Before I went to bed last night I peeked at Huffpo, and saw they had her appointment as a Done Deal. We could see it coming like a freight train (via Mike Allen at Politico). History may see it as his signature move; Kagan is young and the Court will bear her stamp for possibly decades.
This morning when I logged on, I was dismayed to discover it hadn't been a nightmare; there was her picture everywhere, mocking those of us who had hoped to have a Unitary Executive reigned in; who were hoping against hope that Kagan was a feint, and Obama had appointed a potential Next Liberal Lion; maybe Diane Wood.
Or that he'd even gone with Jennifer Granholm, having told us that she might be more 'of the People' as a Justice.
This is a Bad Day for the country.

Glenn Greenwald's case against her is here:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

Did you read the links? Especially about her support of Unitary Executive power?

Those views, along with her steadfast work as Solicitor General defending the Bush/Cheney approach to executive power, have caused even the farthest Right elements -- from Bill Kristol to former Bush OLC lawyer Ed Whelan -- to praise her rather lavishly.'
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2010&base_name=filibuster_follies_draft

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2ZjNDY4OWJmYzJlNjQyNTMyZjZkNTkzOTEwZGI3MGY=

Quite an argument you make for a Supreme court Justice here:

'Apparently she was politically savvy enough to realize that in the supercharged atmosphere of recent years, she had better not make too many sweeping judgments about Constitutional Law if she wanted this job, or very obviously she would never be considered.'

'Politically savvy enough'; here I was hoping he'd appoint someone who would take the Constitution seriously.
Silly me.

and now, further right we lean

Bull...Greenwald's sourgrapes and this author- do not take into account that she was a rule of law prof- Ruled the Harvard Law school with the imense egos and has a sense of humour...
We have two currently sitting on the bench that served less than two years as judges before appointment and THEY GAVE US CORPORATE PERSONHOOD!

"Once again we see a weak President, highly averse to any conflict at all with the Republican Party (mostly ecause he agrees with them)..."

I think that's an important point, Oleeb. Obama is not trying for "the art of the possible" or anything of the sort. He is acting on his beliefs. To assume otherwise is wishful thinking.

In a world where Republicans are less crazy than they are now, he'd be one. It's only the Republican lurch rightward that makes Obama seem left of center.

Wendy and Oleeb, your depth of hostility and ignorance is staggering.

As to the comment that the SG's brief in Citizens United proves she's a baaaaaaad librul, realize that the Supreme Court she was arguing before was the four horseman of kneejerk conservatism and Tony Kennedy, who occasionally sides with the left bloc. The brief of which one of you has complained was written for Kennedy, to try to sustain campaign finance law.

I am so sick of people who don't know shit about law yelling about how this position or that position a lawyer took is proof of their deep convictions. Of course when you're arguing to the Supreme Court, you're trying to get the best result you can. It's not some exercise in moronic purity troll whining (as here) where you take the most librul position just to show you're the bestest librul.

You're actually trying to win something that matters in the real world and keep campaign finance law intact *to the extent you can*.

Wendy's use of the phrase "Unitary Executive" is worse. It doesn't mean what you think it means, and Kagan has never argued for it. What you're *trying* to say is that you don't share her view of executive power. Of course, see above, one brief in the Supreme Court doesn't equal "her view" anyway, but even assuming it did, she's never argued for, and won't as a justice argue for, the Unitary Executive.

Go read a lot. An awful lot. Try hard to find something besides Glenn Greenwald to read, so you're not relying on one editorialist's disagreement to mindlessly throw back. And then come back and discuss the Unitary Executive. Because Obama isn't it, and Kagan doesn't favor it. You just haven't learned basic concepts well enough to know that.

This blog post is like cotton candy spun from something much less edible than sugar. Full of air, signifying nothing. It is specific enough to merit an am not, are too kind of response. It is too vacuous to engage textually.

The idea that Wood is more librul than Kagan is laughable. But then, I've read the written work of both. They're both actually liberal jurists, and both would or will do a great job there. Neither is liberal like the crazy comments in this blog or thread; even Goodwin Liu isn't nearly as far left as you all are. Just click your heels until you're back in Kansas, kids. Cheers.

