Obama Is Said to Select Kagan as Justice
 

And so it goes...

Richard

Obama Is Said to Select Kagan as Justice
Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny, NYT, 9 May 2010

President Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the nation’s 112th justice, choosing his own chief advocate before the Supreme Court to join it in ruling on cases critical to his view of the country’s future, Democrats close to the White House said Sunday.

After a monthlong search, Mr. Obama informed Ms. Kagan and his advisers on Sunday of his choice to succeed the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. He plans to announce the nomination at 10 a.m. Monday in the East Room of the White House with Ms. Kagan by his side, said the Democrats, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the decision before it was formally made public.

In settling on Ms. Kagan, the president chose a well-regarded 50-year-old lawyer who served as a staff member in all three branches of government and was the first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School. If confirmed, she would be the youngest member and the third woman on the current court, but the first justice in nearly four decades without any prior judicial experience.

That lack of time on the bench may both help and hurt her confirmation prospects, allowing critics to question whether she is truly qualified while denying them a lengthy judicial paper trail filled with ammunition for attacks. As solicitor general, Ms. Kagan has represented the government before the Supreme Court for the past year, but her own views are to a large extent a matter of supposition.

Perhaps as a result, some on both sides of the ideological aisle are suspicious of her. Liberals dislike her support for strong executive power and her outreach to conservatives while running the law school. Activists on the right have attacked her for briefly barring military recruiters from a campus facility because the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military violated the school’s anti-discrimination policy.

Replacing Justice Stevens with Ms. Kagan presumably would not alter the broad ideological balance on the court, but her relative youth means that she could have an influence on the court for decades to come, underscoring the stakes involved.

In making his second nomination in as many years, Mr. Obama was not looking for a liberal firebrand as much as a persuasive leader who could attract the swing vote of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and counter what the president sees as the rightward direction of the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Particularly since the Citizens United decision invalidating on free speech grounds the restrictions on corporate spending in elections, Mr. Obama has publicly criticized the court, even during his State of the Union address with justices in the audience.

As he presses an ambitious agenda expanding the reach of government, Mr. Obama has come to worry that a conservative Supreme Court could become an obstacle down the road, aides said. It is conceivable that the Roberts court could eventually hear challenges to aspects of Mr. Obama’s health care program or to other policies like restrictions on carbon emissions and counterterrorism practices.

With all signs pointing to a Kagan nomination, critics have been pre-emptively attacking her in the days leading up to the president’s announcement. Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, writing on The Daily Beast, compared her to Harriet E. Miers, whose nomination by President George W. Bush collapsed amid an uprising among conservatives who considered her unqualified and not demonstrably committed to their judicial philosophy.

M. Edward Whelan III, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, wrote on National Review’s Web site that even Ms. Kagan’s nonjudicial experience was inadequate. “Kagan may well have less experience relevant to the work of being a justice than any entering justice in decades,” Mr. Whelan wrote.

Ms. Kagan defended her experience during confirmation hearings as solicitor general last year. “I bring up a lifetime of learning and study of the law, and particularly of the constitutional and administrative law issues that form the core of the court’s docket,” she testified. “I think I bring up some of the communications skills that has made me — I’m just going to say it — a famously excellent teacher.”

Ms. Kagan was one of Mr. Obama’s runners-up last year when he nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the court, and she was always considered the front-runner this year. The president also interviewed three other candidates, all federal appeals court judges: Merrick B. Garland of Washington, Diane P. Wood of Chicago and Sidney R. Thomas of Montana.

Ms. Kagan had several advantages from the beginning that made her the most obvious choice. For one, she works for Mr. Obama, who has been impressed with her intelligence and legal capacity, aides said, and she worked for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. when he was a senator. For another, she is the youngest of the four finalists, meaning she would most likely have the longest tenure as a justice.

Ms. Kagan was also confirmed by the Senate just last year, albeit with 31 no votes, making it harder for Republicans who voted for her in 2009 to vote against her in 2010.

