http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Kagan_under_fire_on_Goldman_minorities.html

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR2010050705029.html

I said on here a few weeks back she would be the choice. She will likely be the next SCJ. The Repubs will fight it, of course, but it won't matter.

I'm not sure what I think of this choice. I'm not opposed to seeing a non-judge appointed, in fact it could be refreshing. Yet, in light of Kagan's career she lacks nearly any discernible views on politics or jurisprudence. The confirmation process will be very interesting, if not entirely unique. Most potential appointees defer on legal and political questions and we are left with very tightly scripted explanations of their previous rulings. With Kagan, we will be left with nothing if she doesn't tread into the political realm. In this case, the stakes are heightened if her statements and responses are not airtight and reasonable.

 

I imagine Republican opposition will be framed along these lines. It will be difficult to paint her as an extreme liberal, so she will be challenged as mysterious and an unknown quantity. I also imagine some Democrats will have trouble with the nomination, wanting evidence that she is sufficiently liberal or sufficiently moderate. There is the possibility that this isn't the actual choice and the media has been duped, or Obama plans to pull the nomination and send in a more traditional pick who will be seen more positively due to contrast. However, either of those are highly unlikely and we should be in for a very interesting confirmation process.

A concern I have, not about her but about the process is summed up in the following from the first link.

 

Four minority law professors, meanwhile, complain in Salon that the diversity in her hiring didn't extend beyond ideology: She hired, they write, "largely white men."

 

These aren't issues likely to trigger a Republican filibuster. They're aimed to tilt the balance away from her at a decisive moment. And the law professors have another favorite, the same judge most liberal groups quietly say they'd prefer:

 

"A knowledgeable source tells us that Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood has had a splendid history of hiring women and minorities as law clerks," they write

 

Really? That is how we are judging the SC nominees now? Their hiring practices of women and minorities over largely white men? Being a large white man, I am offended.:D

If I'm not mistaken, Wood has had some controversial rulings on abortion, which may dissuade the President from nominating her. I don't know that he wants that fight to hang front and center over the confirmation process.

Kagan is to be announced at 10:00 am in the morning in the East Room of the Big House.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36967616/ns/politics-supreme_court/

 

Some liberal critics have said that Kagan's views on executive power and the treatment of terrorist detainees are too conservative.

 

Her nomination is unlikely to cause a damaging fight in the Senate ahead of congressional mid-term elections in November or distract the Obama administration from other issues like jobs, financial regulation and climate change leglislation.

 

Another Harvard grad? Doesn't that make all the SCOTUS'ers Harvard or Yale grads?

Another Harvard grad? Doesn't that make all the SCOTUS'ers Harvard or Yale grads?

 

If it does, so much for diversity. Hey, how about a UK or UL grad? The heartland needs representation in order to achieve diversity.

I'm not sure what I think of this choice. I'm not opposed to seeing a non-judge appointed, in fact it could be refreshing. Yet, in light of Kagan's career she lacks nearly any discernible views on politics or jurisprudence. The confirmation process will be very interesting, if not entirely unique. Most potential appointees defer on legal and political questions and we are left with very tightly scripted explanations of their previous rulings. With Kagan, we will be left with nothing if she doesn't tread into the political realm. In this case, the stakes are heightened if her statements and responses are not airtight and reasonable.

 

I imagine Republican opposition will be framed along these lines. It will be difficult to paint her as an extreme liberal, so she will be challenged as mysterious and an unknown quantity. I also imagine some Democrats will have trouble with the nomination, wanting evidence that she is sufficiently liberal or sufficiently moderate. There is the possibility that this isn't the actual choice and the media has been duped, or Obama plans to pull the nomination and send in a more traditional pick who will be seen more positively due to contrast. However, either of those are highly unlikely and we should be in for a very interesting confirmation process.

 

Then, there is always this angle:

We are extremely disappointed by the President's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Kagan's nomination is a triumph for liberal ideology and judicial activism. She has never been a judge, nor written a judicial opinion. In fact, she has very limited experience in the actual practice of law. Her resume reveals her to be an academic who has served liberal judges, liberal presidents, and liberal universities. Her entire career has been lived in a narrow slice of the judicial spectrum .Even with her sparse legal record, one thing stands out—her emotional and legal commitment to the LGBT agenda. (Tom Minnery, Vice President of Public Policy, Focus on the Family)

Will mainstream Republicans actually go here? (and by "here" . . . well, you know what I mean)

Then, there is always this angle:

We are extremely disappointed by the President's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Kagan's nomination is a triumph for liberal ideology and judicial activism. She has never been a judge, nor written a judicial opinion. In fact, she has very limited experience in the actual practice of law. Her resume reveals her to be an academic who has served liberal judges, liberal presidents, and liberal universities. Her entire career has been lived in a narrow slice of the judicial spectrum .Even with her sparse legal record, one thing stands out—her emotional and legal commitment to the LGBT agenda. (Tom Minnery, Vice President of Public Policy, Focus on the Family)

Will mainstream Republicans actually go here? (and by "here" . . . well, you know what I mean)

 

Honest questions, don't most mainstream Republicans subscribe to the view points of the religous right? My understanding of the current condition of the party is that all moderates were or are in the process of being forced out with the notion of them being RINO's. I thought the core party principals were now governed by folks like Dobson, Robertson, Palin, et al

Honest questions, don't most mainstream Republicans subscribe to the view points of the religous right? My understanding of the current condition of the party is that all moderates were or are in the process of being forced out with the notion of them being RINO's. I thought the core party principals were now governed by folks like Dobson, Robertson, Palin, et al

 

I don't think most Republicans are governed by the Religious Right, but it will be interesting to see if they have a resurgence in this nomination. Especially, when there isn't a lot in terms of writings to go after her on.

If it does, so much for diversity. Hey, how about a UK or UL grad? The heartland needs representation in order to achieve diversity.

Richie Farmer for SCOTUS!

Another Harvard grad? Doesn't that make all the SCOTUS'ers Harvard or Yale grads?

 

Ginsburg started at Harvard Law but her degree is from Columbia.

 

If anyone's curious...

 

List of SCOUTS Justices by Place of Education

Democrats like her. Republicans dont.

 

Next.