So some people on the left have decried the possibility of a Kagan nomination to the Supreme Court because she has argued in favor of expansive powers for the president in her role as Solicitor General. Walter Dellinger jumps to her defense with the argument that ... she loves presidential power. But while lovin' presidential power, she is nonetheless opposed to presidents breaking the law. Really Mr. Dellinger? That's the best you can do when it comes to defending her record? You want progressives to jump for joy because her love of a strong presidency doesn't mean she favors lawlessness too? Me, I don't think that's much of a defense of her.
UPDATE: Greenwald takes on this weak defense of Kagan (and other weak defenses of Kagan) here.Posted by armand at April 16, 2010 09:58 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Law and the Courts