The president can also say he reached beyond the so-called “judicial monastery,” although picking a solicitor general and former Harvard law dean hardly reaches outside the Ivy League, East Coast legal elite. And her confirmation would allow Mr. Obama to build on his appointment of Justice Sotomayor by bringing the number of women on the court to its highest ever (three, with Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg).

Moreover, in his selection of finalists, Mr. Obama effectively framed the choice so that he could seemingly take the middle road by picking Ms. Kagan, who correctly or not was viewed as ideologically between Judge Wood on the left and Judge Garland in the center.

Judge Garland was widely seen as the most likely alternative to Ms. Kagan and the one most likely to win easy confirmation. Well respected on both sides of the aisle, he had a number of conservatives publicly calling him the best they could hope for from a Democratic president. Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, privately made clear to the president that he considered Judge Garland a good choice, according to people briefed on their conversations.

But Mr. Obama ultimately opted to save Judge Garland for when he faces a more hostile Senate and needs a nominee with more Republican support. Democrats expect to lose seats in this fall’s election, so if another Supreme Court seat comes open next year and Mr. Obama has a substantially thinner margin in the Senate than he has today, Judge Garland would be an obvious choice.

As for Ms. Kagan, strategists on both sides anticipate a fight over her confirmation but not necessarily an all-out war. The White House hopes the Senate Judiciary Committee can hold hearings before July 4, but some Congressional aides were skeptical. Either way, Democrats want Ms. Kagan confirmed by the August recess so she can join the court for the start of its new term in October.

A New Yorker who grew up in Manhattan, Ms. Kagan earned degrees from Princeton, Oxford and Harvard Law School, worked briefly in private practice, clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, served as a Senate staff member and worked as a White House lawyer and domestic policy aide under President Bill Clinton. She was nominated for an appeals court judgeship in 1999, but the Senate never voted on her nomination.

She has been a trailblazer along the way, not only as the first woman to run Harvard Law School but also as the first woman to serve as solicitor general. Her inexperience as a judge makes her a rarity in modern times, but until the 1970s many Supreme Court justices came from outside the judiciary, including senators, governors, cabinet secretaries and even a former president.

If the Senate confirms Ms. Kagan, who is Jewish, the Supreme Court for the first time will have no Protestant members. In that case, the court would be composed of six justices who are Catholic and three who are Jewish. It also would mean that every member of the court had studied law at Harvard or Yale.

Like her former boss, Justice Marshall, who was the last solicitor general to go directly to the Supreme Court, Ms. Kagan may be forced to recuse herself during her early time on the bench because of her participation in a number of cases coming before the justices. Tom Goldstein, publisher of ScotusBlog, a Web site that follows the court, estimated that she would have to sit out on 13 to 15 matters. Mr. Whelan argued that it would be significantly more than that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us...er=rss&emc=rss

And so it went...:rolleyes:

Elena Kagan, Janet Napolitano I am confused...must be the same hair dresser.

And so it goes... :rolleyes:

Richard :munchin

Ed Whelan Compares Elena Kagan To Prostitute

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_569552.html

RNC Attacks Kagan Over Praise For Thurgood Marshall

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_570044.html

Will Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan experience sexist attacks?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-be..._b_570151.html

Could have used Merc
 

Could have used the term Merc - notice how the point he was making was lost in the counter attack.

So what do you call a person who feels strongly about an issue but will put it aside to advance? Other than a politician.

Is it just me, or does she not bear a striking resemblance to Kevin James (King of Queens, Paul Blart, Mall Cop)?

Another liberal Ivy Leaguer in the upper stratosphere of federal govt.
Great. Just what we need.

They got a referral to the same stylist from Janet Reno :D

Makes a mullet look good...

I was thinking Rachel Maddow or Liza Minnelli.....maybe David Schuster.

