It seems that the banksters at BNY Mellon cheated both public and private pension funds and other investors out in currency trading deals where they promised their customers the best rate and lied. They gave them the crappiest deal and pocketed the rest. Schneiderman is looking to recover over $2 Billion nationwide.
The full press release from Schneiderman's office is in the extended entry, but this part I found rather fascinating:
The New York State False Claims Act provides incentives for whistleblowers to report matters where governmental entities, such as pension funds, have been defrauded. The provision allows whistleblower to recover between 15 and 25 percent of the recovery made on behalf of New York.
As a state senator, Attorney General Schneiderman authored amendments to strengthen the False Claims Act. These enhancements, known as the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, allow the state to collect triple damages and penalties from corporations or people who defraud the government, or violate their obligations to pay government entities.
Attorney General Schneiderman created the Taxpayer Protection Bureau in January 2011 specifically to handle whistleblower cases and cases where the government itself has been victimized.
The Martin Act empowers the Attorney General to protect investors from fraud occurring from or within the State of New York.
"Come on aboard, I promise you you won't hurt the horse
We treat him well, we feed him well
There's lots of room for you on the bandwagon.." -- R.E.M. "Bandwagon"
The group of courageous state Attorneys General speaking out against and standing up to the ridiculous and shameful multi-state settlement with the nation's largest banks gained a new member today. Kentucky AG Jack Conway is joining AG Schneiderman as well as the AGs of states like Massachusetts and Delaware in saying "not so fast" with a "settlement" that amounts to not much more than a "get out of jail free" card for the biggest players in the foreclosure mess.
Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway has added his name to a list of state law enforcers who fear that a settlement being negotiated among government officials and big banks isn't backed by a sufficient investigation into potential wrongdoing.
As law enforcers approach a deal with banks to settle allegations that the companies improperly foreclosed on American homeowners, the banks are pushing for a broad release from liability for actions that have not yet been fully investigated, Conway said in a Thursday email to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, obtained by The Huffington Post.
By raising these concerns, Conway has aligned himself with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and law enforcers from other states who have questioned the adequacy of the groundwork underlying the settlement talks.
"Today's economic crisis was caused by Wall Street acting improperly," Conway, a Democrat, said in the email. "Every American has paid the price -- with families losing their homes, investors losing their money, and many Americans losing their jobs. There should be absolutely no criminal or civil immunity given to banks for activity that has not yet been investigated."
Kudos to AGs like Schneiderman and Conway who, by saying "not so fast," are standing up for the interests of those they were elected to represent as opposed to the interests of those who swindled this country into the mess we're in today.
All 21 members of the NY Dem House delegation have signed a letter to Iowa AG Tom Miller protesting his removal of AG Schneiderman from the committee negotiating a potential settlement with the nation's largest banks over their involvement in the mortgage and foreclosure crisis. This is pretty heartening development in as far as I had assumed that a number of our House Dems would be perfectly OK with aiding and abetting a clean get away for the banksters on this score. At a minimum, it appears that they want an explanation from the Iowa AG.
Here's the full text of the letter:
The Honorable Tom Miller
Attorney General
1305 East Walnut Street
Des Moines, IA 50319
Dear Attorney General Miller:
As members of the New York congressional delegation, we are united in fighting for a fair resolution of the housing crisis that has devastated tens of thousands of families across our state. That is why we are deeply troubled by your recent action to silence New York's voice by removing New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman from an executive committee negotiating a nationwide settlement with the banks. We ask that you explain how New York's interests will be protected as negotiations move forward.
New York's homeowners and investors have been hit hard by the economic impact of wrongdoing related to the mortgage crisis. According to the FBI, New York ranked as one of the top ten states for known or suspected mortgage fraud activity for two consecutive years. It also was one of the top ten states for reports of mortgage fraud across all originations in 2010. Undoubtedly, our state, the third largest in the nation, deserves a seat at any negotiating table that could potentially limit our state's ability to investigate and penalize wrongdoing done within our borders.
