Ben Nelson will not vote for Elena Kagan

[onehandle]

Source: Breaking on MSNBC, Link from The Lincoln Journal Star

Sen. Ben Nelson announced Friday he will not vote to confirm the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, Nelson said, he would vote for a cloture motion to end a Senate filibuster if opponents attempt to prevent a confirmation vote.

"Judicial nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances," the Democratic senator said in a brief written statement.

"I am prepared to vote for cloture and oppose a filibuster because, in my view, this nominee deserves an up or down vote in the Senate."

Nelson said he would not vote to confirm Kagan's nomination because of "concerns raised by Nebraskans."

Read more: http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/e4be8bea-9c27-11df-b804-001cc4c03286.html

[Ninga]

1. Obama better not EVER turn the other cheek when it comes to cowards like Nelson. Nelson is

a millstone around this party's neck and the leadership better do something about him.

[TheEuclideanOne]

24. I have two words for you

Joe Lieberman

[jgraz]

38. I have two more words for you

Blanche Lincoln

[No Elephants]

42. Hey, Blanche gave us a great amendment to fin reform because she feared the left of the left

Nelson gave us the Cornhusker Amendment to health care reform.

Anyone who challenges him in a primary probably will deserve a netroots money bomb!

[Raggz]

37. He just wants the folks back home to like him

[happyslug]

67. WHAT? He said he would vote for Cloture (i.e. vote to END any filibuster) on her nomination

Thus you have his vote to overcome any Filibuster, which is the only way the GOP can defeat her nomination. His vote is NOT needed to get her confirmed, she can be Confirmed with him voting against her. She can NOT be confirmed if he votes AGAINST Cloture (i.e. Voting to Close debate i.e. end any Filibuster as to her Nomination).

People tend to forget when LBJ pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act over a Filibuster, the key vote was NOT the votes for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (LBJ had enough votes for that from the start of the Filibuster) but the then 67 votes (Now 60 votes) needed to end debate on the nomination (Cloture Motion). In many ways the real heroes of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the Senators who voted to end the Filibuster but then voted AGAINST the Act. The important vote, the vote that mattered was the vote to end the Filibuster, after the Senators voted to end the Filibuster it was unimportant if they voted for the Act (Many did to appease the voters back in their home districts).

I suspect the same thing is going on in Nelson's mind. They are many reasons to vote against him, but his decision to vote against this nominee is NOT one of them, as long as he agrees to vote against any Filibuster (Which he has).

[DJ13]

2. Thats expected from a Republican

[JDPriestly]

8. Does Nelson ever vote with Democrats -- without some sort of bribe

in exchange for his vote?

Here is his voting record. Well, I guess he does vote with Democrats part of the time. But his interests are very narrow.

http://bennelson.senate.gov/issues/legislation.cfm

Nebraska does not have a high unemployment rate. He is primarily interested in farmers, small businesses and low taxes.

Rural Security
National Security
Economic Security

That's it for Ben Nelson.

http://bennelson.senate.gov/issues/

[w4rma]

10. Nebraska has Health Insurance Companies! And Nelson was once a CEO of one of them. (nt)

[WinstonSmith4740]

47. Undoubtedly one of the reasons

Or possibly the MAIN reason he was so dead set against the public option and so VERY concerned about insurance company profits.

[neverforget]

3. i'm shocked!

not

[COLGATE4]

4. Just as much of an asshole as Zell Miller

just not as bat-shit crazy

[bluestateguy]

5. We don't need him

She has 4 Republicans locked up already (and still no word from Scott Brown), so she is likely to get at least 62 votes.

Edit: Make that 5. Judd Gregg is on board.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/07/gregg_announces.html

For Nelson, this is just about keeping his NRA vote score in A/A- territory for 2012.

[Fearless]

27. Scott Brown will vote with his party...

This idea that he's a "Washington outsider" or an "independent" is complete BS straight from his campaign. On the bright side, he won't win reelection in 2012.

