Crossroads
June 3, 2010 6:49 PM

EXCLUSIVE: Documents Show Kagan's Liberal Opinion on Social Issues

By
Jan Crawford
Topics
Supreme Court

Elena Kagan has kept her cards so close to the vest that in the days after President Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court, some on the left worried she was too moderate to replace liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.

But in documents obtained by CBS News, Kagan--while working as a law clerk to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall - made her positions clear on some of the nation's most contentious social issues.

The documents, buried in Marshall's papers in the Library of Congress, show Kagan standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the liberal left, at a time when the Rehnquist Supreme Court was moving to the conservative right.

They also provide a remarkably candid picture of her opinions, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion.

Although Kagan's confirmation has thus far been an all but foregone conclusion, sources say these documents will give Republicans a few cards of their own to mount a strong fight against her.

And they will only heighten demands for more information on her views--including interest in her papers in the Clinton Library. Some of the Clinton Library documents, which cover her time working in that administration, could be released as early as Friday.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Elena Kagan
Photo Gallery: Elena Kagan's Life in Pictures

The Marshall documents are legal memos summarizing cases the Court had been asked to consider. They cover the spectrum of hot-button social issues: abortion, civil rights, gun rights, prisoners' rights and the constitutional underpinnings for recognizing gay marriage.

On abortion, Kagan wrote a memo in a case involving a prisoner who wanted the state to pay for her to have the procedure. Kagan expressed concern to Marshall that the conservative-leaning Court would use the case to rule against the woman--and possibly undo precedents protecting a woman's right to abortion.

"This case is likely to become the vehicle that this court uses to create some very bad law on abortion and/or prisoners' rights," she wrote in the 1988 memo.

She also expressed strong liberal views in a desegregation case. Summarizing a challenge to a voluntary school desegregation program, Kagan called the program "amazingly sensible." She told Marshall that state court decisions that upheld the plan recognized the "good sense and fair-mindedness" of local efforts.

"Let's hope this Court takes note of the same," she wrote in the 1987 memo. Just three years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical plan.

Poll: Most Americans Still Unfamiliar with Elena Kagan
Kagan's Stance on DADT at Harvard Ambiguous

Kagan also wrote a memo that senators could use to question whether she believes there is a constitutional right to gay marriage.

That memo summarized a 1988 case involving a prisoner serving a life sentence in New York. He argued the state of New York was required to recognize his marriage-by-proxy in Kansas - even though such marriages were illegal in New York.

The basis of his argument was that New York had a duty under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize his Kansas the marriage as valid. Kagan told Marshall his position was "at least arguably correct," and recommended asking for a response from New York officials.

Then there was the recently disclosed memo on gun rights. In a case challenging the District of Columbia's handgun ban as unconstitutional, Kagan was blunt: "I am not sympathetic." The Supreme Court took the opposite approach two years ago, striking down the D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional.

Taken together, these documents are certain to provoke considerably more questions than the less controversial papers unearthed before her confirmation hearings for solicitor general.

In those 2009 hearings, she explained she was merely trying to reflect Marshall's views when she wrote memos to him.

"I was a 27-year-old pipsqueak, and I was working for an 80-year-old giant in the law, and a person who, let us be frank, had very strong jurisprudential and legal views," Kagan testified.

(at left, watch Crawford's report on the Kagan documents on the CBS Evening News)

But these memos, often written in the first-person, show a more personal approach that suggests she shared many of Marshall's opinions.

In a case involving prisoners' rights, for example, Kagan criticized a 1984 Supreme Court decision--Strickland v. Washington - which set tough new standards for convicted criminals to argue they were denied effective assistance of counsel. Marshall and another liberal icon, Justice William Brennan, were the only dissenters in that case, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"I'd like to reverse Strickland too," Kagan wrote in her memo to Marshall three years later, "but something tells me this court won't buy the idea."

Update June 4: Here are the documents from the Marshall papers (all in PDF format):

  • Kagan's abortion memo, expressing concern the conservative Court will use a prisoner's appeal to "create some very bad law on abortion."
  • Memo on "amazingly sensible" school desegregation program
  • Memo requiring states to recognize marriages from other states, saying the argument was at least "arguably correct."
  • Gun rights: "I'm not sympathetic."
  • Criminals' rights: wishes Court "would reverse" ineffective assistance of counsel ruling making it harder for criminals to challenge their convictions.