Raising legitimate concerns about elements of the proposed settlement is a responsibility of every member of the executive committee and should never be the basis for silencing a viewpoint. Your removal of Attorney General Schneiderman sets a dangerous precedent for other attorneys general who, out of fear of what might happen, may choose silence over voicing valid concerns with particular aspects of the proposed settlement. Moreover, your attempt to banish opposition rather than address varying viewpoints undermines both the validity of the process and any settlement reached by the committee.
New York deserves adequate representation during the remainder of the mortgage settlement negotiations. We look forward to hearing how you will ensure that New York's voice is heard.
Sincerely,
Jerrold Nadler
Carolyn Maloney
Maurice Hinchey
Joseph Crowley
Edolphus Towns
Carolyn McCarthy
Jose Serrano
Gary Ackerman
Timothy Bishop
Eliot Engel
Charles Rangel
Nita Lowey
Louise Slaughter
Paul Tonko
Gregory Meeks
Bill Owens
Yvette Clarke
Kathleen Hochul
Brian Higgins
Nydia Velazquez
Steve Israel
Has Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi been keeping tabs on our very own Phillip Anderson's continuing TAP coverage of Attorney General Scheiderman's refusal to cave in to Obama's bank cartel settlement deal?
I would assume both citizen journalists came to it themselves, but the new RS blog by Taibbi is a welcome addition to the voices bringing this issue up. I recieved it from former State Senate candidate David Weiss in an e-mail, and I hope this gets more attention. Fat chance it will break through Very Important Nonstop Hurricane Updates, but I implore you, check out Taibbi's full article if these choice quotes mean anything to you:
Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal ::
The idea behind this federally-guided "settlement" is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.
This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they'll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline. ::
So this deal being cooked up is the ultimate Papal indulgence. By the time that $20 billion (if it even ends up being that high) gets divvied up between all the major players, the broadest and most destructive fraud scheme in American history, one that makes the S&L crisis look like a cheap liquor store holdup, will be safely reduced to a single painful but eminently survivable one-time line item for all the major perpetrators.
::
Why? My theory is that the Obama administration is trying to secure its 2012 campaign war chest with this settlement deal. If Barry can make this foreclosure thing go away for the banks, you can bet he'll win the contributions battle against the Republicans next summer.
Which is good for him, I guess. But it seems to me that it might be time to wonder if is this the most disappointing president we've ever had.
Emphasis mine - SP
The same fellow who e-mailed this to me began calling him Obummer a couple years back. Now, with this, it's worth it to add "Obanker" to the list of worthy aliases attributable to this mockery of a president.
A day after being dumped by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller from the group of AGs negotiating a settlement of sorts with the very banks who blew up the global economy, Eric Schneiderman has come out swinging. In an email to supporters this afternoon titled "Standing Up For You,", Schneiderman vows to not back down and promises a "full investigation into the misconduct that led to the collapse of America's housing market."
He continues, "Our ongoing investigation into the housing crisis cannot be shut down to accommodate efforts to settle quickly and give banks and others broad immunity from further legal action. "
Here's the full text of Schneiderman's email:
You might have been following the latest developments related to the national settlement of the mortgage probe, including this story in today's Huffington Post about our tough fight for a comprehensive resolution to this crisis.
Let me tell you directly: I am deeply committed to pursuing a full investigation into the misconduct that led to the collapse of America's housing market, and to seeking a resolution that gives homeowners meaningful relief, allows the housing market to begin to recover, and gets our economy moving again.
Our ongoing investigation into the housing crisis cannot be shut down to accommodate efforts to settle quickly and give banks and others broad immunity from further legal action. If you have any thoughts or concerns about this critical issue, please contact me at 1-800-771-7755, or send a message via Facebook or Twitter.
Our opinion: New York's attorney general takes a hard line with banks in the mortgage scandal. Why should a deal mean no more litigation?
They are fair questions, made all the more so by the ongoing revelations about the near collapse of the American economy three years ago. What's wrong with aggressively investigating the practices of the major banks? What's wrong with holding them accountable for their contributions to that crisis?
