Liberals SHOULD worry about Kagan

Liberals should worry about Elena Kagan not only in her own self as not being that liberal on the Supreme Court, but as symptomatic of an ongoing trend in that area.

Further proof of that? And of pseudo-liberal presidential cravenness? The NYT notes that not since Thurgood Marshall in 1967 have liberals really been jazzed about a SCOTUS nominee. (LBJ's biggest mistake outside of Vietnam was not nominating him, rather than crony Abe Fortas, to be the Chief a year later.)

Oh, and liberals SHOULD complain about Kagan:

“Why do the conservatives always get the conservatives, but we don’t get to get the liberals?” Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, asked the Web site Politico recently, voicing the frustration of the left when Ms. Kagan was considered a front-runner but was not yet Mr. Obama’s selection. “What the hell is that all about?”

More proof from that same story?

Richard A. Posner, a conservative appeals court judge in Chicago, and William M. Landes, his colleague from the University of Chicago law school, ranked all 43 justices from 1937 to 2006 by ideology and found that four of the five most conservative ones are on the current court. Even the moderate swing vote, Justice Kennedy, was the 10th most conservative over that period. By contrast, none of the current justices ranks among the five most liberal members, and only Justice Ginsburg is in the top 10.

Remember, Posner would have incentive to UNDERsell conservative bona fides to push the court further right.

Oh, and it's not just executive power to worry about from Kagan.

Her eptitude as Solicitor General is laughable, despite The One's claims about her brilliance, as posted on a blog at TPM. It's hard to imagine her having the skill, or the gravitas bestowed by other justices, to be able to form voting consensuses.

The unbearable lightness of Kagan

Well, as everybody has speculated for weeks, and I predicted for sure last night, President Barack Obama's choice to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court is the semi0-blank slate, semi-conservative accomodationist Elena Kagan.

Unfortunately, Matt Yglesias is probably right; there will be little liberal blowback (in part because, as I told him, many self-identified "liberals" aren't), and, Team Obama welcomes any such pushback to tout its centrist bona fides.

If you're starting an office pool on which word starting with the letter "P" appears more often in White House talking points this summer, don't bet on "progressive."

So true, Mike Madden, so true.

As for her "unbearable lightness," Glenn Greenwald continues to point this out ... not just hers, but that of the arguments on her behalf by many of her boosters.

Among those defenders is Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog, who continues to claim folks like Greenwald misread her on the idea of expanding executive powers.

Tom, I don't think that's the case. Also, that doesn't address the issue of her "thinness" or many other things.

As for defenders who say this could be the first gay SCOTUS justice? If the rumors are true, BFD. Rev. "Rentboy" Rekers also appears to be gay. So does Larry Craig.

Meanwhile, how far has the court fallen otherwise? When Anthony Kennedy is cited as the would-be leader of the liberal bloc, it's fallen far indeed.

Further proof of that? And of pseudo-liberal presidential cravenness? The NYT notes that not since Thurgood Marshall in 1967 have liberals really been jazzed about a SCOTUS nominee. (LBJ's biggest mistake outside of Vietnam was not nominating him, rather than crony Abe Fortas, to be the Chief a year later.)

Oh, and liberals SHOULD complain about Kagan:

“Why do the conservatives always get the conservatives, but we don’t get to get the liberals?” Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, asked the Web site Politico recently, voicing the frustration of the left when Ms. Kagan was considered a front-runner but was not yet Mr. Obama’s selection. “What the hell is that all about?”

More proof from that same story?

Richard A. Posner, a conservative appeals court judge in Chicago, and William M. Landes, his colleague from the University of Chicago law school, ranked all 43 justices from 1937 to 2006 by ideology and found that four of the five most conservative ones are on the current court. Even the moderate swing vote, Justice Kennedy, was the 10th most conservative over that period. By contrast, none of the current justices ranks among the five most liberal members, and only Justice Ginsburg is in the top 10.

Remember, Posner would have incentive to UNDERsell conservative bona fides to push the court further right.

LibDem-Labour deal closer with Brown stepdown?

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has recognized the obvious — he is stepping down as Labour Party leader.

And, he's doing so as part of a conscious effort to woo Liberal Democrats.

My tentative thoughts on a possible coalition.

Miliband should be the next Labour leader, and would become PM.

As a serious nod to Europhilia, as well as a serious cementing of the Cabinet, Nick Clegg gets the Foreign Secretary nod. (I'm assuming, for a variety of reasons, he wants that rather than Deputy PM.) One of the minor parties gets a semi-important domestic position like Home Secretary. Lib Dems get a couple of other Cabinet slots. The referendum on proportional elections does not move the UK all the way there, but does a German-style mix of proportional representation off a list and single-member seats.

If Clegg, and other top Lib Dems, don't jump at a deal like that, I don't know what their problem is.

Obama continues to sell out Constitution

This time, it's via the agency of Attorney General Eric Holder, who wants to do a "carve-out" of Miranda rights for terrorism suspects.

The comments of Holder, on Meet the Press, and "terrorism czar" John Brennen both were blanket statements; that is, they did not exclude from this desired Miranda carve-out terrorism suspects American citizens like alleged would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad.

Part of the problem here is that, in the Shahzad case, we're relying on information from Pakistani intelligence agencies that surely were none too queasy about how they got the intelligence. Picture a future case, where the foreign side, in a country like Pakistan, supplies the first intelligence, and the U.S. then uses that possibly flimsy and definitely tainted information to justify not Mirandizing someone.

Or, let's go a step further.

Suppose a Shahzad is arrested abroad. And, then, he either actually is "rendered" to Pakistan, or at least the threat is made of that.

THEN, the U.S. government uses information gained from that to interrogate him here in the U.S. without Miranda protections.

Orwellian, no?

Oh, and if this isn't a lead-pipe cinch "tell" that Elena Kagan is Obama's next SCOTUS nominee, I'll eat my hat.

Fish depletion and biodiversity loss

Two studies headlined by World Science shows just how far downhill we have gone on ocean depletion.

First, it takes British trawlers 17 times as much work today to catch an equivalent amount of fish as in the days of sail.
“Over a cen­tu­ry of in­ten­sive trawl fish­ing has se­verely de­plet­ed U.K. seas of bot­tom liv­ing fish like hal­i­but, tur­bot, had­dock and plaice,” said Si­mon Brock­ing­ton, head of con­serva­t­ion at the U.K.’s Ma­rine Con­serva­t­ion So­ci­e­ty and co-au­thor of the stu­dy.
And, the same problems are presumed to be true around European fisheries, which is why the latest round of CITES talks' failure to put a cap on bluefin tuna hauls is so disconcerting.

Meanwhile, in the sea, on land, and in the air, world governments have failed to address biodiversity decline.

I said 'no," the bonobo indicated

Bonobos, the "half-siblings" of chimps and a first cousin to us, if you will, may shake their heads to, like humans, indicate a 'no' answer.