My husbands reaction ..OMG IS THAT PAUL BLART :p Too funny b/c that is what everyone is sayin on the forums lmao

Obama has a thing for Women that look like dudes :eek:

Just another nail in the Constitution's coffin. We now have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews that make up the Supreme Court. Zero protestants, who happen to make up the majority population in this country. :confused:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...id=zKceHIsEuqM

I am waiting for RuPaul to get a cabinet position.

That dude was never even a judge?

I hope he at least gets a better haircut before he helps decide that its not against the constitution to make me buy health insurance.

Another useless dipshit, just what we need!:rolleyes:

IMHO, how can you be a Supreme Court Justice without ever having been a judge? It reminds me of all the idiots I stop and/or arrest that tell me I can't do it because they are Criminal Justice majors and know the law. I always tell them they should have paid more attention in class.

I've read she is orally persuasive and studied the constitution in school.

C'mon people, can't we lower the bar for this one? She'll only be on the SCOTUS for 40 years or so....how much damage can one lil 'ole academic intellect do?

LMAO.:rolleyes:

The same question crossed many peoples' minds during Harriet Miers's short-lived nomination.

FWIW, previous justices who had no experience as judges before joining the court are listed here <<LINK>>.

To advance or to do their job? How about A Professional? I'll willing to bet that there are many here who have done something that goes against personal strong feelings and yet it falls in the category of "Mission First". sometimes we just do our jobs. No Extreme Unction for you! Opps, never mind. We'll just leave you out of all the secret ritual stuff. Ever wonder why we kneel at odd times in the middle of mass,? So Protestants are easy to identify. we have ways of dealing with folks that are where they have no business. . .

Seriously, do you actually think that's of any importance? Right up there with hair style IMHO. Of course, there is that nominated by the current president hurdle. . .

This article was posted a year ago in The Weekly Standard.

From the World Socialist Web Site:

That conjures up a mental image that is unpleasant at best.:eek:

So why is 6 catholics and 3 jews another nail in the coffin? I would think that some of her liberal leanings, rather than her religous affiliation would be what bothers most people.

Kagan on Obama circa 2005
 

The link: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...irca_2005.html

Kagan on Obama circa 2005
Greg Halvorson

By now, anyone with a working knowledge of narcissism recognizes the pathological condition of the president. Even liberals concede that the man who sends thrills up Chris Mathews' leg is self-absorbed.

It therefore makes sense that Elena Kagan, his Solicitor General, is the SCOTUS nominee. In 2005, at a Harvard luncheon, Ms. Kagan waxed eloquent on Obama. She'd had the "privilege" of attending the DNC National Convention the year before and had experienced rapture:

He opened his mouth, said a few words, and the place was mesmerized. You could hear a pin drop. In part, that is because of all the rock star qualities he has: the eloquence, the magnetism, the great looks, the brilliance. When he opens his mouth, you know what you're getting.

Kagan went on to call Obama a "hero," concluding that he is "truly one of the great public servants of our time," and gives many "hope" in the future of our country.

Wow. To label a man who voted "present" in the Illinois assembly and was a do-nothing Senator "great" is remarkable. If Obama is "great," may I ask, What is bad? True, when he opens his mouth, we know what we're getting, but based on the above, we know what we're getting when Kagan opens hers. A kool aid progressive who defines "hero" oddly, who believes rock stars "eloquent," and who's dipped her toe in the pool of Narcissus to admire Obama admiring himself.

Don't sweat it I've got Steel71.
Lit the candles, burned the incense and filled out the mass card. He should start feeling a little ill right . . . about . . . now. If his palms aren't bleeding before dinner, I'll choke him out with my rosary beads.

I went to a Jesuit school
Society of Jesus, the Green Berets of Catholicism!

Super gross but very funny :D

The hair....Just trying to lighten up the conversation on the freakish nightmare and parade of ghouls that has (from my perspective) been non-ending since November 2008.


I might mention that about a month ago Justice Thomas apparently confirmed the idea of someone on the court that came without a judicial or legal background was possible.

