Amen. Fingers crossed...

Why use a stupid euphemism when you’re pleading for explicitness? Instead of saying:

…is waiting – along with everyone else to hear Kagan’s explicit thoughts on women’s reproductive rights.

just simply say:

... is waiting – along with everyone else to hear Kagan’s explicit thoughts on abortion.”

Yes, by all means, let's hang the nomination on a handful of politically charged issues instead of concerning ourselves with the terrifying constitutional precedents of the Bush era.

When she was with the Clinton admin, she wrote a compromise brief that agreed that late-term abortions via "partial birth", should be banned, except in cases of rape, incest and threat to health of mother. The compromise was not accepted by the anti-choice lobby so the bill went forward as a total ban and was vetoed by Clinton. Had her compromise been accepted that procedure would be all but illegal everywhere except in a few cases. That seems to tell us a lot about where she stands on abortion.

@4: actually it doesn't. her JOB was to write that brief. personal belief doesn't neccessarily enter into legal briefs.

murray and cantwell can ask her all they want about abortion - kagan won't say shit except something like "it's settled law".

@4

There are two issues where I think conservatives and liberals occupy stupid positions -- positions that even they don't really believe in -- basically out of dogmatic stubbornness.

Conservatives: trigger locks.
Liberals: late term abortions.

NARAL is engaging in wishful thinking. Senators can (and probably will) try to get her to commit one way or the other on abortion, but she won't say shit. None of the recent appointees have.

Her confirmation is a lock at this point, unless she does or says something incredibly stupid. If she were to publicly state a strong position on abortion rights, that would give the Republicans the ammo they need to filibuster her nomination.

All you can do at this point is trust that Obama knows her well enough to know her personal views on the important issues. Or not.

Judah, you're wrong. Some of us who aren't "die-hard conservatives" oppose trigger locks also. But let's not derail the thread, OK?

@6

Ah, the sweet smell of internet false equivalencies...

Here are some more for you!
Vegetarians have Hitler, while meat-eaters have Ted Nugent.
Rap artists have to answer for the Shakur/Biggie murders, whereas Prog-Rock has to answer for all those horrible ELP & Yes albums.
White guys dance like this, whereas Indian guys dance like this.
And so on....

Had her compromise been accepted that procedure would be all but illegal everywhere except in a few cases

It is now completely illegal.

@5 I had it wrong, she did not write the brief she advised the president to make the compromise. Story excerpt and link below. Yes, it was her JOB, as you say, to advise, but the advice we give usually reflects our beliefs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10…

Indeed, the memo is more of a political calculation than a legal brief, but Kagan and Reed urged Clinton to support the compromise despite noting that the Justice Department believed the proposal was unconstitutional.

@10

Fine. Try it this way: the refusal to allow a categorical ban, with appropriate exceptions, on partial birth abortions is a matter of extreme-left liberal dogma that has significantly less popular support than abortion rights generally, and it should be done away with as a plank in the Democratic party platform.

Let's get real.

We all know she's a conservative nominee.

Obama needs to go back to the drawing board on this one and nominate a Liberal who's an Atheist, Wiccan, Taoist, or Pastafarian.

Preferably one from a Law School west of the Mississippi.

@15

I'm sorry, the Jewish lesbian from New York is a "conservative nominee" and the solution to that is to nominate someone from "west of the Mississippi", home of the "rugged individualist"?

What an interesting theory.

Or -- hold on. You were being ironic, weren't you?

No, I was dead serious.

My brother's a conservative in NY and votes GOP.

And he's gay.

So?

and, for that matter, he's a lawyer too.

There, hit all three marks for you. Only difference is, he's neither Jewish nor Catholic, nor is he a woman. Other than when he dresses up for cabaret.

Do you guys honestly believe Obama would nominate an anti-choice woman to the Supreme Court? Give me a break!

Remember, WE may not know Kagen's exact philosophy but Obama surely does!! Or....
-Do you think Kagen is lying to Obama on her choice stance so she can get in there and nefariously fulfill her plot to overturn Wade?
-Or has the Internet made us think we know so much about everyone and YouTube captures every moment that the POTUS and his nominee don't have private meetings and talks? If we didn't see it---it didn't happen!!!!
-Or did the ghost of Erica C Barnett take over with her claims that Obama was secretly pro-life?

@17 and 18

I believe my point was that you were wrong on two levels: you based an argument in regional/religious stereotypes, and the regional/religious stereotypes you used were non-normative. When I pointed this out to you, you attempted to criticize the entire notion of regional/religious stereotypes. Which means you're now arguing against your own initial premise. So really, the only thing that could have saved you was if you were being ironic in the first place.

When lawyers give advice, they are not supposed to insert their personal opinion into the advice. If they do, they're bad lawyers.

The problem with the current Supreme Court majority is that they DO insert their conservative personal opinons into their judicial opinions.

She should not state her personal opinion on abortion or any other matter when she's being questioned by Congress, and she won't.