Nothing we can think of, certainly.
Yet here's New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, under fire from the unlikely quarters of a Democratic White House, for his continued opposition to a deal that would let banks off easy for their questionable practices. Mr. Schneiderman resists the terms of a proposed settlement, especially those that would make it harder to prosecute such discredited dealings as bundling loans in mortgage securities. On Tuesday, Bloomberg News reported that he was removed from the executive committee of state attorneys general working on the settlement.
....
To think that after all that, the Obama administration is leaning on Mr. Schneiderman and a few other holdouts to go along with a settlement that amounts to immunity from further accountability.
It's disingenuous, meanwhile, for the Justice Department to be arguing that its motivation to settle with the Wall Street banks is all about helping the homeowners who took out those bad loans. A deal that would prevent further legal action against the banks is a disservice to all the homeowners who could be the victims of the next mortgage debacle.
There's this possible motivation for the Obama administration, too: Wall Street banks wield great political influence, and are generous contributors to political campaigns. Perhaps the White House wants to win them over, or at least neutralize them in a presidential race that's already under way.
That's not Mr. Schneiderman's problem, however. He should continue to stand up to Wall Street. Immunity from litigation should be out of the question until we know what exactly it is we're forgiving.
In case you had any doubts that the process by which the big banks, the Obama administration and the state AGs are trying desperately to give the fraudsters another "get out of jail free" card isn't pretty much thoroughly corrupt, there's this. Iowa AG Tom Miller has kicked Eric Schneiderman (and therefore New York as well) from the group of AGs negotiating what is sure to be a whitewash settlement with the very criminals who screwed borrowers, investors and everyone in between all because it would appear that Schneiderman was the highest profile AG who actually seemed to give a damn about making that settlement worthwhile to anyone but the banksters. Incredible, yet totally predictable.
The New York Attorney General's office was removed from a group of state attorneys general that is working on a nationwide foreclosure settlement with U.S. banks, according to a state official.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who has raised concern about terms of a possible deal, was removed from the executive committee of state attorneys general, according to an e-mail today from Iowa Assistant Attorney General Patrick Madigan.
Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, didn't immediately return a phone call seeking comment. Miller is helping to lead negotiations with the banks.
A statement from Schneiderman's office didn't specifically address the removal.
"The attorney general is committed to a comprehensive resolution that will provide homeowners meaningful relief to stay in their homes, allow the housing market to begin to recover, and get our economy moving again," according to an e- mail from spokesman Danny Kanner. "While we will continue to work with our federal and state counterparts to achieve those goals, ongoing investigations by attorneys general cannot be shut down by efforts to settle quickly and those responsible must be held accountable."
For some context, remember that Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller saw his campaign contributions from the financial sector increase by a factor of 88(!) after he was made the chief negotiator of this settlement. That's not a typo.
A hilarious report has come out courtesy of the National Institute of Money in State Politics, showing that Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller - who is coordinating the investigation into the banks' improper mortgage dealings - increased his campaign contributions from the finance sector this year by a factor of 88! He has raised $261,445 from finance, insurance and real estate contributors since he announced that he was going to be coordinating the investigation into improper foreclosure practices. That is 88 times as much as they gave him not over last year, but over the previous decade.
This is about as perfect an example of how American politics works as you'll ever see. This foreclosure issue is a monstrous story that is somehow escaping national headlines; essentially, all of the largest banks in the country have been engaged in an ongoing fraud and tax evasion scheme that among other things has resulted in many hundreds of billions in investor losses, and hundreds of thousands of improper foreclosures. Last week, the 14 largest mortgage lenders a group that includes bailout all-stars like Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, managed to negotiate a settlement with the federal government that will mandate some financial relief to homeowners who have been victims of improper foreclosure practices. It's unclear yet exactly what damages and fines will be involved in the federal settlement, or how many homeowners will be affected. But certainly there are some who believe the federal settlement was a political end-run around the states' efforts to extract their own deal from the banks.
