Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
In our case for/against Elena Kagan last night, Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald went first. Greenwald suggested that Kagan is too much of a blank slate for progressives to support and that she might pull the Supreme Court to the right.
Next up was Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor and longtime friend of Kagan's. As they say, Lessig came out swinging:
You know, I love Glenn Greenwald, I repeat his words all the time when I give lectures, as an activist legal scholar.
But the hyperbole in what Glenn is saying here is really something we have to check. He said right at the top of your show that there's a complete blank slate here. That every substantial legal question she has left unanswered.
That is just absurd.
You might call those gentlemen's fighting words. Lessig continued:
She has written three extraordinarily important pieces mapping out a theory of the First Amendment. That was the first work she did as a scholar at the University of Chicago. And when she came to Harvard in 2000, she wrote what is, I think, one of the most important articles about presidential administration in the last 30 years.
Now, that's two of maybe five central areas of what a justice has to think about that she already has what I think is an extraordinarily important theory. So, the idea that somehow she's been sitting zephyr-like in a way that tries to hide what she`s saying is just silly. What she hasn't done is what frankly people like I have done. What she hasn't done is gone out there and blog and Twitter and been on the road talking about every single issue.
And, frankly, I'm not sure she made the wrong call because what she did by refocusing her energy when she came back to the Harvard Law School is to build an extraordinary institution and define a set of values which I think tell us an extraordinary amount about who this person would be as a Supreme Court justice.
This morning, Greenwald took to the Salons with a post that's, you know, tough -- both on Lessig and in its detailedness. The talking point's all in the headline: "How people spew total falsehoods on TV." For the rest, there's the text. And the twitters.
[Lawrence Lessig argues for Kagan on TRMS and again on HuffPo today and thwacks Greenwald anew]
Leave a Comment:
I'd rather Obama nominate Judge Judy than Elena Kagan to the High Court.
This is all a tempest in a tea pot, she's a liberal; get behind her!
The problem is not that Kagan is a liberal. The issue is that Greenwald IS NOT.
Lessig outright lied about Glenn's previous comments on your show, Rachel.
I cannot understand why you did not call him on it.
Mr. Lessig, no matter how "right" you think your side is, you ultimately damage your cause by making up stuff. Shame on you.
What did he make up?
I think you made a pretty big error in your broadcast: you said that Kagan would be the third woman appointed to the supreme court after Ginsburg and Sotomayor. What about Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court?
I know what you heard b\c I had to replay it, she was saying that Kagen would be the third female currently sitting.
She had made the distinction prior in the broadcast but that little blurb did seem confusing at first. (I think the wording of the statement could of been more clear than it was, but no falsehoods)
I took that to mean the first time there would be three sitting women justices.
That was my understanding.
Lessig nailed Greenwald. Greenwald on his own blog used what we "expert witnesses" call "a smoking cruiser" attempted fabricated rebuttal of Lessig. Sorry Greenwald you came off lame. in your "direct" on Rachel Maddow and even more lame in your attempted rebuttal of Lessig.
I still think Johnathan Turley would be better, but Elena Kagan is hardly a blank slate.
Noodlehead is correct. Regarding the argument in front of the USSC, you try it sometime. It's very different to be in front of them than to be working with them. To compare the two is a spurious argument. She sounds to me as if she could be quite convincing and that Roberts had already made up his mind in this case anyway...what a surprise! So do you want a right winger to make sure there's no chance to argue whatsoever?
I have a question for Rachel Maddow and her staff. Why did you have Glenn Greenwald and Lessig on at different times? You had to know there would be the possibility of strong disagreement between the two.
Having them on your show at the same time would have afforded BOTH of them the ability to respond to each others arguments. Was there some kind of prior agreement of which one would go first and the other second?
I do strongly believe it's only fair that you at least have Glenn Greenwald back on your show to respond to Lessig's hyperbolic accusations.
Having people who disagree on at the same time is the absolute worst thing in the entire universe of cable news. You get people shouting at each other, talking at the same time, and absolutely nothing gets said by anyone. It makes most cable news completely unwatchable, and I'm very, very, very glad that Rachel avoids it.
