Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald joined Rachel Maddow at the top of her program Monday to discuss the broad unsuitability of Elena Kagan’s nomination to the US Supreme Court.
Almost six minutes of discussion, much of it about the troubling aspects of her record as well as the absence of any record — which we are unlikely to see anywhere else again. I did like that Rachel Maddow introduced this premiere segment by saying that progressives were being asked to take this nomination "almost on faith."
Glenn points out that there isn’t enough in the Elena Kagan record to determine if she is liberal, or illiberal. As a blank slate, although supposedly one of America’s great legal minds of the day, she seems to have purposely avoided taking positions on the major legal and constitutional issues of the past twenty years.
How does that happen?
As Jonathan Turley posits elsewhere, how does someone obtain tenure at the University of Chicago Law School on the basis of a single article: "something that would not be permitted at most top schools."
Is clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall and Judge Abner Mikva sufficient grounding in progressive legal thought, coming as it did more than two decades ago, to ensure Democrats that the product of such mentoring is a secret progressive?
And why, after all, should a Democratic president nominate someone whose progressivism is secret? Why should we have to "glean snippets" as Glenn says, about her possible progressivism?
The Obama Administration needs to recall that George W. Bush’s first nominee, Harriet Miers, was withdrawn after twenty-three days under not dissimilar circumstances: insufficient evidence in the nominee’s record to encourage his political base to become enthused about the nominee.