[No Elephants]

43. Hope you're right. Boston media have been giving him tons of help ongoingly.

[Fearless]

44. Oh believe me I know!

:banghead:

But there are a lot of people angry with him, particularly about his unemployment extension votes. Hopefully that will be enough.

[earthside]

6. My prediction ...

... he ultimately will not run again.

Or he will indeed switch parties early next year (guaranteed no matter what if the Repuglicans take the Senate).

[DimplesinMI]

7. I hate to say this

But NOT surprising, one bit. Can we excommunicate him from the party, now?

[DebbieCDC]

9. He's pond scum - always has been

[Dappleganger]

11. He should be kicked out of the Democratic party.

Lieberman as well.

[rpannier]

19. Libermen isn't a Democrat

nor is he an independent

He's a "Connecticut for Lieberman Party" member

[frylock]

12. damn you ralph nader!!1

[RainDog]

36. lol. I have so enjoyed coming across these

very nicely done.

[rhett o rick]

40. What ever are we going to do when we dont have Ralph to blame it all on? nm

[WinstonSmith4740]

13. Nelson's a putz...

Always has been, always will be. Look up DINO, and his picture's right next to Lieberman.

[No Elephants]

45. Lieberman no longer calls himself a Democrat, so he can't possbly be a DINO,

which stands for "Democrat In Name Only."

[WinstonSmith4740]

48. We know that....

But until he lost the primary to a real progressive, he was a Democrat...and in name only. His "performance" at the Vice-Presidential debate in 2000 was a damn disgrace. He did everything but lick Cheney's shoes.

[No Elephants]

60. I know about what was true in 2000, but I posted in 2010 and so did you. What

was so in 2000 as to Lieberman is no longer true in 2010.

[Lucky Luciano]

14. He should just switch parties already. Why the pretense?!

[SoapBox]

15. What a jerk face...

I really hate this guy...Seems that my "angry and hateful about *fill in the blank*" list is becoming longer and longer.

[rasputin1952]

16. I'm here in Nebaska, worked like hell to get him back in the Senate...

and this is what we got?

The only other Ben I've heard of was Benedict Arnold. Hmmm, not much of a difference there.

[Tx4obama]

17. Here's a link from ABCnews below...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/07/democrat-ben-nelson-opposes-kagan.html

[judesedit]

18. Vote that republican in dem clothing outa there asap. He's a royal pain in the ass

Vote all the red blue dogs out, too, while you're at it. They care NOTHING for the majority of American people. If we have to pay their salaries, we DEMAND a Congress that works for us. Period. And that ain't them.

[rpannier]

20. To put the Polly Anna spin on this

At least he's not filibustering this
Like he did unemployment extensions

Now, a translation for those who are not familiar with Ben Nelsonisms

"concerns raised by Nebraskans."
He means, "concerns raised by the Chamber of Commerce and the Health Insurance Industry. As well as Republicans within the state."

[No Elephants]

46. I thought he meant Nebraskans against abortion &/or gun laws voiced concerns.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=5527569961

[rpannier]

54. Thanks

I forgot to include those in my Nelsonisms

He's a shill for so may conservative groups (read: Republican groups) I forgot those

[CLANG]

21. Dirtbag Republican. He should switch parties. He's disgusting!

[NorthCarolina]

22. I'm shocked! SHOCKED I tell ya.....

:eyes: But, but, but...the Dem Party NEEDS the DLC :puke:

[Hawaii Hiker]

23. Can we please trade Ben Nelson for a box of cookies or a 12 pack of Coke Classic

He voted for Roberts AND Ailito, but is opposing Kagan...

Fuck him....

[mbperrin]

25. That's a relief! If that dumb self-centered ******* was going to vote for her,

I might have doubts. You ARE known by the company you keep. Yes, Nebraska, I'm looking your way (oh yes, I'm completely aware of the beams in Texas' eyes).

[AllTooEasy]

26. Rather have him than a Republican, Why...

Because he'll give a cloture vote. That's all he's good for.

