    The GOP came closer than ever to showing some unity in opposition. To me it was a given all along that the Maine ladies would vote to confirm any woman, so it was a done deal from the get go.

    Another weak nominee is helpful. With Stevens gone, who is more likely to give arguments that would convince Kennedy?
    - Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
    - Breyer, Ginsburg, Sototmayor, Kagan

  • acat

    Clean house in November. (The House, ideally The Senate – the special elections are must-win)

    Clean house in December. (Steele and his drones including Newt must go)

    Then, we’ll see where we stand for 2012.

    Of course, this only works if the southern and western conservatives can agree to disagree on some points near and dear to each – that’s how the Libs broke us last time. Hoping for long memories and much grace.

    Mew

  • Marcus_Traianus

    NT

  • tngal

    I know she wasn’t on your to do-list of housecleaning chores but its a start. Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers isn’t as big as some of the fish you’re looking at but why do I get the feeling there are more departures to come? Remember Romer was the one who worked a lot on the stimulus bill we all treasure.

  • fpete13527
  • Kyle-MI

    Although they are mainly responsible for the Dem majority.

    We should be able to use their Sotomyer voters to rake them over the coals on 2nd Amendment issues. They voted for her. She joined the ruling against the 2nd Amendment. At best they were incompetent in vetting her. At worst, they knew how she would vote and voted for her anyway as a way of advancing their true agenda. They know Obama’s agenda and what kind of justices he would nominate – extreme liberal activists – and unless they get much clearer answers and better records from his nominees they should be automatic no votes.

  • AceInTX

  • acat
  • acat
  • aesthete

    My guess: she was sacked for not agreeing with Democrats on tax policy, or otherwise bowed out gracefully for the same reason. Besides, anyone who thinks that economists were the chief inspiration behind Stimulus II is just plain na?ve.

  • NoDoze

    more easily slip fraudulent statements into important documents before the court, just as she did in the late-term abortion case before the SC.

  • JSobieski

    Her departure is bad for us, although she presumably left because she had de minimis influence.

    I wonder if there were iceburgs we don’t even know about that she helped avoid? Scary thought. I hope in the years to come (I suspect she will say nothing before 2012) that she is open about the economic policy discussions and decision making that occurred during her tenure.

  • NoDoze

    http://www.aul.org/featured-images/Kagan-Ethics-Report.pdf

  • acat

    One of the bits of trivia I picked up somewhere was the habit of a liberal supreme court justice of slipping a specific phrase or two into his decisions that he could later reference to justify decisions in cases that were clearly headed for the Supremes.

    In other words, Kagan can now stack the deck and claim stare decisis.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    Frankly, these hearings received relatively little public attention given the other disasters going on.

  • tngal

    From thehill.com today

    “Romer was one of the more liberal members of the president’s economic team.
    As the administration was debating over how to boost an economy rocked by the Wall Street crisis soon after Obama’s election, Romer prepared a paper calling for a $1.2 trillion stimulus, larger than the $787 billion measure that was enacted, according to a report by the The New Yorker. ”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/112995-romer-to-leave-administration
    ++++++

    And from a seperate story today ..

    “In a statement on today’s job report, Christina Romer, chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said tepid private sector job growth shows the need for more stimulative measures.

    “[T]oday?s employment report emphasizes just how important the additional jobs measures before Congress are,” Romer said. “In addition to the state fiscal relief nearing passage, the President strongly supports the small business jobs bill and targeted incentives for clean energy investments.”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/113047-romer-to-congress-step-on-it

    ++++

    This woman was all for spending money we didn’t have. She got her panties in a twist because she didn’t have as much clout with the One as she wanted.

  • aesthete

    she was and is Keynesian, not a supply sider or monetarist, but her work on tax cuts and their stimulative effects was mostly contradicted by what was actually in Stimulus II. I don’t know to what extent she and the rest of the economic team voiced their disagreements with where fiscal and monetary policy are going, but I sure would have wanted to be a fly on the wall for their after-work discussions of the same.

    Again, I’m guessing that she was tired of being part of the rubber-stamp committee for the Democrats: contrarians don’t thrive in one-party administrations, especially smart ones with academic mileage left in them.

  • aesthete

    Romer’s never hidden the fact that she’s a Keynesian prime pumper. There’s a little more to it, IMO: first, Stimulus II had little documentation to go with it (model assumptions and the like), relative to other such economic initiatives. Say what you will about the Bush tax cuts, they had documentation about the assumptions made that matched up with most other legislation. In addition, Romer’s done some interesting work which contradicts one of the key assumptions of Keynesian fiscal policy: namely, that government spending is more stimulative than tax cuts. She’s probably a supporter of employment benefits and “job creation”, but to me, it’s telling that she’s leaving just as the debate on the Bush tax cuts is coming up.

  • jb13

    I agree that Kagan’s time on the court will most likely turn out to be an unmitigated disaster.

    But let this be a teachable moment: Majorities matter. Let me say that again, in case you weren’t really listening: Majorities. Matter.

    I have sizable beefs with the Republican “leaders” in Congress, just like many of you. But I also understand that if we allow Democrats to claim majorities because we undercut senators in bluer states who do not march lockstep with RedState on every issue ? if we see no difference between the Bennetts of Utah, who must be jettisoned in favor of solid conservatives, or the Browns of Massachusetts, who may be the best we can hope for from a state that would otherwise send a Democrat ? then we will be forever in this position of wringing our hands and screaming in outrage when a virtually invincible super majority of Democrats do as they please and send the likes of Kagan to the high court.

    Want to argue with me? Go ahead and try. But ask yourself this: What kind of a difference would it have made if the Senate harbored, say, five more Republicans? Would Obama still have felt as free a hand to send up an inexperienced, partisan leftwing ideologue hack like Kagan, thumbing his nose at the objections of our senators? And how successful might a filibuster effort have been if there were just a few more Republicans in the Senate?

    Once more, for the road: In our constitutional republican form of government, majorities matter.

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    …and we’ll all be in chains. Question: did this head in the wrong direction or the right one? We all know the answer to that. Is that a victory of any kind? Not on your life!

  • Kyle-MI

    If Lugar doesn’t retire, he should be forced via primary.

    The only thing we can do about the Maine twins is to make their votes irrelevant by overwhelming numbers of conservative GOP Senators.

  • acat

    Not really. Not once you scrape the paint off.

    (insert mental image of cleaning blue paint off a rat here)

    They may press release “conservative”, and they may speak out strongly on “conservative” issues, but when push comes to shove, they vote Lib.

    That old hero of the GOP had it right, they are managing to fool enough of the people enough of the time to get re-elected .. and we need to knock ‘em down.

    It worked with Stupak, it worked with Specter, it worked with Bennett (RINO-Utah) .. we just need to stay focused and not fall for the rat with a paint job again.

    Mew

  • Achance

    It is just a lie, a cover story to get them elected/re-elected in districts that should be Republican.

  • acat

    were the last of the true blue dogs the dixiecrats? The ones where, when their true values got pushed by the New England lib-dems, actually split the party?

    Mew

  • Achance

    of the late ’40s, but I think the the so-called Blue Dogs are mainly Southerners still. The moniker is fairly new; Southern Democrats who supported Reagan were called “Boll Weevils.” Wiki says it is a contrived deriviative of “Yellow Dog” from the days of Southern Democrats who were so loyal to the Democrat Party that they would “vote for a yellow dog” if it ran as a Democrat.

    In any event, I think they’re all frauds; just a part of the DNC’s scam of finding candidates who will run more like a Republican than many Republicans and then vote with the Caucus. To try to save their butts, once the leadership has enough votes from safer districts, they let them off the hook to vote against the caucus so they can still say they’re conservatives. What they really are is liars but since they’re registered Democrats, that is a redundancy, isn’t it?

  • aesthete

    Okay, not really that shocking:

    “‘She has been frustrated,’ a source with insight into the WH economics team said. ‘She doesn’t feel that she has a direct line to the president. She would be giving different advice than Larry Summers [director of the National Economic Council], who does have a direct line to the president.’

    “‘She is ostensibly the chief economic adviser, but she doesn’t seem to be playing that role,’ the source said. The WH has been pounded for its faulty forecast that unemployment would not top 8% after its economic stimulus proposal passed.
    Instead, the jobless rate is 9.5%, after exceeding 10% last year. It was ‘a horribly inaccurate forecast,’ said Bert Ely, a banking consultant. ‘You have to wonder why Summers isn’t the one that should be taking the fall. But Larry is a pretty good bureaucratic infighter.’”

    Looks like confirmation that, if not quite muzzled, her ideas haven’t been given much consideration at all.

  • aesthete

    http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/08/romer_to_leave.php

  • JSobieski

    we would be in a better position now than we are

    http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf

  • acat

    Boll weevils. I like that. Perhaps we should start calling them death watch beetles….

    Mew

  • aesthete

    Here’s another one, starting from page three. It’s interesting for her explanation of Stimulus II, which ended up being a flop for two reasons, IMO:

    First, stimulus wasn’t directed towards productive assets. Stimulus II was made up of three things: government spending on infrastructure (obviously, Keynesian fiscal policy), propping up of state budgets (so that they wouldn’t cut taxes or spending due to balanced budgets acts, as they did during the Depression), and targeted tax cuts (mostly tax credits for the poor). The first, as we’ve seen, has been eaten up by copious amounts of rent-seeking, and has served to help only the connected. The second was good in theory, but screwed up both in presentation and in practice: it, too, bailed out segments of the state budget that were more subject to rent-seeking, and the state funds were never seen again. The tax cuts, despite the fact that they increased the number of Americans who don’t pay net income taxes, were a pretty decent success, all told: they have the most documentation behind them, and were, IMO, a decent (but not great) stimulus.

    Second, there’s the assumption that as soon as demand starts back up, everything else will, too. I’m not a great believer in Say’s Law, but there are some areas of the economy that are still in demand, and that can be supported by supply side cuts and incentives. At the very least, we should give supply side attempts to help the economy the old college try.

    I’d imagine that, with the Bush tax cuts coming up for renewal, it would have been embarrassing for Obama’s Chief Economic Advisor to have to say “no comment” to questions about renewal, and to who is right on the issue: Republicans, or Democrats?

  • AceInTX

    “Majorities matter”…or “Elections have consequences” is an easy phrase that rolls of the tongue way to easily and is nothing more than a cop out to excuse liberal Republicans who betray us with glee in their hearts.

    Yes we need majorities to represent us…but if they don’t in fact represent us…what’s the point?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/242617/senate-unleashes-kagan-america-five-lessons-learned-gary-marx

    Record no votes only exceed by 1894

    http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/242667/victory-judicial-restraint-and-bring-2012-carrie-severino

  • AceInTX
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • AceInTX