Just in case you get the impression, as I have seen expressed elsewhere in the last 24 hours, that our Attorney General is somehow grandtstanding all by himself by seeking to stop this "flawed settlement" with the big banks over their truly shady conduct with regards to the packaging, securitizing and marketing of crap mortagages and the robo-signing document nightmare they left in their wake, think again. Schneiderman may be leading the way given New York's unique position vis a vis the industry located here, but he's hardly alone.
New York and Delaware have agreed to work together to pursue a wider-ranging probe into Wall Street's role in the mortgage meltdown. California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris is also considering joining that effort, and has said publicly she is interested in pursuing investigations that involve the packaging, securitizing and selling of risky mortgages. Massachusetts Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley has also said she is interested in pursuing separate investigations into mortgage-securitization practices.
Those probes are unlikely to move forward if the 50-state talks result in broad legal immunity for mortgage servicers. The five largest institutions involved - Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc. - are pushing the states' attorneys for broad release.
"We continue to believe that the best way to get the housing market going again in every state is a global settlement that addresses these issues fairly, comprehensively and with finality," BofA spokesman Lawrence Grayson said Monday. The other four financial institutions declined to comment.
As the talks have stalled, the Obama administration has waged a campaign to pressure New York Atty. Gen. Eric Schneiderman, leaning on his supporters to urge him to back a broad deal that would grant immunity to the nation's five largest mortgage servicers, a person familiar with the discussions said. But Schneiderman has remained resolute that his own investigations must be allowed to go forward.
"The attorney general remains concerned by any settlement agreement that would fail to provide homeowners meaningful relief to stay in their homes, allow the housing market to begin to recover and get our economy moving again," said Danny Kanner, a spokesman for Schneiderman. "While our federal and state counterparts may be working toward the same goals, ongoing investigations by attorneys general cannot be shut down by efforts to settle quickly and those responsible must be held accountable."
New York and Delaware have more than a dozen attorneys working full time on their effort. They have subpoenaed or requested information from 13 financial firms, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase. Harris would be a key addition to the investigation because California was the location of a vast number of the mortgages and foreclosures that fed into the crisis. She met with Schneiderman in San Francisco last month to discuss participating in the probe.
The sense seems to be that if the banks and their DC enablers can get 40 or so state AGs to sign on, they'll likely cut a deal, a crappy deal to be sure. But as long as there are AGs out there (and here, thankfully) that still take their duty to protect and represent the public's interest before those of the people who got us in this mess in the first place, there is still some hope that such a deal can be greatly improved.
Good on Schneiderman, Biden, Smith and the rest for not rolling over for the big money folks in Lower Manhattan and their lapdogs in DC.
The New York Times editorializes on the story they broke yesterday about DC pressure on our Attorney General to support a whitewash settlement with the big banks.
The Obama administration has turned up the heat on Eric Schneiderman, New York's attorney general, to go along with a proposed settlement with the nation's largest banks over dubious foreclosure practices. Mr. Schneiderman should stand his ground in not supporting the deal. The administration says that a settlement would quickly deliver much needed relief to hard-pressed borrowers, but it's doubtful it would provide redress on a par with the banks' wrongdoing or borrowers' needs.
The deal has been in the works for nearly a year, after the state attorneys general announced an investigation into a robo-signing scandal in which banks were found to have filed false foreclosure papers in state courts. It was widely believed that the scandal would lead to a broad inquiry into how banks inflated the housing bubble, profiting as it expanded.
As it turned out, the inquiry was narrow. Mr. Schneiderman, who became the attorney general of New York after the scandal broke, has rightly refused to go along with a settlement that is not based on a thorough investigation, and has ordered investigations of his own. He has been supported by a handful of other state prosecutors, who say that the proposed deal would restrict their own investigations and prosecutions.
Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, however, says that a settlement on the narrow issue of robo-signing would not preclude other investigations by individual attorneys general. But, clearly, once the robo-signing issue is off the table, investigators would lose leverage to pursue remedies for other possible illegalities in the packaging, marketing and transferring of mortgage securities.
Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.
In recent weeks, Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and high-level Justice Department officials have been waging an intensifying campaign to try to persuade the attorney general to support the settlement, said the people briefed on the talks.
Mr. Schneiderman and top prosecutors in some other states have objected to the proposed settlement with major banks, saying it would restrict their ability to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing in a variety of areas, including the bundling of loans in mortgage securities.
But Mr. Donovan and others in the administration have been contacting not only Mr. Schneiderman but his allies, including consumer groups and advocates for borrowers, seeking help to secure the attorney general's participation in the deal, these people said. One recipient described the calls from Mr. Donovan, but asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation.
Not surprising, the large banks, which are eager to reach a settlement, have grown increasingly frustrated with Mr. Schneiderman. Bank officials recently discussed asking Mr. Donovan for help in changing the attorney general's mind, according to a person briefed on those talks.
Extra chuztpah points for this line from Donovan:
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Donovan defended his discussions with the attorney general, saying they were motivated by a desire to speed up help for troubled homeowners.
Did you see what he tried to do right there? It's called lying. It's complete and utter bullshit. The Obama administration's desire for Schneiderman to, well, stop doing his job, isn't to further the interests of distressed homeowners at all. It's all about giving the banksters yet another "get out of jail free" card.
You see, the Administration has an "immediate opportunity to help a huge number of borrowers stay in their homes," without any action from Eric Schneiderman. They have a way to do so more swiftly, in such a way the servicers actually would be held accountable. It would involve offering refis with principal reductions to all the underwater homeowners whose loans are owned by Fannie and Freddie. That would not only help a huge number of borrowers stay in their home, but it would be massive stimulus.
But instead they're sending Donovan to pressure Schneiderman to pursue a measure that would benefit far fewer homeowners and probably take more time, while putting the last coffin in the rule of law in this country.
So get this: we have unemployment at roughly 16% if you include discouraged workers, and many "employed" workers are underemployed. The housing market hasn't bottomed; experts have pushed their hopes estimates from 2011 to 2012. And continued concerns about unaddressed chain of title issues may well impede any housing recovery.
Yet rather than address real, serious problems, senior administration officials are instead devoting time and effort to orchestrating a faux grass roots campaign to con a state AG into thinking his supporters are deserting him because he has dared challenge the supremacy of the banks.
So how does the Administration rationalize its failure to do anything effective? It goes deeper into its propaganda hall of mirrors:
Mr. Donovan said..."our view is we have the immediate opportunity to help a huge number of borrowers to stay in their homes, to help their neighborhoods and the housing market."
This doesn't even qualify as competent three card monte. "No, don't look at what we are trying to do for the banks. Really, all we care about is homeowners!"
Eric Schneiderman was elected to do a job, an extremely important one, serving the public's interest and he's doing a mighty fine job of it so far. If anything, the enemies he's making, as illustrated above, show just how well he's performing in that position. At a time when our US Attorney General, the AGs of states around the country as well as the federal agencies like the SEC and other instituions that are supposed to be representing the public's interest seem to be AWOL or simply indifferent to those interests, Schneiderman is one of the few public officials anywhere that seems to actually want to do anything to hold anyone, anyone at all, accountable.
And what does he get for the trouble? Arm twisting from DC (and much closer to home) to allow the state AGs (with an assist from DOJ) sweep all these crimes under the rug for good.
That's a disgrace.
As for that closer to home part, meet Kathryn Wylde, Head of the objectively pro-lawlessness Partnership For New York City as well as a Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Her position on the New York Fed is one that supposedly represents the "public." So where does she fall on these issues? More from Yves:
Finally, to the toad-hopping-out-of-mouth utterance, "Wall Street is our Main Street." That came from finance's favorite camp follower, Kathryn S. Wylde. As we described in an earlier post, she's wiling to throw the rule of law under the bus to serve the interests of the banks who happen to be major funders of the business-promoting not for profit she heads. And she is also a director of the New York Fed. So it should not be surprising that she got in a "contentious conversation" with Schneiderman when they crossed paths in public.