Oh good lord, this is going to turn into a long drawn-out pissing match between Lessig and Greenwald. Greenwald loves to do really loooooong point by point rebuttals ad nauseum, straight out of the listserv cascading days.
I'd hate to try to call out a winner between the two, cuz I suspect they are using the medium of orality to call out a text-based lawyer game of he said-he said, splitting hair upon hair in true agonistic fashion.
While one side or the other may claim some kind of higher ground or upper hand, my own interest in their trading of accusations just faded off to zero.
I agree: Elena Kagan is hardly a blank slate. What we know about Kagan thus far:
1. embraces the so-called Unitary Executive theory espoused by Dick Cheney
2. believes the U.S. should be able to detain terror suspects indefinitely in keeping with Bush's US Patriot Act
3. says there is no Constitution right for marriage equality
4. opposes late-term abortion
5. has ties to Goldman Sachs
President Obama can do better. He needs to withdraw her name from consideration.
You stated that Kagan would be the third woman on the Supreme Court, along with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. She would be the fourth woman, as Sandra Day O'Connor, although retired, was the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. I'd like to forget her, since she participated in the Bush v. Gore decision, but facts are facts.
I don't believe that you have to be a Judge in order to to make a decision. The main requirements are reason, and the ability to explain and persuade people by using logic, even though a lot of decisions the courts make don't make sense to me. That's one reason for nine Justices to reach a majority decision, which is more than what Congress can do.
Off Topic: Sorry!
I was over on the politico website and posted the following concerning "still no answer to the Dow Jones fall last week" Or something along those lines.
What I posted was this.
"I still think "they" did it on purpose. They sent the President a message. Pass financial reform and we will destroy the economy."
Well, that entire thread was either deleted or purposely not displayed prominently like the others. Can Rachel inquire what happened to that threat and article? I know you guys are sociable with politico so I was wondering if someone could inquire.
For those who are interested in Glenn Greenwald's rebuttal to Lawrence Lessig's attack on Greenwald's integrity, you'll have to read it in print:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/11-3
***
Dear Rachel,
How about extending the discussion and allowing Mr. Greenwald a chance to defend his reputation? I, for one, found the Lessig attack to be scurrilous, underhanded, distracting from the topic of the Kagan's qualifications and very disappointing.
Thanks for your consideration, Ray
MARK OF THE BEAST - HARVARD
Harvard Law professor Laura Donohue was told that any disagreement with the Cheney junta's position at law would be taken as her resignation from Harvard. Hence her tenure at Stanford during those eight terrible years. Eight terrible years that saw two countries illegally invaded, the rendition of thousands for torture and 27,000 muslims 'disappeared' (like Argentina's?), says Robert Fisk. 1.5m dead Iraqis. 3m dead Afghans - mostly by hunger?
Who was the Dean of Harvard during five of those eight years? Elena Kagan. Not the Dean who made who made Laura Donohue walk the plank, however.
Plus, Elena Kagan, when appointed Dean of Harvard Law in 2003 did her best to ban military recruiters on grounds of a 'discriminatory recruitment policy.' But, hey, at least it was kicking sand in the Neocons's face. Who did more during the Neocon years???
Not 99% of US sheep.
Who was a professor at Harvard Law during those eight years? Lawrence Lessig. What did he do to oppose the Nuremberg N_zi leve of Bush Cheney junta illegality???
Craig Murray - Rendition for torture to Uzbekistan - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNYES8KOIqY
Complete - Real News - two parts - http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=466
Donohue wrote 'The Cost of Counterterrorism: Power, Politics and Liberty,' (or lack thereof?) by Laura Donhue - Google Authors - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNPLPeuobss
She described the TIA, TALON and the Local Stasi -- Domestic Informers -- program, and others, that intended and have implemented a Stasi-like one informer for twenty citizens. Given that not-American-enough states need more, what would that be there? One in ten? See - http://fora.tv/2008/09/11/Laura_Donohue_The_Consequences_of_Counterterrorism#chapter_01
TIA - Total Information Awareness - implemented - under new name obviously - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness
TALON program - Threat and Local Observation Notice - domestic surveillance program - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TALON_(database)