IOIYAO

The only problem with all of your very superior arguments and your vast knowledge is that all the criticisms of the left about Obama have proven to be quite accurate and true in every case. You just don't like criticism of Dear Leader. Too bad for you and for our country which will suffer for years at the hands of this Republican President in Democratic clothing and the neocon hack he is putting in a positions of great power on the Supreme Court.

And here's a brief segment of what Prof. Jonathan Turley had to say on his blog about the nomination:

"President Barack Obama said he wanted to honor the legacy of Associate Justice John Paul Stevens with his nominee. If so, he has chosen to honor it in the breach with a nominee who is likely to dismantle a significant part of Stevens’ legacy. As with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has decided to nominate someone who is demonstrably more conservative than the person she is replacing –moving the Court to the right.

For many liberals and civil libertarians, the Kagan nomination is a terrible act of betrayal after the President campaigned so heavily on the issue of the Supreme Court during his campaign. He is now replacing a liberal icon with someone who has testified that she does not believe in core protections for accused individuals in the war on terror. During her confirmation hearing Kagan testified that she believed that anyone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be stripped of protections and held under indefinite detention without a trial — agreeing with the Bush Administration."

Read the links on her handling of that mess; not just Greenwald's doing the digging and opining; he has up some defense of her at Salon. Go look.
Amy Klobuchar had quipped at Kagan's SG hearings that the Republicans loved her soo much that she was surprised they hadn't given her a standing ovation. Now, you can read their love several ways; me, I'm going with 'they like her on War on Terror issues, DADT non-repeal, in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act', etc.

Had to google that one. 'Close you eyes and imagine X saying this, doing this, then...'

You could have spelled it out so the rest of us didn't have to google, too!

"It's okay if you're an Obamican" for those of you who don't have all day to try to figure it out or are either too lazy or don't think to google it!

You are right that not long after I opened the pdf Glenn provided, I bailed out. I've been reading opinions all morning; the sum total must have made me hysterical.

Armando Llorens explained it like this in 2006.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/10/122117/

He agrees with you about her possibly being progressive on that issue; we'll see, I guess.
Obama wants Congress to limit rights of detainess; Jeralyn Merrit is hoping Congress bucks him, and that Kagan would, too. Dunno about that.

And of course this should be no surprise to anyone. Obama has never had much sympathy for civil livbertarian ideas.

These are the kinds of things one expects of cowards and despots who not only don't believe in our tried and true system of justice based upon the Constitution, but who wish to dispense with all the inconveniences it imposes on authoritarian tyrants like themselves. What possible advantage, other than political pandering to the extreme right does such a move offer us as a society? Not a God damned thing that's what. But it does open the door even further than it has been opened to tyrannical and despotic abuse of authority by the government and entices authoritarians to expand the use of that power in the future.

I see it a bit differently than that AA. The entire political spectrum has been pushed so far right since 1980 that people who, when they were in office, were considered dangerous right wingers (like Nixon) would now fall into the category of liberal---not because they are actually liberal at all, but because the spectrum has gone so far right that people who actually were liberals like FDR & Truman would be considered far left. So no, the Silent Majority was not liberal, but compared to the extremist right wing lense through which our politics is now defined it would appear that way if you didn't realize how the perspective had changed over time. The players on the board didn't change their position. The position of the board itself was changed and in large part it was weak politicians like Obama serving over the past thirty years that allowed that to happen.

Actually, it should come as a surprise. I view the Citizens United Case as a Dred Scott level abomination. Greenwald is not a progressive. So saying he wants a progressive voice is a misstatement. Greenwald wants a libertarian, but will settle for a progressive that shares his civil liberties values. The fact that he supported the Citizens United decision should be noted in that regard.

"The other stuff gets tiresome, and gets us nowhere"

You don't know from tiresome.

Lordy! ...And I thought I was pompous!

Thank you, Doc. As so often.

"I really try to refrain from labeling you and your inevitable support; I could wish you could leave off with the barbs. If you have a case to put forward, do it."

That is quite a turn around from this

"It just occurred to me that your screen name contains 'Overreach'; am I wrong in thinking you may have chosen it as it pertained to George W.'s
Presidential Overreach?
If so, are you comfortable with *this* President's history of 'overreach'?
Posted by wendy davis in reply to a comment from wendy davis
May 10, 2010 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink"

So, Stevens is a Republican nominee, who became in the more liberal minority but who tried to forge consensus and had some success.

Now if we replace him with a liberal nominee, every single decision, every last one, no exceptions, will go against us. Always. Just mentioning.

Come on, nonsense. Greenwald is a Constitution-following progressive.

But the speech restrictions struck down by Citizens United do not only apply to Exxon and Halliburton; they also apply to non-profit advocacy corporations, such as, say, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions, which are genuinely burdened in their ability to express their views by these laws.... Does anyone doubt that the facts that gave rise to this case -- namely, the government's banning the release of a critical film about Hillary Clinton by Citizens United -- is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid? And does anyone doubt that the First Amendment bars the government from restricting the speech of organizations composed of like-minded citizens who band together in corporate form to work for a particular cause?

No, and I stand fully behind what I just said. If someone more liberal or more discoverably liberal is nominated, we will lose absolutely every single case to the 5-4 reactionary majority, bar none. And that would be your self-destructive recommendation, and of your view on this there can be utterly no doubt.

If you disagree with the above, I'd be happy to hear your specific arguments. Irrelevant snarks don't add much, though.

That's the whole (enormous) difference between the anticonstitutional theory of the unitary executive, and someone disagreeing with the executive asserting policies they wish it wouldn't.

Unitary executive = violates separation of powers by evading judicial and congressional review specifically by denying those branches' authorities to so review.

Bad executive = everything else.

People here who critique Obama's DOJ, especially nonlawyers here, constantly conflate their disagreement with DOJ/executive positions on one hand with the espousal of the theory of the unitary executive on the other hand, because they honestly don't know what unitary executive means, and because Greenwald conflates the two thoughts on purpose.

Obama's DOJ and Kagan never espouse the unitary executive theory. People here who say so are either lying (less likely), or more likely, simply misdescribing their own criticisms of DOJ because they don't understand the concept.

you wrote, "Now if we replace him with a liberal nominee..."

I agreed that Obama not replacing him with a liberal. I don't see what more needs to be said.

Most people tend to agree she's a centrist, maybe you disagree.

Since she is centrist, Obama is making the court less liberal.

Tho't I was the only one acronym challenged, Stilli.

If she's as persuasive and organized as she was in Citizen's United...

thanks for that link!

and with 6 to 3, your marking yourself right down in the nut category, and I can't feel bad for saying that because that is exactly what you are doing. You want to be careful with demonstrably absurd predictions.

As Greenwald notes, he thinks politics is too much awash with money. *IF* you can come up with an equitable solution that preserves first amendment rights as granted to corporations on an equal non-discriminatory basis, Greenwald would likely be quite happy. Elsewhere it's been posited that corporate rights are not quite he same as people's, and they can be limited as essentially a natural limitation from incorporating - I don't know if that's completely true, but I think this tried. Whether it was just the type of case - limiting a low-budget movie about Hillary does seem pretty lame. Does that say British Petroleum can spend $5 billion on campaign ads for the next presidential election? I don't know if the decision goes quite that far in reach. But in any case, if BP can, then the Actors Guild should be able to as well.

NO NO, I wrote "*more* liberal," etc. and you are digging yourself into a deeper hole as somebody who doesn't give a tinker's damn about the facts, quotes, or context, as long as you can make irresponsible, wild accusations against the President.

I did oversimplify. I admit it. He offered a lot of nuance, but ultimately he came down in favor of the ruling. I find the ruling abhorrent and unconstitutional because it undermines free speech protections in the name of advancing them. The Chamber of Commerce loophole is big enough to drive billions of dollars through, and it codifies a doctrine of corporate personhood that only passes constitutional muster if you are a deranged blue-blooded jackboot.

If "progressive" means overthrowing the Bill of Rights every time preserving the Constiutution would produce an outcome that progressives don't like, then I'm sending back my progressive decoder ring and resigning from the club!

I would too, Ruta. I am not as big on the "rule of law" as others because it is often a term that obfuscates the expansion and abuse of elite power. I defer to Kafka as a salient critic in that regard. But I do believe that the application of justice should be equal. I also believe that the equation of money with speech because money purchases medium is as asinine interpretation of the law that is creating a "rule of law" that produces obscene outcomes that progressives should adhere to because that's just how it is.