Add a Comment See all 285 Comments
by MekhongKurt June 20, 2010 6:49 PM EDT
Gotta watch out for those hard-core liberals -- you know, like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who can actually speak to a Democrat without vomiting. Makes him a commie suspect. And, may the heavens help us, he's from that hard-core liberal state of South Carolina!

To some people, anybody an inch to the left of Senator Graham -- for whom I have considerable respect (unlike my attitude towards a fair number of other Republicans during the past 17 months, despite voting for Republicans a majority of the time previously) -- is a secret agent for Beijing or something.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti June 6, 2010 2:43 PM EDT
The new way is liberal and progressive and we need to continue to move strongly and quickly in that direction.

The conservative, religious, free-market and pro big corporate agenda has been a complete and unmitigated disaster. It is time to evolve along with the rest of the civilized world. And long past due.
Reply to this comment
by hakori June 5, 2010 4:26 PM EDT
http://mediamatters.org/research/201006040048
Yeah, I know you righties think mediamatters is a liberal website, but-hey-the truth has a liberal bias and mediamatters reports facts not right-wing wishfull thinking like perhaps this article...


Even if she were as liberal as this article supposes, we NEED a REAL liberal on the court to offset what some would call the radical conservatives on the court. The right ALWAYS gets conservatives. It's time the left got a liberal, but I'm not convinced Kagan is one.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti June 6, 2010 3:31 PM EDT
I have realized why one of the mindless conservative and Republican bullet points is that we a conservative nation.

It is because many, many Americans have swallowed the Reagan myth of big corporate good and government bad. So we still revere these right wing corporate criminals raping and pillaging the planet and destroying our democratic way of life.

We must organize and resist!
by Berkeley-SkirtLifter June 5, 2010 10:48 AM EDT
by jumkey June 4, 2010 9:32 PM EDT
school desegregation is liberalism?

Fine by me, since clearly racism is a mostly a conservative fault.
____________________

A lib fallacy. Conservatives are less racist than libs. That's why libs are all for affirmative action and other assistance for minorities. White Libs tend to feel superior. That's why they feel minorities need these advantages, because minorities are not on the White Lib's level, not as capable as Whites. Now THAT is racism! This liberal superiority makes me want to lurp.

I was debating the idea of disallowing voting privileges while on gov't assistance, and not paying taxes. The idea is to limit the ability to vote yourself public money. A Lib chimed in saying that paraplegics would not be able to vote because they are on disability which is gov't assistance.

Typical Lib thinking. As if a paraplegic is not capable of contributing to society, and no one suggested that disabled people should not be allowed to vote. A good friend of mine is paraplegic and earns over 80K a year as an IT specialist. Conservatives know paraplegics can be quite productive. And why the love for unproductive people in society? Why do Libs want to reward sub-productive people?

Anyway Jumkey is propagating fallacies by saying, "...clearly racism is a mostly a conservative fault.""
Reply to this comment
by jimatmadison June 5, 2010 6:24 AM EDT
She's a liberal? God, I hope so.

We have five judicial activist radical right wingnuts trying to turn America into a nation 'of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations - and screw the people and the Constitution while we're at it'.

We sure don't need any more of that kind of judge. If the right wingers weren't so determined to destroy America as we know it, I'd be OK with a moderate. As it is we can't afford moderates for a while.
Reply to this comment
by mrjustice1 June 4, 2010 11:10 PM EDT
FOUR U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FROM NEW YORK?

Now there's some well-balanced representation for America, if far-leftist Kagan and Obama get their wishes.

This is what we have been reduced to by having many of our citizens fall for naive, dreamer Obama and his empthy promises in the first place.

Obama's hidden agenda is no joke.
It's real, and is resulting in our worst national nightmare!

Heaven forbid Kagan's becoming a U.S. Supreme Court Judge!
Reply to this comment
by doctor_know June 5, 2010 4:20 PM EDT
Your conspiracy theory is the joke.....
by Berkeley-SkirtLifter June 4, 2010 9:48 PM EDT
by jumkey June 4, 2010 9:32 PM EDT
school desegregation is liberalism?

Fine by me, since clearly racism is a mostly a conservative fault.

