Okay, who is Elena Kagan, and are we gonna have trouble out of her?

[mikegideon]

The Republicans are going to rake her over the coals, as they should. Her personal philosophies don't matter near as much as how she views the role of a supreme court judge.

Don't be surprised if she gets confirmed. She has fans on both sides of the aisle, even if she was appointed by "the devil".

Her comments about the Heller decision are OK with me.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Ok. Lets clear a COMMON misconception on Thesis Papers. First, they are heavily influenced by, and written to APPEASE a Professor. It is written to get a good grade by agreeing with, and stroking the PROFESSOR'S EGO. It is written not to actually give the real opinion of the student, but written to get a good grade.

Yeah, learned that the hard way in College, when I got a fail in Economics class, as I extolled the virtues of the liasse-faire view on Capitalism, while the Professor wanted me to show how Keynes' view of Government Intervention prevented severe economic swings...

Simply put, you don't write a "guns are bad" paper when your target audience is Ted Nugent.

Interesting thing, I am hearing reports she attempted to get conservatives to teach at Harvard, when she was Dean. Supposedly, to get a better balance for the students. Um. Hmm. Wonder if this is true, and who the heck did she hire and tried to hire? This would be more important than some school paper gunning for a grade.

Further, is THAT ALL THEY GOT on her? Disturbing.

[E4 No More]

Ok. Lets clear a COMMON misconception on Thesis Papers. First, they are heavily influenced by, and written to APPEASE a Professor. It is written to get a good grade by agreeing with, and stroking the PROFESSOR'S EGO. It is written not to actually give the real opinion of the student, but written to get a good grade.

Yeah, learned that the hard way in College, when I got a fail in Economics class, as I extolled the virtues of the liasse-faire view on Capitalism, while the Professor wanted me to show how Keynes' view of Government Intervention prevented severe economic swings...

Simply put, you don't write a "guns are bad" paper when your target audience is Ted Nugent.

Interesting thing, I am hearing reports she attempted to get conservatives to teach at Harvard, when she was Dean. Supposedly, to get a better balance for the students. Um. Hmm. Wonder if this is true, and who the heck did she hire and tried to hire? This would be more important than some school paper gunning for a grade.

Further, is THAT ALL THEY GOT on her? Disturbing.

So you're saying that she's deceitful...even better

[Guest HexHead]

I see everyone hasn't noticed we'll soon have a lesbian on the SCOTUS "interpreting" the Constitution for us.

The White House has denied it, but I guess they didn't ask her girlfriend...."odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles.”

[mikegideon]

So you're saying that she's deceitful...even better

I didn't take it that way.

[mikegideon]

I see everyone hasn't noticed we'll soon have a lesbian on the SCOTUS "interpreting" the Constitution for us.

The White House has denied it, but I guess they didn't ask her girlfriend...."odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles.â€

Good to see ya' Hex. There's a little bit of lesbian in a lot of us . What's wrong with that?

[E4 No More]

I didn't take it that way.

Real academics seek truth; not write whatever they THINK will get them a good grade, IMHO.

[mikegideon]

Real academics seek truth; not write whatever they THINK will get them a good grade, IMHO.

I'm not too worried about a thesis either way. It's going to come down to how she'll handle herself today, not how she was when she was in school.

[Guest HvyMtl]

The judgepedia article I find disturbing.

"Occasional" court appearances in a 3 year time? No experience arguing case law in front of Federal Level judges? Clerked for 1 year for Justice Thurgood Marshall and then for 1 year in the D.C. Circuit?

Researching opinions for Justices means, simply, she may do research well. IMHO, Many in the legal field give way too much credence to a less than a year long clerkship at Court, no matter the level...

Has not argued any cases as US Solicitor General. Been there, a year to a year and 3 months...

9 years of being a law professor. 6 years being the Dean of Harvard Law. Ok, so she is an academic. Woo. I keep hearing "Those who can't, teach." in the back of my mind...

So. We have what she has given as her "opinions" in the hearings on her becoming US Solicitor General... Remember what I said about the Thesis Papers? I hope it does not also apply to Confirmation Hearings, but again the mind says, she doesn't say what the Senators want to hear, she doesn't get the good grade...

Of her statements I do like a few things: Her Heller viewpoint, previously quoted, is pro-2nd A.

Her statement of the "right" to welfare programs:

In answering a question from Senator Specter, Ms. Kagan also addressed the constitutional aspects of government welfare programs: “The Constitution has never been held to confer a right to a minimum level of welfare . . . .This determination comported with this nation’s traditional understanding that the Constitution generally imposes limitations on government rather than establishes affirmative rights and thus has what might be thought of as a libertarian slant. I fully accept this traditional understanding."

She is correct. There is no given right to welfare. Welfare is a privilege, which can be taken away...

I also agree the Constitution is a Government limiting document, and the Bill of Rights establish the specific rights of the Citizens by limiting the power of the Government to impact those rights.

But here we have a Candidate to the SCOTUS with little to no real info on how she will react on the Court.

Interesting to note, the last President not to choose from the Federal Bench for the SCOTUS is Richard Nixon.

Yes, it appears she is Jewish, and possibly a Lesbian. Anyone notice the lack of Protestant Christians on the SCOTUS?

Edited May 10, 2010 by HvyMtl

[Guest Straight Shooter]

LOOK OUT HEXHEAD!!

There's two or three on here here who will get their panties in a wad fo' sho'!!

[Guest Jamie]

I see everyone hasn't noticed we'll soon have a lesbian on the SCOTUS "interpreting" the Constitution for us.

Oh I noticed... but can't decide if that's really a bad thing.

It could turn out that she keeps that "wise Latina woman" too flustered to cause any trouble.

J.

[mikegideon]

LOOK OUT HEXHEAD!!

There's two or three on here here who will get their panties in a wad fo' sho'!!

Probably not. Even if you're a full blooded homophobe, you probably have to agree that lesbians are fun and educational

[mikegideon]

Oh I noticed... but can't decide if that's really a bad thing.

It could turn out that she keeps that "wise Latina woman" too flustered to cause any trouble.

J.

They both have the *****, so they make the rules

[Guest db99wj]

They both have the *****, so they make the rules

They should get a t-shirt.....

or...They have been there, done that, got a t-shirt

Anyway, the Today show this morning was even reporting that she had no court experience. She was Obama's 2nd choice last time.

[Guest HvyMtl]

High court contender Kagan brings reputation for consensus-building - CNN.com

Ok. So, she has argued 6 cases in front of the SCOTUS... looking for her Win / Loss record...

[Guest Jamie]

They both have the *****, so they make the rules

Oooooo.... ***** AND gavels.... Bad news for somebody.

J.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

I see everyone hasn't noticed we'll soon have a lesbian on the SCOTUS "interpreting" the Constitution.

It occured to me that he picks women!

[Guest FroggyOne2]

President Obama to Senate: Act fast - Josh Gerstein and Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court Monday – calling her a legal trailblazer who would embody “that same excellence, independence, integrity and passion for the law†as the man she would replace, retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Obama said the court with Kagan on it will be more representative of the country – and it would have for the first time three female justices, if Kagan is confirmed.

"I hope that the Senate will act in a bipartisan fashion," Obama said, "and that they will do so as quickly as possible so she can get busy."

Kagan, 50, who was the first female dean of Harvard Law School, called the court an “extraordinary institution†that can help people in their everyday lives, “because law matters, because it keeps us safe, because it protects our most fundamental rights and freedoms and because it is the foundation of our democracy.â€

Kagan’s choice is a by-the-books pick straight from the top of Obama’s short list that seems designed to avoid a major confirmation battle with Republicans.

And in his first comment on the selection, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell steered clear of any hint that Republicans would seek to block Kagan’s nomination but suggested they will focus their questions on whether she has the “requisite experience†to serve on the court.

“We will carefully review her brief litigation experience, as well as her judgment and her career in academia, both as a professor and as an administrator. Fulfilling our duty to advise and consent on a nomination to this office requires a thorough process, not a rush to judgment,†McConnell said in a statement.

He also warned that judges like Kagan “must not be a rubberstamp for any administration. Judges must not walk into court with a preconceived idea of who should win. Their job is to apply the law ‘without respect to persons,’ as the judicial oath states; it is not to pick winners or losers.â€

As solicitor general, Kagan serves as the nation’s top lawyer arguing cases before the high court. Yet Kagan is highly unusual in one way – she has never been a judge. It’s the first time in nearly four decades that someone would join the court, if confirmed, without any prior judicial experience. The last to do so was William Rehnquist, who went on to become chief justice.

Obama made his decision Sunday and called Kagan at 8 p.m. Sunday to let her know he had selected her, a White House official said. He also called the other three candidates he had interviewed to inform them of his decision.

Kagan was one of the last candidates Obama interviewed. The White House official said he interviewed her on April 30. Vice President Joe Biden played a significant role in the process, the official said, including having breakfast with Kagan at the Naval Observatory on April 27.

Obama also discussed candidates with Biden last Tuesday during their weekly lunch.

At 8:30 a.m. Monday Obama called and spoke with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, and he tried unsuccessfully to reach Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, the official said.

But Kagan’s lack of judicial experience – and a readily available paper trail of legal arguments and decisions – has some on the left, in particular, nervous about whether she is the kind of down-the-line liberal that they dreamed Obama would appoint. In addition, she has centrist bona fides from her work in the Clinton administration’s domestic policy shop, and has drawn worries from the left over her apparent willingness to give some Bush administration war-on-terror tools to the Obama White House.

One commentator, The Nation’s Ari Melber, told POLITICO: “As a lawyer, I think there is no doubt that: 1. Kagan is supremely qualified and merits confirmation by any standard 2. Replacing [Justice John Paul] Stevens with Kagan moves the Court to the Right. Ergo 3. The sum consequence of Obama's first term appointments will be to advance qualified nominees through a respectable selection process that ultimately tilts the Court a bit more to the Right. Not the end of the world, but not what most Obama voters had in mind, either.â€

Former White House counsel Greg Craig on Monday morning challenged the criticism that Kagan is inexperienced, saying she has an “extraordinary record†of government service and teaching experience at top law schools.

“I think you don’t have to have judicial experience to be a highly qualified candidate,†he said. “She’ll be a good judge no question about it.â€

Craig also called Kagan “as mainstream as they get. So there may be opposition but I cannot determine it would be serious opposition given her qualifications.â€

Kagan’s friend and fellow Princeton University graduate, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, said she is a moderate who is “unbelievably smart and thoughtful and careful†and therefore has “the perfect temperament to be a justice.â€

“She is not an ideologue of the left or the right and that is clear from what she did as dean of Harvard Law School,†Spitzer said in an interview on CBS’s “Early Show.â€

And in fact, the early reading on Republican sentiment seems to be that there isn’t an appetite to mount a filibuster fight to derail Kagan at this stage. Seven Republicans already voted for her for solicitor general, and she drew praise at the time for conservative legal luminaries like Ted Olson and Ken Starr.

One Senate Republican aide told POLITICO: “'A third of the Senate said she was unqualified for the [solicitor general] post. It will be hard to ask them to turn around and say she now qualified, for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. And we'll be busy in the coming months looking over her whole year of courtroom experience.â€

Seven Republican senators voted for Kagan at the time: Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Orrin Hatch of Utah.

But there could still be a substantial culture war dust-up over her actions at Harvard to exclude military recruiters because of the ban on gays in the armed services. Conservatives have indicated that one line of argument against Kagan is that her tireless efforts against the military recruiters shows Kagan is more activist and advocate than fair-minded judge – and such an argument could also nick Obama, who has had to defend his toughness on national defense matters from attacks by the GOP.

White House aides also have signaled that Obama believes Kagan could provide a forceful, effective counterweight to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, and perhaps even be the bridge to bring Justice Anthony Kennedy onto the liberal side in narrow 5-4 decisions.

As a White House official, , she worked with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in negotiating anti-tobacco legislation. And in her current job, Kagan argued the White House position in Citizens United, the decision that opened campaigns to more corporate funding. Obama had made clear he hopes to roll back that decision through legislation – and Democrats are expected to champion Kagan’s role in the case as proof she’ll fight efforts by the Roberts Supreme Court to favor corporate interests – even though, in the end, Kagan lost the case.