The equation of money with speech has distorted and perverted our framework of authority and the perception of power and orthodoxy. At one point do we note that this idea of money = speech has undermined the Bill of Rights by making these important exemptions to tyranny a joke? What is the point of a free press that expresses the opinions of advertisers? What is the point of a free assembly when the assembly is funded and thus derives its opinion from advertisers?

At what point do we realize that our opinions and lifestyles are shaped by people other than ourselves, and the freedom we claim belongs to us intrinsically has been subverted because the availability of liberty is in proportion to one's capacity to purchase it?

Simplistic. This simply equates to every body gets to spend 0 dollars on advertising and the court has already ruled that limiting spending to x dollars for everybody is not allowable. It may meet an equal protection argument: it does not meet a free speech argument.

Asking that Congress pass an unConstitutional law is not upholding Obama's oath of office to support the Constitution nor does it uphold the freedoms in our traditions.

A stinger, alright. *WAS THAT* the reason you use that screen name?

What the hell does that even mean?

The President can ask for anything he or she wants... Congress legislates. Congress can ignore the President if they wish and never bring the issue to the floor.

There is already a public safety exemption to reading a suspect their rights. It exists. The idea floated by Holder is to define that public safety exemption in terms of terrorist suspects. We don't know what this will be until Congress begins the legislative process.

On the surface, I don't like it, but I think you are being overblown and tedious by throwing support and defend verbiage out here like it means anything other than a bit of chest-pounding.

And people wonder why the political left is demoralized and unenthused to go to the polls this November? Behold reason #327...

I am not feeling the love...at all.

Yep, case in point wendy, case in point.

Another former liberal who is now nothing more than a conservative in liberal's clothes...aka "neo-liberals". Clinton, Obama, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Rahm Emanuel, etc, etc, etc...

Twice a day, when the clock turns Greenwald.

Yep, we are now in a post partisan utopia...or hell.

Every day he seems to take more pride in doing things us 'lefties' don't like. I have seen that trait before but usually it was only confined to politicians who had a (R) following their name...I guess that trait is spreading.

Ya know there is a very fine line between neo-conservative and neo-liberal in ideology. LOL...I know, I know, not that I have to tell you.

;^)

I am encouraged by much of what I have read today. I wasn't a very happy camper this morning, but the more I read about her, the less concerned I am. Thanks, AA.

The Republicans had nearly 30 yeas of political dominance during which they could not finish off the Democrats and liberals. Obama seems to be trying to help them finish what they couldn't by herding the many sheeplike Democrats farther and farther right in defense of him and ultimately over the cliff of their own demise.

It also appears that Spam's comment above @ 11:37 is correct in suggesting:

Go read a lot. An awful lot. Try hard to find something besides Glenn Greenwald to read, so you're not relying on one editorialist's disagreement to mindlessly throw back. And then come back and discuss the Unitary Executive. Because Obama isn't it, and Kagan doesn't favor it. You just haven't learned basic concepts well enough to know that.

From the "Executive Power" section from

9750 Words on Elena Kagan, More than you ever wanted to know

by Tom Goldstein, editor of SCOTUS blog,
Saturday, May 8th, 2010 1:00 am,

My highlighting:

Executive Power [by Tom Goldstein]

Some have criticized Elena Kagan for supposedly favoring a strong view of executive power. They equate her views with support for the Bush Administration’s policies related to the “war on terror.” Generally speaking, these critics very significantly misunderstand what Kagan has written.

Kagan’s only significant discussion of the issue of executive power comes in her article Presidential Administration, published in 2001 in the Harvard Law Review. The article has nothing to do with the questions of executive power that are implicated by the Bush policies – for example, power in times of war and in foreign affairs. It is instead concerned with the President’s power in the administrative context – i.e., the President’s ability to control executive branch and independent agencies. That kind of power is concerned with, for example, who controls the vast collection of federal agencies as they respond to the Gulf oil spill and the economic crisis.

Nor does the article assert that the President has “power” over the other branches of government in the constitutional sense – i.e., a power that cannot be overridden. To the contrary, Kagan “accept[s] Congress’ broad power to insulate administrative activity from the President.” (2251). She instead makes the descriptive claim “that Congress has left more power in Presidential hands than generally is recognized.” (Id.)