[2Design]

28. Our republican rep with a D after his name - AAAarrrrggghhh

[nradisic]

29. Ben Nelson is a fucking disgrace!

A what? A Democrat? On what fucking planet? We should make sure this guy does not get a dime from anyone who even remotely considers themselves a Democrat. That is why I won't give to the DSCC, because I don't want scumbags like Ben neslon to get a dime. He votes Republican party line 90% of the time....

[juajen]

30. What a shocker!

[unkachuck]

31. why doesn't nelson....

....a republican turd in Dem clothing, just join the the puke party?

"concerns raised by Nebraskans."

....hey bennie-boy, would those be corporate concerns?

[Historic NY]

32. Can't we find someone to primary him?

[GentryDixon]

33. I just sent an email to his office.

I am not from Nebraska, but my great grandmother was a school teacher in the Nebraska Territory before it was a state, and also held a homestead in her name as a single woman. I feel I have a vested interest in Nebraska, and I let him know how disgusted I was with his "Democratic" politics.

These Blue Dogs kill me. I have Jim Matheson to deal with in Utah.

[AlinPA]

50. I know that Nelson votes with Democrats sometimes, but it seems it's never on the "big issues".

[New Dawn]

34. For once Ben Nelson is doing something right.

Kagan supports torture and the 'unitary executive' theory. She should be filibustered.

[rhett o rick]

39. I have heard those claims. Do you have a link or two? nm

[New Dawn]

41. Yep, here are two links:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn05102010.html

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/10-0

[rhett o rick]

53. I am not saying your are wrong but neither of those links provides much evidence.

The first says: "While Bush was shredding the Constitution with his unprecedented assertions of executive power, law professors throughout the country voiced strong objections. Kagan remained silent." First of all being silent isnt necessarily meaningful and secondly, we have only the author's word that it is true.

The second article has quotes from "University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle noted last month...", in which he provides his opinions and his recollection of quotes from Ms. Kagan.

I am still on the fence re. Ms. Kagan. Sen Ben Nelson is a Republican with a (D) behind his name.

[No Elephants]

64. Nominating a candidate with no judicial decisions whatever leaves everyone guessing.

Plus, her work for Clinton is subject to the attorney client privilege and therefore cannot be compelled to be made public without his consent (like Roberts work for Reagan).

What the sources cited do show is that, as head of Harvard Law and whatever she was at Uchi, she had a potentially powerful voice and chose to remain silent, instead of speaking out. As Solicitor General, she had a potentially powerful slot, but chose not to use it often, weighing in on the side of Monsanto (sued by organic farmers) being a notable exception.

If you are really interested and have not read either of Constitional lawyer Greenwad's articles for Salon, you many want to start there. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

That Salon article includes, among many other things:

"The only other real glimpse into Kagan's judicial philosophy and views of executive power came in a June, 2001 Harvard Law Review article (.pdf), in which she defended Bill Clinton's then-unprecedented attempt to control administrative agencies by expanding a variety of tools of presidential power that were originally created by the Reagan administration (some of which Kagan helped build while working in the Clinton White House), all as a means of overcoming a GOP-controlled Congress. This view that it is the President rather than Congress with primary control over administrative agencies became known, before it was distorted by the Bush era, as the theory of the "unitary executive." I don't want to over-simplify this issue or draw too much importance from it; what Kagan was defending back then was many universes away from what Bush/Cheney ended up doing, and her defense of Clinton's theories of administrative power was nuanced, complex and explicitly cognizant of the Constitutional questions they might raise."


http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/9750-words-on-elena-kagan/


Bear in mind, when a lawyer represents a client, he or she represents a client's viewpoint whether the lawyer agrees with it or not. However, when a lawyer writes a law review article, he or she is representing his own viewpoint (or, ethically should be representing his or her own viewpoint).