Frankly think of an example where conservatism has succeeded.
_______________
Back four pages or so...I'm not gunna repost those long posts. They're there. check 'em out and get back. Oh ... Dr-Farkle lol posted a good one...
Reply to this comment
by phineasjgobo June 4, 2010 9:38 PM EDT
It's always some crazy fluke that allows a democrat like Obama to win the white house and screw the country. To get Carter, a complete incompetent, you need law-breaking Richard Nixon. To get Clinton, you need Ross Perot. To get Obama, you need McCain, a tanking stock market, the thrill of choosing the first black president (regardless of qualifications), boatloads of Soros money and the crack-smoking media.

And, this is what you get; A completely unqualified far left liberal ideological zealot with past that needs covering-up, nominated by the exact same. Great. The fall of western civilization is proceeding on-time and under budget.
Reply to this comment
by MekhongKurt June 20, 2010 6:29 PM EDT
What happened that we got JFK? Tell us how President Eisenhower screwed up. That is, after all, your thesis -- it takes a ******** Republican or else we wouldn't get a Democrat. So, all I'm asking is just how was President Eisenhower a ********?
by MekhongKurt June 20, 2010 6:29 PM EDT
What happened that we got JFK? Tell us how President Eisenhower screwed up. That is, after all, your thesis -- it takes a ******** Republican or else we wouldn't get a Democrat. So, all I'm asking is just how was President Eisenhower a ********?
by vannuys June 4, 2010 7:40 PM EDT
The Great Society and New Deal worked very well, thank you very much. Conservatism, with its massive military spending, neglect of infrastructure and deregulation of business has failed America.

As for the issue of national security, 3,000 Americans didn't die in New York while Bill Clinton was president-they died while elementary students were teaching George W. Bush was how to read, and his deer-in-the headlights look after Andrew Card gave him the news was simply disgusting.
Reply to this comment
by Berkeley-SkirtLifter June 4, 2010 9:56 PM EDT
""...and his deer-in-the headlights look after Andrew Card gave him the news was simply disgusting.""
___________

I'm GWB basher. It's hard to defend him and the people BEHIND him ... but ... the "deer-in-the headlights look after Andrew Card gave him the news" was rough. How would you have handled it?

Good an excuse as any to raid another country...there I go...sheesh
by MekhongKurt June 20, 2010 6:38 PM EDT
On your one criticism of President Bush's reaction to 9/11, that's not fair. C'mon -- we had never had anything *remotely* like that in our entire history. I don't think any other President would have reacted much different, or at least not with any less shock -- not any. The very fact that he *was* in a classroom with young children certainly means that his mindset of the moment wasn't the same as if he had been, say, in the Situation Room in the White House. I was at home and didn't have a TV -- I live in SE Asia, so it was evening here -- when a friend called and told me to get to the nearest TV because a jet had just hit the WTC. I thought it was some sort of stupid joke, but he sounded so distressed I rushed to the nearest place, a restaurant, that I knew had a TV -- just in time to see the second jet hit. Others who had been there long enough were just asking me what I thought when the second jet hit, and I know I was speechless, and, if anything, my friends were even more so -- they had seen it twice now.

President Bush made plenty of mistakes, some of them disastrous. But it's flat not fair to attack him for that.

By the way, your comment about the kids teaching him to read is really, really low. He actually is widely read. (Surprised me, too.)

Criticize President Bush -- or any President -- for real mistakes or flaws, not human reaction. Nor just because the President didn't make the decision some particular group among us wanted.

I voted for Obama, if it matters.
by Berkeley-SkirtLifter June 4, 2010 5:25 PM EDT
Why is it that the libs won't comment on the posts that clearly explain why liberalism fails society in the long run. too weird...
Reply to this comment
by vannuys June 4, 2010 7:37 PM EDT
The Great Society and the New Deal worked very well, thank you very much. Conservatism has failed the country by making corporations equal to human beings, massive deficit spending on the military, deregulation and national security. Three thousand Americans didn't die on Bill Clinton's watch-they died while George W. Bush was learning how to read!
by Berkeley-SkirtLifter June 4, 2010 8:36 PM EDT
by vannuys June 4, 2010 7:37 PM EDT
""...while George W. Bush was learning how to read!""

When did GWB learn to read?
See all 4 Replies
See all 285 Comments
.

Follow Crossroads

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook