President Obama Nominates Solicitor General Elena Kagan to Supreme Court

[Gawain 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

I don't know if it's a negative or positive, I understand she has never been on the bench, and while she is a lawyer, she's only practiced law for a few years. She's clerked for a couple of judges (Judge Marshall 87-88 and Appeals Court Judge Mikva 86-87), but after that, it's been campaigning (Dukakis 88), then White House staff through President Clinton's administration, followed by being a professor.

One issue where I see this may get brought up in the confirmation hearings is that she actively campaigned for President Obama not just for President, but Illinois Senate as well. So, ideology will definitely be something that's looked at.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 3]

She's already passed a "sniff test" when the Senate voted for her awhile back while she was being vetted for a high court seat by a vote of 61-31. It will be interesting to see what people have to say about her this time around.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/04/scotus.contenders.kagan/index.html?hpt=T1

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gawain 0]

Quote

She's already passed a "sniff test" when the Senate voted for her awhile back while she was being vetted for a high court seat by a vote of 61-31. It will be interesting to see what people have to say about her this time around.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/04/scotus.contenders.kagan/index.html?hpt=T1

With respect, being the nation'a too lawyer with a shabby 61-31 confirmation vote is not a parallel run for the highest court with a lifetime appointment. Being Solicitor General makes sense given her background and the President's desire to have a like-minded advocate. That doesn't work so well for the Supreme Court.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 3]

I wasn't trying to imply it was the same. Simply that everyone has already seen her before and what the status of that meeting was. Several members of the GOP have said good things about her even for the Supreme Court nomination, so, like I said, it will be interesting to see what changes of opinion they might have in the coming days.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

This one seemed to be a safe bet, but I myself would have thought that Wood would have been a better candidate. This is an example of how politics can be used. Because Kagan has not been a judge, she will not have nearly as much stuff dug up on her. "Vetting" her will be much easier because there will not be as much known about her. This is good or bad, depending on how you look at it.

Why would I have looked to Diane Wood? Because her credentials are damned near impeccable - just like Robert Bork's. She's been a justice of the Seventh Circuit - doing more than keep herself on par with cats like Posner. She's got private practice and Justice department experience. She clerked for Blackmun. But she's regarded as a great gal and easy to get along with.

She'd also be someone from outside of the Northeast corridor - someone fro fly-over county and non-Ivy League.

But politically she's a hot button - especially on the abortion issue. She is fairly progressive. Ordinarily this would be a problem - but the Senate is in Obama's favor.

I personally would have liked to see Wood get nominated. Instead we've got Kagan - who while an intellectual, is the same old same old without a judicial background.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

This is a good piece on her
Posted in another thread

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/05/03/26081/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,168]

I'm just bumping this thread because it's a whole lot better thread about the nomination of Kagan than the other one.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I'm just bumping this thread because it's a whole lot better thread about the nomination of Kagan than the other one.

Wendy P.

Ya

I was just trying to find info on her and answer a question that was asked
Then quade and bv go all nuts on it
Hell, I dont even have an opinion as to whether or not she should be confirmed other than I see no reason not to at this point
I have already gotten one of those blast emails to sign a petion against her cause of her sexual orientaion. I think that is bull crap

Sounds like she has a good mind with some quick wit. And as you stated, she sure is not going to change much as far as the balance of the court in the end

Thanks Wendy

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[riddler 0]

I know very little about the SCOTUS candidacy. The fact that she hasn't actually been a judge raises a big red flag with me. Am I the only one that thinks that a Supreme Court judge should have at least a little time on the bench? Or is the Supreme Court so much different than regular courts that it doesn't really matter?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[billvon 2,470]

>Am I the only one that thinks that a Supreme Court judge should have
>at least a little time on the bench?

Ideally she should. Unfortunately in today's political climate, the only viable candidates are the ones with nothing questionable in their judicial backgrounds - and the only way to have that happen is to not _have_ much of a background.

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

I know very little about the SCOTUS candidacy. The fact that she hasn't actually been a judge raises a big red flag with me. Am I the only one that thinks that a Supreme Court judge should have at least a little time on the bench? Or is the Supreme Court so much different than regular courts that it doesn't really matter?

Rehnquist had no bench experience either. Yet Nixon appointed him and Reagan raised him to Chief.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Do the R's want a fillibuster? They would show their pathetic side to the max if they do. I almost hope they do.

[captain1976 0]

Never a judge and supporting decisions like banning military recruiters from Harvard Law and calling Socialist demise 'sad'. In other words a Commie just like Obama

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Never a judge and supporting decisions like banning military recruiters from Harvard Law and calling Socialist demise 'sad'. In other words a Commie just like Obama

While some of those behind the recruiter bans are opposed to the military in general, many really wanted to see the discrimination ended. Same applies to the banning of the Boy Scouts.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Never a judge and supporting decisions like banning military recruiters from Harvard Law and calling Socialist demise 'sad'. In other words a Commie just like Obama

While some of those behind the recruiter bans are opposed to the military in general, many really wanted to see the discrimination ended. Same applies to the banning of the Boy Scouts.

Opposing policy by imposing a ban is not within reason. I'm curious as to why no one has an issue with the fact that she has actively campaigned for the President in his 2008 and senatorial election bids. That raises the biggest red flag with me.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Never a judge and supporting decisions like banning military recruiters from Harvard Law and calling Socialist demise 'sad'. In other words a Commie just like Obama

Well, then as a good Commie-hater (are there any bad ones?), it will no doubt warm your heart that Kagan's position is that "battlefield law", including indefinite detention without a trial, can apply outside of traditional battlefields.

Oh, by the way, you're just repeating the right-wing spin of the day, which is to claim that she lamented the decline of socialism as "sad". Which sounds much more strident than her actual quote, which reads (and I presume you're now reading it for the first time) as follows:

"The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." By the way, Kagan, now age 50, wrote that 30 years ago, as a college senior.

I'm sure some twit will desperately try to haul that out during her Senate confirmation hearing, but it won't gain any traction.

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

Never a judge

Just like that Commie Rehnquist, eh?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I do not believe Kagan's response to the military recruiting was appropriate. After all, it was Congress who made the policy buy passing the statute that created it and a President that signed it. Why did she not boycott Congress and the Executive Branch? She blamed the military for obeying the law - a policy that Congress gave it.

It's the only thing that I've seen thus far from her, but I will not look at this as an indication of her opposition to the military. Rather, I will see it as her opposition to a policy - a policy which I believe is worthy of debate and coinsideration.

"She hates the military" is a knee-jerk reaction worthy of a liberal. It's the same reaction as those who claim that racism is the only reason to oppose the President's policies. No. I can oppose a policy and without opposing the person.

Let's grow up a bit here...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Meh - just more of "Bush on Steroids" here. Same actions as the last guy.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 18]

An interesting read. Peoples interpretations will be interesting too.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/65720

From the link......
Please read the article for the correct context. I am NOT infering anything

Quote

“If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action -- which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate -- then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse,” Kagan wrote.

Instead, the Supreme Court should focus on whether a speaker’s message is harming the public, argued Kagan in her article.

While Kagan does not offer an exhaustive definition of ‘harm,’ she does offer examples of speech that may be regulated, such as incitement to violence, hate-speech, threatening or “fighting” words.

The government, she concludes, may not express its disfavor with an opinion or speaker by burdening them with restrictions or prohibitions, unless it can show that their speech is causing some type of public harm.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

In the article it says she offers no difinitive defintion of harm.
It would be interesting to hear hers as she intended it here

and

in the end, who can really decide when someones speech is harmful?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,470]

>in the end, who can really decide when someones speech is harmful?

A court. Some examples:

Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

Going to the press and announcing that an opponent politician raped your teenage daughter, when that accusation has absolutely no basis in fact.

Telling a cop "someone just shot at me and then ran into that building with a bomb!" when that did not happen.

All those will either cause harm or have a high probability of causing harm.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>in the end, who can really decide when someones speech is harmful?

A court. Some examples:

Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

Going to the press and announcing that an opponent politician raped your teenage daughter, when that accusation has absolutely no basis in fact.

Telling a cop "someone just shot at me and then ran into that building with a bomb!" when that did not happen.

All those will either cause harm or have a high probability of causing harm.

Laws already exist to take care of the majority of your examples I think. Liable laws come to mind.

I am on my forth time through this piece, I dont think your examples are what she is talking about.

But I do see your point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

It's an interesting article, and I really don't see why anyone who actually understood it woud view her words negatively. I was most intrigued by the comments below it. The first one (when I read it, others may have been posted since) essentially said, "I don't understand what she is saying, but it clearly means that Kagan is a communist."

People are stupid.

- Dan G

[wmw999 2,168]

I absolutely think that article makes up part of her body of work, and it should generate of a decent number of questions.

One quote to show her thoughts on governmental intent:

Quote

She defined improper intent as prohibiting or restricting speech merely because Congress or a public majority dislikes either the message or the messenger, or because the message or messenger may be harmful to elected officials or their political priorities.

That's pretty broad, which is what I'd like the limits on the government's power to be. I'd expect definitions of harmful speech to be pretty narrow (which they are now).

And, remember, that her job description as a faculty member was to explore the boundaries of legal thought. Her job description as a justice would be to interpret the Constitution in cases where there is still doubt after all previous appeals: i.e. where there really isn't a clear path.

When former district attorneys become defense lawyers and vice versa, they are able to fulfill their new jobs even though the description has changed radically.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)