Let the right-wing frothing begin…
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.
Fist bump to President Obama (again)!
Wrong. Try left-wing frothing.
I’m not a fan of this pick. Her record might be a little bit more complete than Miers, but I’m not sure it’s complete enough. Supreme Court nominees are a big deal, they serve for life as you no doubt know. I wish Obama wouldn’t risk moving the court a little bit to the right.
Yeah, I’m leery of this pick as well, simply because she doesn’t have enough of a record to know what kind of justice she’ll end up as.
Try Harriet Meyers. Seriously, Kagen has never been a judge and was in private practice for a mere two years. Dean Of harvard law school is nice credential but it is detached from the realities of law.
Rehnquist was never a judge either. And unlike Harriet Miers, Kagan has spent enough time in public service to have a clear record. The closest Miers came to that was a term on a school board (I think, this is all coming from the memories of five years ago).
Not to mention that Kagan currently argues the governments case before the Supreme Court.
This is not as relevant, but a solid chunk of conservatives (I believe both Krauthammer and Kristol at the Weekly Standard) even argued against the Miers nomination because she was severely under-qualified by ANY definition.
I won’t argue that Kagan isn’t more qualified than Meyers – she is. But in terms of qualifications, if we put say the man she’s replacing on one end, and Meyers on the other – she’d fall much closer to Meyers than Stevens. This is not to disparage Kagan – or Meyers for that matter. She may well be a tremendous human being and ultimately be an outstanding justice. I just believe that there are many people more qualified, and more deserving right now.
And while serving as Solicitor General is an accomplishment, I think on it’s own, given the dearth of other experience it’s not enough. Prior to January of last year, not only had she never argued before the Supreme Court, she had never even argued a case at trial. The position is also one of an advocate – an interested party arguing the Government’s case which is very different from deciding cases. Again, I wouldn’t argue that with time, she might be a fine candidate – just that as of right now, I don’t think she is.
Almost 40 years ago. Realistically, I don’t think he’d have a chance at getting nominated today, his resume was incredibly weak by today’s standards. Which gets back to my point – I wouldn’t for a second argue Kagan might not be capable or even a brilliant justice – only that there are others more deserving of the opportunity right now.
Which sort of gets an another problem I have with this nomination though it stems from a larger issue. We don’t know hardly anything about Kagan as far as how she’ll make decisions on the bench since she’s never done it before. There’s no history of decisions to review. Certainly I’m betting the President knows her – he’d never put her up for appointment if he didn’t think he knew where she was on a number of issues – especially considering some, like the health care reform legislation are very likely to come before the Court. It’s safe to assume she’s pro-choice since the President has repeatedly made that commitment. There may be little examples here & there of her position on a particular aspect of the issue – but is there any record at all of her reasoning? Of what she sees as the important issues and Constitutional rationale for where the lines are?
I give the abortion issue as an example just to illustrate the point, not to get into a debate over the issue itself. I understand full well that elections have consequences and the President has every right to put forth a nominee who he thinks will support his agenda – to the winner go the spoils. But with this particular nominee, the transparency is awful – the gap between what the President knows and what we the public know is monumental. He knows from private conversations – we just don’t know anything because there’s so little public record and no helpful judicial record. Her very brief time as Solicitor General tell us nothing because she was an advocate for a client, always taking the government’s side on issues before the court. For an administration that promised to be the most transparent ever, this nominee may well be the worst with regard to transparency in a long time.
The larger issue of course, is that judges in general, who have any desire to make it to the Supreme Court, must be very careful with controversial decisions. Probably avoiding them if possible so there’s no record of something that can come back to haunt them. This is sad – both in what it does to the Court – disqualifying potential great justices who had the courage to make a ruling that could be controversial – and to the lower courts in the decisions that might not get considered for appeal lest it provide fodder for political opponents in a confirmation hearing.
That’s been my thought too – just how is Kagen substantially different than Meyers? Of course I’m quite certain she will be treated very differently than Meyers was by the media and Congress.
When the Administration initially put it out there that they were thinking outside the box on this one, I figured they meant hiring somebody who didn’t go to Harvard or Yale, not someone without experience as a judge. Guess I should’ve known – seems like a degree from Harvard or Yale is required now.
I’m still a bit disappointed it’s Stevens stepping down instead of Breyer. Somebody who writes an entire book explaining why he ignores the Constitution shouldn’t be sitting on the Supreme Court.
I would suggest that Harriet Meir was more skilled as a lawyer. A women of her vintage didn’t become partener, and the president of a mega firm unless she was brilliant. Not to undermine Kagen’s accomplishments but I think we all agree that Academia is more progressive.
That beign said, I don’t think either are qualified for the highest court. Heck, If Kagen’s got potential give her a training wheels position in a district court.
She was solicitor general? So what. She was appointed in March 09′, A year as the solictor general doesn’t qualify someone to serve as a Justice (she didn’t even argue in front of the Court until September 09). Before that, no trial court experience, either as an attorney or a judge.