Her argument, as she recounted it to the Times, is intellectually and morally bankrupt:
[I]it is of concern to the industry that instead of trying to facilitate resolving these issues, you seem to be throwing a wrench into it. Wall Street is our Main Street - love 'em or hate 'em. They are important and we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them unless they are doing something indefensible.
Translation:
In this state, banks count for a lot, and therefore your job it to make their problems go away. You don't seem to understand that you are supposed to act like a proper bought and paid for public official. Your role is to support big companies. You are to go after them only when the things they do make the public so angry that you have to help us make a credible show that the elites care about the little people.
If you think that is an unfair rendition of Wylde's remark, consider the damage the major banks have done. They have failed so badly at being competent lenders and record keepers that when judges in New York demand that bank attorneys certify that they have taken reasonable steps to verify documents submitted to the courts, foreclosures grind to a near halt. Two separate investigations, one by Fortune, the other by the New York Post, ascertained that an overwhelming majority of foreclosures took place when the banks failed to demonstrate that they had the right to do so. Banks have foreclosed illegally on servicemen, and have also foreclosed on people who didn't have mortgages. Their is ample evidence that they have systematically violated their own contracts, the agreements that govern mortgage securitizations, and have on a widespread basis charged impermissible fees to borrowers. And when these junk and pyramiding fees precipitate foreclosures, the servicers have effectively ripped off investors too. They have tooth and nail fought every effort that would help borrowers if it in any way impinged on their profits, even though their very survival is the result of taxpayer munificence. Finally, they've made a mess of property records in this country.
But apparently none of this, in the eyes of Ms. Wylde, rises to the level of being worth remedying, much the less "indefensible". Given the ample of evidence of malfeasance, we must reach one of two conclusions. One is that she has no idea what is going on and therefore can be ignored as being not competent to opine. The other is that no amount of economic harm to individuals rates as being worth pursuing in her eyes. It appears that the only thing that might rise to the level of being "indefensible" is damage to life and limb, so all white collar crimes are exempt. This is a classic totalitarian, "might makes right," argument.
And mind you, Wylde allegedly represents "the public" on the New York Fed's board. With friends like this, who needs enemies?
Felix Salmon wrote today of a global crisis of institutional legitimacy, and although his tour started with Libya, it focused mainly on Europe and the US. If you want to know why the governed are withdrawing their consent in advanced economies, you need look no further than toadies like Donovan and Wylde who defend institutionalized profiteering and seek to undermine the few like Schneiderman who've managed, despite the odds, to get in a position where they might be able to do something to reverse it.
Someone has to stand up for the rule of law in this country. I'm damn glad we have someone like Eric Schneiderman who appears to be one of the dwindling few willing to stand up to the banksters and say, "Not so fast, fellas." If not for our AG and a few others scattered across the country, who would step up to protect homeowners and swindled investors from the very Fat Cats that blew the global economy up (again) in the first place?
Maybe we should all call our AG (800 771-7755 or 212 416-8000) or e-mail him and thank him for standing up to the banksters and their enforcers in DC. I bet he would appreciate the show of support.
And while you're at it, why not drop line to Kathryn Wylde and let her know that you expect better representation of your interests on the NY Fed. You can reach her at kwylde@pfnyc.org.
So I'm at the White House of all places today for the first ever Twitter Town Hall with the guy who lives here, the President of the United States.
Weird, right? I just took a tour of the place and saw the East Room where they are all set up for this thing. There looks to be about 40 chairs in there.
Yikes, y'all.
Anyhoo, follow me on twitter this afternoon for live commentary on the event. Starts at 2pm and you can tweet questions to the President using the #askObama hashtag.
I honestly don't have anything to add to this other than to note that it brought me to tears and that I sincerely wish someone would sit that racist cretin known as Donald Trump down and make him watch it. About a billion times.
With that, our friend and Brooklynite in excellent standing, Baratunde:
President Barack Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, a person familiar with the president's thinking said Sunday night.
The move positions the court to have three female justices for the first time in history.
The source spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been made public. Obama will announce his choice at 10 a.m. Monday in the East Room of the White House.