For another perspective, see also, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/Andrew-Sargus-Klein/elena-kagan-and-the-limit_b_574651.html

Is she an old school Democrat (now known as a retarded liberal)? Not likely. Could she (and Sotomayor) become that way on the bench? Maybe, but also not likely. the only known liberal on the high Court right now is Ginsburg and heaven knows, she is not at her strongest. But, we'll see.

eta: the huffpo article links you to, among other things: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/9750-words-on-elena-kagan/

Needless to say, that source gives only straightforward info, no interpretation, speculation or editorializing from either side.

[Unvanguard]

35. It's the filibuster that counts.

For the final vote, all we need is 50 + Biden, and that's never been in doubt.

[No Elephants]

49. Who cares? His vote on Kagan is irrelevant.

[harun]

51. I would normally feel the same way, but the Nelson's of the Senate should use

these opportunities to lobby their constituents over to the side of the good guys. Selling Kagan to Nebraskans instead of saying, "yah you idiots are right".

If it was over a point of genuine policy, where Nebraskans as a whole were against it, fine. But to vote against a judicial nominee the President of the Party you are supposedly a part of is way over the line. If we simply cede Nebraska to the politics of the dark ages and never expect them to reform their ideology then of course, "Who cares?".

[No Elephants]

58. I am not ceding Nebraska to anything. Find a good person to primary Nelson and I'll donate.

We don't even know for sure that anyone contacted Nelson. We have only his say so. But, my suspicion is it was about what the article hints at, namely guns and choice, which may be based on info given "off the reccord." I don't think Nelson or God could "educate" either group to gamble on someone without a judicial track record. That said, I'm more upset about Nelson's behavior on health care and his vote on unemployment than I am about an irrelevant vote on a Supreme Court candidate (who is not especially appealing to me anyway, but my opinion of her is not my reason for the rest of this post).

[davidinalameda]

52. he's representing his voters

and isn't that is why he is in Washington?

[No Elephants]

56. How do you know he's representing "his voters," as opposed to a minority of them?

[davidinalameda]

57. because he said he was

do you have evidence that he's lying?

[No Elephants]

59. He said some Nebraskans contacted him. He never claimed a majority of Nebraskans were involved..

And, if he had, I'm not sure I'd believe him because it would sound far-fetched.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

66. It's clear you don't like Kagan.

What's wrong with her, if I may ask? Besides the horrible crime of having been nominated by a Democratic President, of course.

[JCMach1]

55. POS...

that is all

[Honeycombe8]

61. Well, he has to vote how his constituents want him to, I guess. Still, he should morally vote for

whoever the President nominates. As people love to say, elections have consequences. One of those consequences is that the President gets to choose nominees for the Supreme Court.

Maybe he feels free to vote no, since she has enough votes to get confirmed. So he saves his re-election prospects w/o causing real damage.

[No Elephants]

62. He's caving to special interests, not bowing to the will of his constituents.

No one asked his constituents to vote on this, so he has no idea what his constituents as a whole want.

See Replies 6 and 59 please.

[Honeycombe8]

63. I think most Congress people know what their constituents want...

if they've served long enough.

Nebraska is pretty conservative. Seems they'll vote for either a Republican or a moderate Democrat.

My Republican Congress people don't vote the way I want them to. But they were elected, so presumably they know that the majority (the ones who elected them) want them to take a definite Republican stance on issues.

Just like O. Snowe and Susan Collins must vote in a more moderate way than far right Republicans. Their constituents are not far righters, but are still Republican. They know how their constituents feel about main issues, I'm sure. The rank and file Repubs hate them for it, and don't understand that because of their constituency, they have to vote moderately.

[No Elephants]

65. I very much doubt most of his constituents have a position on Elena Kagan, even assuming most

of them know who she is.

I disagree that being elected means (a) you know what most of your constituents think about every issue; and (b) your own votes in Congress are always reflecting what most of your constituents think.

If those two things were so, voters would have no reason to be worried about how much influence lobbyists have on our legislators, or about campaign finance reform.