Given the choice, I would go with Meirs, at least she has tried a case.
I know you liberals get all worked up over first woman this and that, but I prefer to focus on real qualifications.
got Adam in a bit of trouble.
Ed…are you talking about the Adam in the Adam and Eve story??
well yeah…taking a cue from forgot…Eve was the first woman this and that!
First woman created by God trumps “first female dean of Harvard Law School, first woman to serve as the top Supreme Court lawyer for any administration”
That’s pretty funny. Adam had the free will to decide for himself, despite blaming his wife.
Actually there are biblical writings telling us, Lilith was the first woman…but Adam could not control her. So he asked God to take her away & create something from him (i.e. rib) so she would be more submissive.
First women often times are told they are not “good enough” or qualified. But I digress…Kagan would actually be the 4th woman to serve on the US Supreme Court….and the mantra is still the same.
What “Biblical writings” would those be? Jewish folklore perhaps, but it’s not found in the Bible.
I realize she is the 4th woman on the Court (at what point can we stop counting?, but I was referencing the above article that says Kagan was the “first female dean of Harvard Law School, first woman to serve as the top Supreme Court lawyer for any administration.”
I don’t think anyone is saying that she’s not “good enough” because she’s a woman. My point was that I wish the focus could be on qualifications, rather than which demographic group they are fulfilling.
First of all….”biblical” little “b”. Never said it was in the Bible – big “B”. There are other “historical” documents & stories that were written during the biblical times…..
Second point….we can stop counting when the jokes about women getting men in trouble stop.
And my original point was that women have to be OVERLY qualified for them to be even considered. I don’t care about her being the first dean or the fist Solicitor General or any other firsts, seconds, thirds, etc…. What I do care about is that she has argued in front of the US Supreme Court at least 6 times (no other Justice has) and that she has followed the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution in her previous occupations.
This is what I look for in a Justice. Someone who knows the law and knows how it works.
Yeah, 6 appearances over a period of about 8 months! Prior to September of last year, she’d never argued a single case at trial. So a whopping 8 months of in court experience.
It’s like calling up a guy up to the majors who’s gotten he’s gotten a hit in his first couple of games rather than somebody who’s hit well for an entire season. Heck to extend the baseball metaphor, it’s probably most like putting AA pitcher behind the plate to ump at the major league level. Throwing pitches is very different than calling balls & strikes behind the plate.
Still know the rules of baseball, even tho I have never umpired a game………
All of them?
how high pine tar go on a bat? How many alternative balls the umpire is required to carry? When an alternative ball must be used? How many warmup pitches a pitcher gets between innings, or a relief picture is allowed?
My point is that rules are actually pretty complicated once you get passed the surface. The same is true for law, someone that has never tried a case or judged a case has no sense of the realities of the practice.
No umpire knows EVERY Rule…that is why there is an Umpiring Crew.
Agree the law is complicated. But I am sure that her depth of knowledge about the law was examined closely prior to her nomination.
But Locke you short her expereince.
To carry on the analogy, prior to to getting those hits in the first couple of games, the guy had been the equipment manager for a major league team and had researched how to hit. In fact, the person had been the head of a hitting school, which has produced some of the best hitters.
So clearly, the guy is qualified to hit cleanup in the bigs. right?
Analogy only goes so far fellas.
Point taken though, I can’t say I’m 100% happy with the nomination but I am near 100% confident in her ability to perform the duties of a justice.
fellas??? 🙂
It’s general neutral. Like “dudes.”
Sure – didn’t mean to short her experience. I wouldn’t for a second claim it’s nothing – just not anything a a judge and very little in court.
The fact of the matter is, that hitter could go on to be a Hall of Famer. The pitcher who’d never done it before could be a great ump. Experience is only part of it, talent is certainly critical too. By most reports, Kagan is at the very least smart, if not brilliant as a number of sources say. I have no reason to dispute that.
But why shouldn’t we have the highest of expectations & requirements – brilliant AND experienced. Someone who’s spent some time doing something as similar to the job as we can get.
I just don’t believe there aren’t candidates as gifted, who have a fuller resume including time on the bench at a very high level.
Now we finally reach the real conundrum of SC appointments…which legal mind can the President select that meets his criteria as a jurist and still have a serious chance of getting approved in the Senate. It is very seldom the best or brightest that can pass both of those tests.
It’s a shame that actually speaking your mind on something controversial could disqualify someone.
I don’t think gender, religious affiliation, or ethnic background will come up in the Senate confirmation hearings. Although is suspect the media will certainly continue gyrating through their statistics, projections, and what ifs.
Now, my wish is we focus on qualifications without the meaningless partisan blathering that has accompanied the last three or four appointments to the SC.
I think I explained how Kagan is substantially different from Miers.
But Locke, I agree with your Harvard/Yale concerns. Will a confirmed Kagan make everyone on the court either a Harvard or Yale alum? The world of politics is small, cliquey and incestuous most of the time. I don’t mean to get all anti-elitist, but viewing it gets disgusting.
