tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37111244.post4564461059277793143..comments2013-04-22T20:49:32.667-04:00Comments on Fresh Cream: Kagan: comfortable with laws that COULD ban booksJohn Covilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16791564966801146755noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37111244.post-69155018803262525682010-06-29T22:36:33.348-04:002010-06-29T22:36:33.348-04:00Yes, as I said, she argued it as Solicitor General...Yes, as I said, she argued it as Solicitor General. A position she was not forced into, and one which she could resign at any moment when she was faced with a legal crisis of conscience. It's a fair defense, but it only goes so far.<br /><br />And all accused people have a right to their defense. Laws, however, are not people. Invoking the high ideals of the adversarial criminal justice system doesn't get you much here.<br /><br />Maybe the real lesson is that someone who would willingly be SG, particularly in the current or prior administration, is not someone I'd really want sitting on the court. It's almost a bit like asking a cop who made a career of running speed traps to be a judge in traffic court.John Covilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16791564966801146755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37111244.post-23787282192770367652010-06-29T21:01:45.076-04:002010-06-29T21:01:45.076-04:00to be fair, she was employed to defend the federal...to be fair, she was employed to defend the federal government. I imagine that lawyers argue positions often with which they may not necessarily agree because they are representing a client - not themselves. I would liken this criticism of Hagan to the "but he defended TERRORISTS" criticism of..um....well, I can't remember who received that criticism, but I know that someone in the Obama administration did.<br /><br />not that I don't have issues with Kagan, I just think there are stronger arguments against her confirmation.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17895494510785076957noreply@blogger.com