Kagan does believe that presidential control over the agencies is a good thing. As a policy matter, but not as a constitutional matter, she therefore shares some common ground with conservatives who believe in a strong, unitary executive. Conservatives want that presidential control because they believe that it is the best interpretation of the Constitution and because it increases the prospect that agencies can be blocked from running amok, generally by engaging in excessive regulation.

But Kagan favors the idea of Congress allowing strong presidential control for a very different reason. Based on her then-recent experience in the Clinton Administration, she explains that a progressive President needs control over the agencies to press his agenda. “Where once presidential supervision had tended to favor politically conservative positions, it generally operated during the Clinton Presidency as a mechanism to achieve progressive goals. . . . Clinton showed that presidential supervision could jolt into action bureaucrats suffering from bureaucratic inertia in the face of unmet needs and challenges.” (2249).

There is no link between Kagan’s views on the value of Congress permitting strong Executive control of administrative agencies for purposes of achieving progressive goals and the claim that the Bush Administration had the constitutionally conferred power to engage in policies like the NSA wiretapping program and indefinite detention in the war on terror. They have literally nothing to do with each other.

Critics equally misunderstand a 2006 article in the Yale Law Journal by Kagan’s deputy, Neal Katyal (who prevailed [with me as co-counsel] in the Hamdan case), when they assert that Katyal views Kagan as asserting a Bush-like vision of presidential power. Neal K. Katyal, Internal Separation of Powers, 115 Yale L. J. 2314 (2006). Katyal’s article does nothing of the sort. Katyal points to Kagan’s view that presidential control encourages “executive energy and dispatch.” (2317). Katyal believes that a strong Executive “fails to control power” when one party controls the Congress as well. (2332). But he flatly recognizes that her article is addressed to “domestic policy,” and he merely analogizes to how similar arguments could be made “in the realm of foreign affairs” (2343), which as noted Kagan was not doing. Kagan’s article, Katyal explains, “is about [Clinton’s] attempt to use the President’s authority to achieve domestic policy goals,” and Kagan “excludes or distinguishes foreign policy. As such, the above analysis is not a direct criticism of her article but rather of attempts to extend her concept to foreign affairs.” (Id.) I do think that the two articles suggest that Kagan and Katyal (both veterans of the Clinton Administration) differ to some extent on the question whether it is a good or bad thing for the President to exercise strong control and direction over agencies, but that disagreement again has nothing to do with the foreign-affairs-related issues raised by Kagan’s critics.

Liberal commentators also point to a brief exchange between Lindsay Graham and Kagan at her confirmation hearings. As discussed above, Senator Lindsay Graham asserted that, under military law, a member of an enemy force can be detained without trial. When he explained that Attorney General Holder had agreed with that statement in his hearing and asked Kagan whether she agreed, she replied “I think that makes sense, and I think you’re correct that that is the law” (see hearing video at 1:37:35).

It seems to me that liberals’ reliance on that passage is dramatically overblown. Kagan was asked whether the Attorney General, for whom she would work directly, was right in his understanding of existing law. The question had nothing to do with Kagan’s own views. And a single sentence in a confirmation hearing is far too slender a reed on which to base an understanding someone’s views on a question as complicated as the President’s power in war time.

The point is easily illustrated by a similar exchange with Dawn Johnsen, whom liberals celebrate as an ideal nominee, but who withdrew from consideration to head the Office of Legal Counsel after having been blocked. Johnsen notably had been exceptionally critical of the Bush Administration’s policies in the war on terror. In written questions subsequent to her confirmation hearing, Senator Hatch asked Johnsen whether she agreed with Kagan’s answer that Kagan agreed with Holder. She responded: “Yes, I do agree with Dean Kagan’s statement that under traditional military law, enemy combatants may be detained for the duration of the conflict. That is what the Supreme Court said as well in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). . . . As indicated above, I do not believe that release or criminal prosecution are the only possible dispositions for detainees.” No one believes that Johnsen was embracing the Bush Administration’s policies, and no one should think that was true of Kagan either.