I thought it did, but a quick check on Wikipedia shows I was wrong. It lists Ginsberg’s alma maters as Cornell and Columbia Law. Everyone else though, is Harvard or Yale (already counting out Stevens whose law degree is from Northwestern).
This just gets at what I’ve mentioned recently – that our current definition of “diversity” is too narrow and too focused on the external – gender & skin color. (Yes I believe diversity is a good thing – though I suspect I we disagree about the lengths to achieve it.) While the court has representation that frequently falls on one of two ideological grounds, if it’s “left” and “right” went through only two different law schools then we should do better. Just like having a “rainbow” colored group of men & women who share similar political views or say were all in the military isn’t really diverse in the most meaningful sense.
I thought I heard something this morning where it was at least almost all would be Harvard/Yale Law. Anyway, I can agree with a good chunk of what you said.
I’m not looking to get a dummy on the Court. Even more than what the current law school background says about the Court, it says about a culture of elitism in Washington in general. I just don’t think where a person went to school has that much impact on their intelligence or how they will perform. It DOES impact a person’s career path, but only because there is a self-reinforcing pattern of so-called elites hiring so-called elites.
Not to mention the Court is entirely made up of Catholics and Jews. What, no Protestants?
You see what a dangerous road it is to go down when we play the demographics game.
If I had more time to think about it I would advance this as a post in itself:
Kagan was right to bar military recruiters from campus as Dean. Limiting the ability of the military to recruit (even while the country was involved in two wars) was justified as the military itself (if the military was unified behind ending the DADT policy it could easily be gone) was limiting its ability to recruit by disqualifying openly gay, otherwise qualified recruits.
Thoughts? The Supreme Court ruled she was wrong 8-0 (I believe) and she seems to have accepted that decision.
So a Dean gets to decide who gets access on campus and who doesn’t based on his/her own beliefs and opinions? I think college students are probably capable of deciding for themselves on such a matter.
No, a Dean enforces anti-discrimination rules equally, without making exceptions.
Yeah universities have such a reputation for fairness. If they are going to ban the military (i.e. the government), maybe they should really show they are serious and decline all federal funds, grants, and financial aid.
Only the military has codified discrimination policies. The post office lets gay people carry mail, gay people work for the IRS, etc.
But the military is an entity entirely owned by the government. If you have a problem with Walmart, do you sue the individual store or the entire corporation?
If you have a problem with the IRS do you quit using the post office?
Government and private business are two entirely different things.
Well the post office isn’t a true government agency, but whatever. If I have a problem with the way McDonalds gets its beef, I’m probably not going there for the coffee they offer.
I am amazed you can’t see the hypocricy of a university barring the military while readily accepting all the federal money they can get.
Or let me put it to you another way, if our shores were invaded would that same university demand protection by the military it despises so much?
I’m amazed you’re trying to compare apples to oranges.
I’ve been fairly clear that Kagan and Harvard did not “despise” the military either.
Didn’t she back off of barring military recruiters under the threat of losing federal funding? So you know, stand up for what is right as long as there are no consequences…
Yeah, that was the 8-0 decision I mentioned. Based wholly off memory, so I’m not 100% certain.
Sounds like the recruiters were never completely barred from campus, but for a time were not allowed access to the career services office. Short Wall St Journal article on the controversy and Kagan.
The SC case was Rumsfeld v FAIR (2006)
How many Harvard Law grads serve go into the miltary to serve in JAG? My guess is 0
Here’s one.
I’m not sure how that’s relevant though.
I stand corrected
Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men….
Literal LOL, not figurative.
I aim to please, Jim.
Although in some respects, I’m not sure that barring military recruiters is the best thing, change America’s civilian leadership and you change military policies.
The Weekly Standard has an article up titled, The Diversity Scam and the Supreme Court
Haven’t actually read the article, yet, just looked at the chart & was amused. Diversity is a good thing – but too often it’s defined way too narrowly.
Like I said earlier, I’m not too happy with the Harvard/Yale, but that chart specifically focuses on the similarities and leaves out the differences. There is no gender or race listed. Not that either of those should factor in TOO much, but it’s all a little significant. When I have more time I’ll check out the actual article. Also I’ll try to find the WS columns slamming Bush’s Miers nomination.
The link mentions race/gender in the article but not the chart. But that’s the whole point of the article: “Yet the diversity on the Court always seems to stop at considerations of race, gender, and ethnicity”
I would like to see a chart throughout the Court’s entire history. When was the last time a good midwesterner was on the bench?
Well technically Stevens is still on the bench until his successor is named & he was a Chicagoan. 🙂
Rehnquist was orginally from Milwaukee.
Thought I would save you the search for Weekly Standard columns critical of Miers:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/178wuhnk.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/166quhvd.asp
Thanks forgot, I remember they were pretty interesting. I need to get off the internet and get some work done…you guys have been distracting me all day. We got a good debate going here!