Obama may madden the right for, well, just about everything, but in the one thing that matters most to me in our current political landscape–civil liberties, as opposed to the nearly undefinable political term “freedom”–he’s doing pretty much what Bush did.
It’s tragic that, while most people are engaged in the endless politics of competing stupidities, a Republican and now a Democrat have been busy ratifying a radical vision of executive power that trumps left and right, and removes the protections of the Constitution.
I hope he’s wrong, but Glenn Greenwald clearly has an opinion on Elena Kagan in that regard:
It’s anything but surprising that President Obama has chosen Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Nothing is a better fit for this White House than a blank slate, institution-loyal, seemingly principle-free careerist who spent the last 15 months as the Obama administration’s lawyer vigorously defending every one of his assertions of extremely broad executive authority. The Obama administration is filled to the brim with exactly such individuals — as is reflected by its actions and policies — and this is just one more to add to the pile. The fact that she’ll be replacing someone like John Paul Stevens and likely sitting on the Supreme Court for the next three decades or so makes it much more consequential than most, but it is not a departure from the standard Obama approach.
The New York Times this morning reports that “Mr. Obama effectively framed the choice so that he could seemingly take the middle road by picking Ms. Kagan, who correctly or not was viewed as ideologically between Judge Wood on the left and Judge Garland in the center.” That’s consummate Barack Obama. The Right appoints people like John Roberts and Sam Alito, with long and clear records of what they believe because they’re eager to publicly defend their judicial philosophy and have the Court reflect their values. Beltway Democrats do the opposite: the last thing they want is to defend what progressives have always claimed is their worldview, either because they fear the debate or because they don’t really believe those things, so the path that enables them to avoid confrontation of ideas is always the most attractive, even if it risks moving the Court to the Right.
Greenwald may prove dead wrong, and I hope so. But if his take proves correct, I guess we just have to get used to living with an entrenched governing philosophy that no longer protects our real, constitutionally enshrined rights. Instead, we’ll have “freedom.” Well, “freedom” and some socially liberal Supreme Court opinions. Or hey, maybe Kagan, should she be confirmed, will emulate Stevens in proving far different from what his appointer figured.
UPDATE: Greenwald appeared on Democracy Now to debate these issues with a progressive who supports Elena Kagen. It’s quite a back and forth between two pretty well-informed commenters.