Yet Kagan could also draw significant fire from the left. And as the likelihood of her selection grew in recent days, some on the left questioned her brief work on an advisory board to Goldman Sachs – the Wall Street bank now facing civil fraud charges – and her record of hiring minorities at Harvard. And in picking Kagan, Obama passed over at least one short-lister who is a favorite of the left, 7th Circuit Judge Diane Wood.

Kagan has never been on the bench, so her views on issues likely to come before the court are presently less well known than nominees with a lengthy list of opinions drafted as judges. A short paper trail tends to dampen contention during the confirmation process, but the information vacuum could also raise anxiety among some of the president’s backers about whether Kagan will be a reliably liberal vote.

While Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, served as dean of Harvard law and won tenure both at Harvard and the University of Chicago, her body of published work is thin, consisting of three major articles and a handful of other pieces.

“It’s absolutely imperative given her lack of a track record of any kind that she not be allowed to get away with this kind of ritual that people have engaged in…for the last 25 years where you get away with basically not saying anything,†said Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado, said ahead of her selection by Obama. “We don’t have anything to judge her on.â€

Kagan’s reticence or caution in her public statements extends beyond her formal writings. “I don’t know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade,†Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein wrote on his blog.

Kagan’s own criticism of modern-day judicial confirmation hearings could make it difficult for her to maintain the public ambiguity about many of her views. In a 1995 book review, she complained that the process had become a “vapid and hollow charade.†Kagan called it an “embarrassment [that] senators today do not insist that any nominee reveal what kind of Justice she would make, by disclosing her views on important legal issues."

Kagan was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by Clinton in 1999, but was never given a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time, said they were unsure the vacancy needed to be filled. Democrats contended that the GOP deliberately stalled the nomination in order to prevent another Clinton appointee from reaching the appeals court considered the nation’s most powerful because it hears key issues involving the federal government.

Kagan’s nomination as solicitor general last year got a warmer response from the Republican legal establishment. A wide array of conservative lawyers backed Kagan for solicitor general, including Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton; Olson, Bush’s solicitor general, along with Bush White House lawyer Brad Berenson. Most cited determined efforts she made to bring conservative faculty to Harvard Law and to make sure that conservative legal groups such as the Federalist Society felt welcome on campus.

However, Kagan’s outreach to conservatives was so concerted that it has underscored concerns that she would not be the liberal firebrand on the court that some of Obama’s supporters had hoped for. While those concerns are expected to temper some liberal groups’ enthusiasm about her nomination, no major organizations on the left are likely to oppose her and most expect her to easily win majority support in the Senate.

“She’s very smart and very thoughtful, really wanting to hear all sides of things and wanting to understand what the other side thought,†said Richard Socarides, an attorney who served as the Clinton administration’s liaison to the gay community. “I always found her very progressive,†he said.

While conservatives may find Kagan more palatable than some other possibilities for the high court, that may not translate into substantial GOP support in the Senate, particularly in an election year. In the 61-to-31 vote last March on her confirmation as solicitor general, Kagan won the support of only seven Republicans. One Republican vote against her confirmation came from Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who joined the Democratic Party a few weeks later. He complained that she had been unduly evasive in answering questions from the Judiciary Committee.

Some critics also complained at the time that Kagan lacked courtroom experience. She has never tried a case in court and had never argued before the Supreme Court prior to assuming the Solicitor General’s job. Reviews of the arguments she made in the past year or so have been less than stellar. While some have encouraged Kagan’s nomination to the court by arguing that she could win the swing vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy, as an advocate she has shown no particular ken at winning him over.

Given the higher stakes of a Supreme Court nomination, it seems doubtful Kagan will be able to hold all the Republican votes she won last year. Obama also considered Kagan for his first Supreme Court vacancy, but ultimately nominated 2nd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who won 68 votes in the Senate.

One point of contention likely to resurface during Kagan’s confirmation hearings is her vocal opposition to the military’s ban on openly gay servicemembers. In an open letter to the Harvard community in 2003, she labeled the policy as “a profound wrong, a moral injustice of the first order.â€

When a federal appeals court struck down the so-called Solomon Amendment, which cut off federal funding to educational institutions which denied access to military recruiters, Harvard Law, under Kagan, became the first major law school to ban official recruiting on campus.

