This is supposed to be bad?

[rwguinn]

what the hell?
from here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20006830-504564.html

see the links at the end

Kagan stating that:
quite honestly, I think that although all
of this decision is well-intentioned parts of it are
ludicrous. since elective abortions are not medicarly
necessary', I cannot see how denial of such abortions is a
breach of the Eighth Amendment obligation to provide
prisoners with needed medical care. and given that nonprisoners
have no rights to funding for abortions, I do not
see why prisoners should have such rights.
Is BAD?
Since she, in other memos, went on at length as to her reasoning, the firearms carry tersness would seem to be, at least to me, stating she was opinionated on the subject and dq-ing herself from commenting.

Wow...

[Dorian Gray]

Nothing in the 22-year-old memo indicated it was written by Kagan. But it's not that bad legally, and to the casual observer, it looks as though the memo-writer is against government funding of abortion.

[Beerina]

Prisoners should be encouraged, indeed paid, to get abortions. Evolution, remember?

Hell, pay poor people to get sterilized. Free market and all that.

[Unabogie]

what the hell?
from here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20006830-504564.html

see the links at the end

Kagan stating that:

Is BAD?
Since she, in other memos, went on at length as to her reasoning, the firearms carry tersness would seem to be, at least to me, stating she was opinionated on the subject and dq-ing herself from commenting.

Wow...

It is the GOP's job to characterize Elana Kagan as a radical to gin up fundraising and help them win the next election cycle. They were going to find whoever Obama picked "troubling". Is there any indication, judging by their behavior the last ten years, that they are concerned with actual governing? Kagan is a liberal person. She's not radical, she's just not conservative. This is what you get when you reject the conservative candidate for president. I don't expect anything different from the modern GOP, I just question why anyone pays attention to obvious political posturing?

[MikeMangum]

what the hell?
from here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20006830-504564.html

see the links at the end

Kagan stating that:

Is BAD?
Since she, in other memos, went on at length as to her reasoning, the firearms carry tersness would seem to be, at least to me, stating she was opinionated on the subject and dq-ing herself from commenting.

Wow...

That's not the part that is bad. The part that is bad is her saying that in spite of those things she mentions, the petition should be denied.

since elective abortions are not medically
necessary, I cannot see how denial of such abortions is a
breach of the Eighth Amendment obligation to provide
prisoners with needed medical care. And given that non-prisoners
have no rights to funding for abortions, I do not
see why prisoners should have such rights.

That seems entirely reasonable. But she then follows immediately with:

Of course, I
recommend that you deny this petition, but I think the court
will probably grant it. Judge Higginbotham simply went too
far; this case is likely to become the vehicle that this
court uses to create some very bad law on abortion and/or
prisoners' rights.

The important thing to keep in mind is this part:
This case concerns the rights of women prisoners to
have abortions that are not medically necessary. Petr in
this case is the Monmouth County Sheriff

The petitioner was the Sheriff, and the petition was to not have to pay for elective abortions for prisoners. She clearly lays out in her memo why the prisoners have no legal right to those elective abortions and then recommends denying the petition anyway because "this case is likely to become the vehicle that this Court uses to create some very bad law on abortion and/or prisoners' rights."

ETA: this is classic case of judicial activism: she lays out the compelling Consitututional arguments and then counsels for the opposite result for political reasons.

It is also a classic case of ideological "turf protection". For example, someone may find partial birth abortion to be extremely distatefull (it is a completely viable "fetus", and a wait of 30 seconds for it to take its first breath would make it legally a person with all of the rights attendant to a person), and may privately agree that partial birth abortion should be criminalized, but for idelogical reasons will protect it as policy simply to make it more difficult to make further encroachments on abortion.