Changes

Anne-Marie Slaughter, who became friendly with Kagan when both were Sachs Scholars at Oxford, and later taught with her at Chicago and Harvard law schools. opined that Kagan “knows how to pick her battles and stand up for what she needs to stand up for without alienating people unnecessarily. That’s a very valuable skill set, particularly at a place as political as Harvard Law School.”  Early in her tenure Kagan pleased students by renovating both the student center and the out-of-date gymnasium, and by ensuring that free coffee and hot chocolate were available in the main classroom building and in the library.  

Anne-Marie Slaughter, who became friendly with Kagan when both were Sachs Scholars at Oxford, and later taught with her at Chicago and Harvard law schools. opined that Kagan “knows how to pick her battles and stand up for what she needs to stand up for without alienating people unnecessarily. That’s a very valuable skill set, particularly at a place as political as Harvard Law School.”  Early in her tenure Kagan pleased students by renovating both the student center and the out-of-date gymnasium, and by ensuring that free coffee and hot chocolate were available in the main classroom building and in the library.  

Also while at Harvard, Kagan supported a censorship and banning of participation by the United States Armed Forces in recruitment that is made available to hundreds of other employers. She signed onto a law brief in 2004 urging the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to overturn the [[Solomon Amendment]], a law that denies federal funding to any university that “has a policy or practice … that either prohibits, or in effect prevents” military personnel “from gaining access to campuses, or access to students … on campuses [including Harvard Law Schoo], for purposes of military recruiting  that they not discriminate against recruitment by the U.S. Armed Forces.''<ref>Rumsfeld v. FAIR, Docket No. 04-1152, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1152</ref>.  The U.S. Supreme Court rejected her argument by a vote of 8-0.  But Harvard University continues to ban [[ROTC]] to this day.<ref>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/service-academy-parents/724749-interesting-article-about-rotc.html</ref>  

Also while at Harvard, Kagan supported a censorship and banning of participation by the United States Armed Forces in recruitment that is made available to hundreds of other employers. She signed onto a law brief in 2004 urging the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to overturn the [[Solomon Amendment]], a law that denies federal funding to any university that “has a policy or practice … that either prohibits, or in effect prevents” military personnel “from gaining access to campuses, or access to students … on campuses [including Harvard Law Schoo], for purposes of military recruiting  that they not discriminate against recruitment by the U.S. Armed Forces.''<ref>Rumsfeld v. FAIR, Docket No. 04-1152, 2004 U.S. Briefs 1152</ref>.  A federal appeals court judged the law to be unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court rejected her argument by a vote of 8-0.  But Harvard University continues to ban [[ROTC]] to this day.<ref>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/service-academy-parents/724749-interesting-article-about-rotc.html</ref>  

Kagan opposed military recruiters from being at Harvard because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy which attempted to prevent homosexual relations in the military. She characterized it as “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order … a wrong that tears at the fabric of our own community, because some of our members cannot, while others can, devote their professional careers to their country.”<ref>[http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34854  FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, May 18, 2009]</ref>

Kagan opposed military recruiters from being at Harvard because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy which attempted to prevent homosexual relations in the military. She characterized it as “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order … a wrong that tears at the fabric of our own community, because some of our members cannot, while others can, devote their professional careers to their country.”<ref>[http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34854  FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, May 18, 2009]</ref>  

For many liberals Kagan is not liberal enough, <ref>Glenn Greenwald, ''The case against Elena Kagan'', Salon.com, April 13, 2010</ref> but she apparently supports greater Presidential power. In a June, 2001 Harvard Law Review article,<ref>http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/12/kagan/Kagan-_Presidential_Administration.pdf</ref> Kagan defended the Clinton administration's assertion of the right to direct federal regulatory agencies without congressional or court involvement. In review of this, William F. West, a professor who specializes in federal administration at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, stated, "She is certainly a fan of presidential power."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/01/06/obama_taps_harvard_law_school_dean_as_solicitor_general?mode=PF Boston Globe], January 6, 2009</ref> Neal Katyal, who has succeeded Kagan as Solicitor General, also was critical of her support of expanded executive power. <ref>http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-9/Katyal.pdf</ref>

 

Many liberals fear that Kagan is not liberal enough, <ref>Glenn Greenwald, ''The case against Elena Kagan'', Salon.com, April 13, 2010</ref> but she apparently supports greater Presidential power. In a June, 2001 Harvard Law Review article,<ref>http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/12/kagan/Kagan-_Presidential_Administration.pdf</ref> Kagan defended the Clinton administration's assertion of the right to direct federal regulatory agencies without congressional or court involvement. In review of this, William F. West, a professor who specializes in federal administration at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, stated, "She is certainly a fan of presidential power."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/01/06/obama_taps_harvard_law_school_dean_as_solicitor_general?mode=PF Boston Globe], January 6, 2009</ref> Neal Katyal, who has succeeded Kagan as Solicitor General, also was critical of her support of expanded executive power. <ref>http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-9/Katyal.pdf</ref>

In 2003, Elena Kagan presented an oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, defending the government'  federal campaign finance law in ''Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission'', in which the FEC' had outlawed corporations, including non-profits, from spending funds from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The specific cause was government opposition to a 90-minute documentary by the non-profit organization, [[Citizens United]], opposing [[Hillary Clinton]], then candidate for president. The Court rejected the government's argument and invalidated the law as unconstitutional, <ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5bReargued%5d.pdf Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]</ref> with Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] commenting, "we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."<ref>David N. Bossie,  ''Elena Kagan: Hostile to free speech?'', The Washington Post, Friday, May 21, 2010; A17 </ref>   

In 2003, Elena Kagan presented an oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, defending the government'  federal campaign finance law in ''Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission'', in which the FEC' had outlawed corporations, including non-profits, from spending funds from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The specific cause was government opposition to a 90-minute documentary by the non-profit organization, [[Citizens United]], opposing [[Hillary Clinton]], then candidate for president. The Court rejected the government's argument and invalidated the law as unconstitutional, <ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5bReargued%5d.pdf Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]</ref> with Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] commenting, "we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."<ref>David N. Bossie,  ''Elena Kagan: Hostile to free speech?'', The Washington Post, Friday, May 21, 2010; A17 </ref>