Kagan also joined an amicus brief which urged the Supreme Court to find the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional. In 2006, the high court voted 8-0 to reject Kagan’s view and that of many universities which challenged the link between funding and access for military recruiting.

“Kagan's actions on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and other gay-rights issues will be prominent, in part because this is one area where she's been vocal and in part because it appears that she's let her policy preferences warp her legal views,†said Ed Whelan of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. “I doubt that the American public will be impressed that Kagan kicked the military off campus in wartime but welcomed law firms that were donating their services to terrorists.â€

While in the Clinton White House, Kagan was involved in efforts to ban discrimination against gays in federal employment. “From what I can tell and from my personal experience with her, her positions on gay rights are right in the mainstream of American thinking…When it comes to jobs, be it in the military or the private sector, you ought to be judged by your ability, not your orientation,†Socarides said. “That she believes these things passionately should not disqualify her—it makes her uniquely qualified.â€

Unlike some other Democratic lawyers, Kagan was not an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration’s war-on-terror policies. However, she did surface briefly in that fight in 2005, when she and other law deans signed a letter objecting to aspects of an amendment by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that limited court challenges by Guantanamo prisoners.

“When dictatorships have passed laws stripping their courts of power to review executive detention or punishment of prisoners, our government has rightly challenged such acts as fundamentally lawless. The same standard should apply to our own government,†Kagan and her counterparts wrote. Senators ultimately voted, 84-14, in favor of the bulk of Graham’s amendment.

Kagan is also likely to face questioning about her service from 2005 to 2008 on an advisory board for Goldman Sachs, which has in recent days become something of a bogeyman in Washington over its actions in the financial crisis. However, Kagan’s involvement with Goldman seems to have been quite limited, involving just one meeting a year.

From 1991 to 1995, Kagan taught at the University of Chicago Law School. She reportedly first met Obama during that time, when he was also teaching at the school. During her service in the Clinton White House, Kagan was widely praised for her intellect but sometimes criticized for her brusque manner. Her people-handling skills improved markedly when she headed to Harvard and assumed the dean’s post, associates said

Kagan was born in New York City, got her undergraduate degree from Princeton and her law degree from Harvard.

[mcurrier]

The howling on the far left is a good sign. She's actually made some encouraging comments about the Heller case, and the Brady Bunch is not pleased.

Smoke screen.

[eapking]

The main problem I have is no judicial experience. Of course, the Messiah had no experience in an executive position like Mayor or Govenor, so I guess to him she's totally qualified. Thankfully it's one liberal being replaced by another. We've got to get some more pro-gun rulings with the 5-4 as it is before (God forbid) the Messiah gets to replace a conservative with a liberal.

The Republicans will bluster and moan, but they'll end up passing her, unless there's some bodies buried somewhere. Being a bull-dyke is not going to stop her.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Craig also called Kagan “as mainstream as they get. So there may be

opposition but I cannot determine it would be serious opposition given

her qualifications.”

Yep. If being a liberal Jew, lesbian and no judicial experience makes one

mainstream, then she will fit in, nicely.

She will be an activist justice.

That CNN article said she wopuld be a concensus builder. Is that what

a justice is supposed to do? I thought it had to do with interpreting law.

What do they do, draw straws on their decisions? I say no one can predict

her actions from what she says at the senate hearings. She will be an idea-

logue from the very start and is not justice material.

I heard some audio of her arguing a case in front of SCOTUS where Scalia

pointed out to her she had her facts wrong, concerning her argument. It

was on Mark Levin's show today, and it should be on his website.

She has already shown her disdain for the military about recruiters being

allowed on college campuses, and her gender attitude toward the military.

I wouldn't let her remark about the 2nd Amendment make everything seem

rosy, either. She is all over the universe on her philosophy, which is

mostly marxist.

This woman is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Another so-called elite

intellectual marxist.

[BryanP]

The main problem I have is no judicial experience.

This is also true of roughly 1/3 of the previous justices on the Supreme Court.