If we could have sex with Glenn Greenwald’s words, we would. They don’t just shut down opposing arguments with a well-placed semi-colon. They don’t just ooze intelligence and wit. They are sexy. Having already gone to great lengths to explain why alleged lesbian Elena Kagan isn’t a wise Supreme Court choice for true progressive, the Salon scribe has found somebody else to endorse: Diane Wood.
The Brazil-based Greenwald (who lives there thanks to the U.S. not recognizing his same-sex relationship with a foreigner) finds in Wood (pictured, right), the hetero Seventh Circuit judge appointed by Clinton, what he cannot in Kagan. Namely, a Constitutional scholar with a track record of left-leaning (read: reasonable) positions.
And now he’s found in Kagan yet another scarlet letter: Taking such a radical position over First Amendment restrictions in arguing the U.S. v. Stevens animal cruelty case that eight of nine justices refuted her entire premise in banning animal torture porn.
Tessie Tura
Nathan Lane should post that pic of Kagan on his refrigerator, should he ever be tempted to overeat.
george
Her job as Solicitor General means she represents the government position as a lawyer to the best of her ability. As with any lawyer, her arguments on behalf of her client do not reflect her personal opinions.
Kyle
George, her positions on executive power are troubling and they are her personal beliefs. They are in the public record, like here on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WrkINWb8iw
Kagan should not be anywhere near the Supreme Court bench.
Kevin
George wrote: “her arguments on behalf of her client do not reflect her personal opinions.”
True, but the issue before us is how her argument in US v Stevens reflected her profound personal ignorance of the meaning of the First Amendment (as well as her stunningly bad judgment concerning what kind of argument might sway a majority of the court to her client’s side).