June 8, 2010
Might Elena Kagan be a fan of shaming sanctions?A helpful reader alerted me to this report on an interesting little sentencing tidbit to be found in the recently released papers from Elena Kagan time in the Clinton Administration:
The William J. Clinton Presidential Library provided 46,500 pages of records from Kagan's four years of working in the Clinton White House in the 1990s. The papers, released today by the National Archives in Washington, are the first installment in a 160,000-page file....
[In these papers] Kagan also expressed interest in the idea of "shaming" criminals after a 1997 Wall Street Journal editorial lauded efforts such as making convicted drunk drivers affix bright "DUI" stickers to their bumpers and requiring nonviolent sex offenders to post warning signs on their property. "Do you think there's a way of sensibly hooking into this trend?" Kagan wrote to two colleagues.
June 8, 2010 at 07:37 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Might Elena Kagan be a fan of shaming sanctions?:
if she tries to support any of that criminal nazi crap she needs to be DEAD
Posted by: rodsmith | Jun 9, 2010 12:27:30 AM
This is good cult indoctrination methodology. I would like to force all lawyers to affix a "lawyer" bumper sticker to their cars, and a "lawyer" lawn sign to their homes. The public and the police can then be forewarned, and take proper care around the lawyer.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 9, 2010 7:00:56 AM
She says "shaming", I say "inviting vigilante justice".
Posted by: NickS | Jun 9, 2010 7:48:39 AM
Why is anyone surprised? Kagen is at best a cipher and a sycophantic climber, at worst an ideologue unburdened by logic and good sense. The stories about her being a "yeller" in the work environment and her "hands off" (some would say "rudderless") approach to her current job might have been cues to anyone watching that she is utterly unqualified for a lifetime appointment to the Court. As far as I can tell her main qualifications are that she's a woman and not a judge, so that would make our own Supremacy Clod equally qualified.
Further, the only difference between Kagen and the much pilloried Harriet Myers is that Myers hitched her star to a much less cool President and, unlike the PRIVILEGED Kagen, had to work her way to the top and did not attend an ivy league school.
If anything, Myers showed more qualifications for the job than Kagen, not the least of which being her vastly more impressive rise and experience compared to the silver-spoon, ivy-league pedigree of the vacant Kagen.
Posted by: Ferris Bueller | Jun 9, 2010 9:50:06 AM
And yet what's so ironic, Ferris, is that it was the Republicans who sank Harriet Miers's nomination. If the Republicans would have voted to confirm her, she would have easily avoided a filibuster, and probably would have been confirmed with over 70 votes.
Frankly, I would have liked to see someone nominated who doesn't come from the Ivy League anytime in the last four open slots. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is, at its heart, an institutionally nepotist body, so it's no surprise that Obama has been grooming Kagan since the beginning of his term.
Posted by: Res ipsa | Jun 9, 2010 10:55:22 AM
I am more qualified than any lawyer to sit on the Supreme Court. A puking, wine besotted derelict on the street is more qualified. There would be an immediate upgrade in the coherence, logic, and benefit of appellate decisions, not to mention in the clarity of writing, if demented winos replace the cult indoctrinated and mentally crippled lawyer. Take any random person from the Virginia jury pool.
They would even stop complaining about the measley low salary of a Supreme Court Justice.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 9, 2010 6:12:10 PM
The Ivy League appears to be a treason indoctrination camp. They hate America, want it to be France, so they may run it as their colleagues do from this unspeakable nest of idiocy. Idiots, but supremely self-confident.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 9, 2010 9:36:07 PM