Known as sharp and politically savvy, Kagan has led a blazing legal career: first female dean of Harvard Law School, first woman to serve as the top Supreme Court lawyer for any administration, and now first in Obama's mind to succeed legendary Justice John Paul Stevens.
At 50 years old, Kagan would be the youngest justice on the court, one of many factors working in her favor. She has the chance to extend Obama's legacy for a generation.
Kagan has clerked for Thurgood Marshall, worked for Bill Clinton and earned a stellar reputation as a student, teacher and manager of the elite academic world. Her standing has risen in Obama's eyes as his government's lawyer before the high court over the last year.
Yet Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. All of the three other finalists she beat out for the job are federal appeals court judges, and all nine of the current justices served on the federal bench before being elevated.
The interwebs are currently all aflame about the choice and have been for quite some time, actually. Here's a couple of opinions, both for and against Kagan's nomination, here:
Harvard Law professor and Change Congress founder, Lawrence Lessig, makes the case in favor of the pick here:
I believe I have some standing to make this case. I have known Kagan since we both began teaching together almost 20 years ago. As we were the only two faculty beginning that year, we became quick friends and allies. We shared a subscription to the opera. We conspired about how to build an even greater law school. And though she left to work for Clinton in 1995, we have remained close and constant friends. In the fall of 2008, she lured me back from paradise (Stanford) to the Harvard Law School. I have known her as well as just about anyone else I have known in the legal academy.
The part that everyone gets about Elena Kagan is brilliance and strength. The questions are about her politics and resolve. Is she a liberal, or in the language of the times, a progressive? Would she be a triangulator, or a justice fighting hard for what she believes?
The Kagan I know is a progressive. But we should be careful about precisely what that term means today. Constitutional law has been affected fundamentally by the work of scholars and judges such as my former boss, Justice Scalia. Their influence has plainly reoriented constitutional law to ask not, "What would be the best answer?" to any particular question, but instead, "What is the answer of fidelity?" Or again, what is the answer that most faithfully applies the law of the different generations of our Framers -- the Founders, the Civil War Republicans, and the Progressives at the beginning of the last century. I'm not sure that "liberals" on the Court have always accepted this framing. Certainly Douglas and Holmes didn't feel themselves so constrained. And I can see how many wonder whether some of the more prominent liberals since the Warren Court have accepted this framing either. But among those who do accept that the charge of a judge is interpretive fidelity, there are progressives and conservatives. Diane Wood's opinions plainly mark her as a progressive. Justice Thomas is plainly among the conservatives. The Kagan I know is with Wood in her views about what the constitution means. She is with both Wood and Thomas in believing that it is the Framers (and again, every generation of them) whose views, as expressed in the text of the Constitution, a judge should apply.
Go read the rest, as they say. It's definitely worth your time.
The prospect that Stevens will be replaced by Elena Kagan has led to the growing perception that Barack Obama will actually take a Supreme Court dominated by Justices Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (Bush 41), Roberts (Bush 43), Alito (Bush 43) and Kennedy (Reagan) and move it further to the Right. Joe Lieberman went on Fox News this weekend to celebrate the prospect that "President Obama may nominate someone in fact who makes the Court slightly less liberal," while The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus predicted: "The court that convenes on the first Monday in October is apt to be more conservative than the one we have now." Last Friday, I made the same argument: that replacing Stevens with Kagan risks moving the Court to the Right, perhaps substantially to the Right (by "the Right," I mean: closer to the Bush/Cheney vision of Government and the Thomas/Scalia approach to executive power and law).
...
Given the severity of the crisis posed by Bush/Cheney lawlessness, what justifies someone with Kagan's platform -- Dean of Harvard Law School and former Clinton White House lawyer -- remaining utterly silent in the face of that assault? Even if one believes that a Law School Dean should generally be attentive to institution-building, didn't the severity of the legal crisis spawned by Bush and Cheney merit serious opposition from those in a position to voice it? Before any progressive considers supporting her nomination to the Court, shouldn't they be able to point to some evidence, somewhere, that she opposed the core claims used to prop up the Bush/Cheney assault on the Constitution and the rule of law?