Media Matters for America goes over same:

Myth: Kagan's record shows that she will rubber-stamp war-on-terror policies

(Kudos to them for finally starting to include some liberal blogophere disinfo. in their usual list of right wing disinfo.)

David Plouffe.

Yup. Gracias.

Gosh, I've been remiss by commenting only on comments. I must address this OP.

Oleeb, your OP reads like a rant from one of those Idaho hill people who charges people with violating laws they invent and then holds trials in absentia in their weird grand juries. (And it's reining, not reigning. But I quibble.)

The founders would have been quite fine with killing Tories they believed took up arms against them withour a criminal trial. If you think George Washington and the founding asymmetric warriors would be concerned about arresting Awlaki and giving him a criminal trial, you are as trenchant an analyst of history as you are of law.

Good job on the Stalin comparison, though! Does that make Kagan Bukharin? Just wondering. Maybe that makes Saul Alinsky Lenin. He might not mind, right? Or if Obama is a Roman Emperor, can he be a really cool one like Trajan, or is he a dud, like Otho? I'll defer to your views. Rule of law! Rule of law!

I swear to God, on the way home, little pieces of sky were bouncing off my car. I think this validates your piece, no? And when I logged onto Lexis, there are no longer any laws. Who knew? I'll have to ply a new trade, as a lawyer in a suddenly lawless country. Oh well! Serves me right for supporting Obama!

YUP! :)

Almost nothing is known as yet, in any detail, about Kagan's considered views on the important constitutional questions of the day. Honestly, I don't see how anyone can have an informed opinion on this nomination, pro or con.

"Oleeb, your OP reads like a rant from one of those Idaho hill people who charges people with violating laws they invent and then holds trials in absentia in their weird grand juries."

So does everything else oleeb has written since about March of 2009.

Definitely second this comment. While expressing some concerns on the part of progressives seem reasonable, we have yet another full-blown case of Obama Derangement breaking out among the "progressives" on this site.

I mean, "cowards," "despots" and "neocon hacks?" Really?

Meet Barack Obama. History's Greatest Monster.

You write it, let me know at decader at gmail.com

Anna, how do we pick? There is no guarantee about what any justice will do. We are human beings and anyone can turn into a Scalia or even a Cheney, or also a Brennan. So we guess.

What we have to pick is someone who can replace a powerhouse minority justice who was appointed by Republicans, and nobody can actually replace that man, who is a giant. Hopefully somebody who can do more than simply replace the fourth losing vote each time. There is no doubt that she is a strong, strong person, and that is needed. That's the strategy they're pursuing. If we get to replace one of the five in the conservative majority, it's a different ballgame, of course.

I don't think Obama would have nominated her, "my friend" who he knows for 15 years or so if he didn't have a good idea what was going on here. But it may backfire, no question. That is always true.

Obama voted against Roberts. Kagan's been known to senior Democrats for decades now (she worked in the Clinton administration). Unless you truly believe that the Democrats are just as eager to establish feudal economic conditions and a police state in service of the oligarchy as the Republicans, you have to believe she'll be a decent pick, if not the best we could have hoped for.

I honestly think Obama believes he's appointing the liberal Roberts. Someone with the intellectual heft, political savvy, and yes, potential for longevity on the bench to leave a lasting judicial legacy. But at a certain point, you have to trust that he's not going to appoint a Souter in reverse. I mean, there are no sure things in life; he could appoint Harold Koh and have him get hit by a bus on the way to his first session.

You are nothing but a hack apologist and blind follower of anything Obama says or does. You have no independt thoughts and are a tribalist. You are a shameless adminstration troll.

You really are a symphony consisting of a single (off-key) note, aren't you?

Since you seem to like to create narratives from supposition without much basis in fact, i.e. "Obama Trades Rule Of Law For Easy Confirmation Of Kagan," let me offer an alternate story: "Obama, the ever so slightly left-of-center centrist, and past Constituional professor, decides to appoint someone he knows as a liberal to the Supreme Court in order to balance its current conservative slant, one who doesn't have the habit of wearing her liberal sentiments on her sleeve, so it will be hard to label her as such, and one who learned over her career to interact in a crafty way with legal minds of conservative persuasion." I admit my narrative could be just as off as yours, we'll see, but I'd be willing to bet that in a couple of years you'll be defending her.