Let the bloodletting begin. As I'm sure most sentient beings have been aware of since long before Justice Stevens announced his retirement, whomever the president chooses will soon be described, by all the usual suspects, as the most radical, "wise latina-ist", socialist, "outside the mainstream" purveyor of "empathy" or other such nonsense - maybe even a straight up racist - that has ever existed under the sun.
Seems there is plenty in this pick to piss off everyone. Should be a rather interesting summer.
Welcome to the return of Soundpolitic. I began blogging here nearly two years ago to the day to cover Democratic politics in NY-21 and SD-46. Back then, I would pompously opine most of the time, and other times engage in what I egotistically called "citizen-advocacy journalism."
Nowadays, after a years' worth of depression "due to" unemployment in my chosen field of paralegal studies and growing and frustration for lack of professionalism in indie rock, I've got the writing bug again. Out of respect for all living beings, I refuse to swat it. I've been feeding it like a fiend.
I had big plans for my return. Summarizing the Talking Heads shows, going topical again, ect., ect., ect....but this proved to nothing more than some intangible idea to make a move back to wind-baggery. It wasn't real.
What follows below the fold certainly is: I just starting writing an e-mail to a very dear friend of my father while he generously offered use of his computer to compose a freelance piece on traditional-string-based contemporary rock. The two of us had gone to dinner last night and spoke a bit about the Big Game coming up today. Naturally, we talked more about commercials than about football.
I decided to shoot her a quick e-mail link to the famous Apple 1984 commercial on YouTube. Then I added a couple of blurbs from the web to give more information. Then I kept writing and, voila! I was blogging again, just for the love of putting words together. I blind-copied it to a bunch of friends, but then decided if I left it at that, I'd have left all of you guys out. So no fair...read on for the first installment of Soundpolitic Sundays.
Just got this from the WH Media Affairs office. Perhaps, you can use this to judge whether or not it's wise to play the SOTU drinking game.
We face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope - what they deserve - is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds and different stories and different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared. A job that pays the bill. A chance to get ahead. Most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.
You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids; starting businesses and going back to school. They are coaching little league and helping their neighbors. As one woman wrote to me, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."
It is because of this spirit - this great decency and great strength - that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We don't allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. And tonight, I'd like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.
"I think the White House is quite happy with the leadership and the representation of Senator Gillibrand in New York," Mr. Gibbs said when asked about Mr. Ford at a White House press briefing. "We're supporting her re-election."
Mr. Gibbs suggested that the White House was prepared to go even further to stop Mr. Ford, telling reporters to "Stay tuned" when asked about any behind-the-scenes efforts to clear the field for Ms. Gillibrand.
But Mr. Ford remained defiant.
Slap!
This White House has been notoriously reluctant to have its milkshake be slurped. Scott Stringer, Steve Israel, Carolyn Maloney and Carolyn McCarthy can tell that tale. Now, those are some very substantial names.
Names that are substantial enough to make Junior seem inadequate by comparison. But they also illustrate the underlying quality of this proposed candidacy: a startling lack of seriousness, of groundedness.
With the White House - for once - sending a clear message, the circle of possible Ford backers narrows further. And meanwhile, Progressives can see a bright silver lining to this particular cloud.
Investigating known links to the past administration and torture- beyond the pale.
Investigating known wrongdoing within the Justice department regarding firings- partisan politics.
Investigating Monica Goodling and that entire sorry crew- unseemly.
Creating a special prosecutor to ogle Bill Clinton's penis and another one to fish for some possible wrongdoing somewhere in a connection to Obama that doesn't exist- YOUR PATRIOTIC GOD DAMNED DUTY. WOLVERINES!
Notice that he doesn't even include the "maybe we should look into the whole let's invade a country and spend trillions whilst killing thousands of our own and who knows how many others on false pretenses" thing.
I guess I shouldn't be, but I am completely dumbfounded. Good Lord...