Well you know how those of us that are in the Cult of Catholicism are.... I'm just sayin":p

What does the political affiliation of the Justices have to do with anything?

What has a person's religious affiliation got to do with how they view the law?

Christians make up the majority population of this country, BTW, Protestants are considered a subgroup of Christianity.

At this point it makes little to no difference, but if we get one that follows the Religion of Peace you might change your view.

With the large number of activist judges in our district and appeals courts, there have been several decisions in recent years which were obviously politically motivated vs. strictly based on an honest interpretation of the law. For examples you only have to look at issues such as gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, the Guantanamo detainees issue, etc.

By the wording of her thesis, I would tend to think she would fit right in with the current political trend toward socialistic values.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...mn08_ST2_N.htm

Sen. McCain: I will not support Kagan

By John McCain
Updated 2h 14m ago
In 1987, I had my first opportunity to provide "advice and consent" on a Supreme Court nominee. At that time, I stated that the qualifications essential for evaluating a nominee for the bench included "integrity, character, legal competence and ability, experience, and philosophy and judicial temperament." On that test, Elena Kagan fails.
When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she unmistakably discouraged Harvard students from considering a career in the military — even while claiming to do otherwise — by denying military recruiters the same access to Harvard students that was granted to white-shoe law firms. Kagan did so because she believed the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to be "a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order."

While Kagan is entitled to her opinion, she was not entitled to ignore the law that requires universities to allow military recruiters on campus under terms of equal access with all other recruiters. The chief of recruiting for the Air Force's Judge Advocate General Corps described the impact of Kagan's changes by saying that "Harvard is playing games." The Army's report from that same period was even more blunt, stating, "The Army was stonewalled at Harvard."

Kagan tried to justify her actions in terms of Harvard's anti-discrimination policy and sought a compromise by asking the law school's Veterans Association to host military recruiters. However, the association responded to the dean, "Given our tiny membership, meager budget, and lack of any office space, we possess neither the time nor the resources ... of the Harvard Law School Office of Career Services." An Air Force recruiter wrote Pentagon officials, "Without the support of the Career Services Office, we are relegated to wandering the halls in hopes that someone will stop and talk to us."

'The facts are otherwise'

Kagan's claim that she was bound by Harvard's anti-discrimination policy is belied by the fact that her predecessor allowed military recruiters full official access — a policy Kagan changed. And while Kagan barred military recruiters' access to the school, Harvard continued to receive millions of dollars in federal aid.

During her confirmation hearing last week, Kagan asserted that Harvard Law School was "never out of compliance with the law ... in fact, the veterans association did a fabulous job of letting all our students know that the military recruiters were going to be at Harvard." She went on to assert, "The military at all times during my deanship had full and good access." The facts are otherwise.

While I strongly disagree with Kagan, I take no issue in terms of her nomination with her opposition to President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. She is free to have her own opinion. Kagan was not free, however, to ignore the Solomon Amendment's requirement to provide military recruiters equal access because she and many of her colleagues opposed "don't ask, don't tell." In short, she interpreted her duties as dean at Harvard to be consistent with what she wished the law to be, not with the law as written.

'Beyond public advocacy'

In the end, Kagan's interpretation of the Solomon Amendment was soundly rejected by the Supreme Court. By changing the policy she inherited and restricting military recruiter access when the prevailing law was to the contrary, Kagan stepped beyond public advocacy in opposition to a policy and into the realm of usurping the prerogative of the Congress and the president to make law and the courts to interpret it.

I have previously stated that I do not believe judges should stray beyond their constitutional role and act as if they have greater insight than representatives who are elected by the people. Given the choice to uphold a law that was unpopular with her peers and students or interpret the law to achieve her own political objectives, she chose the latter. I cannot support her nomination to the Supreme Court where, based on her prior actions, it appears unlikely that she would exercise judicial restraint.

On the main campus of Harvard University stands Memorial Church, dedicated to the memory of Harvard's veterans who laid down their lives for their country, including some from the greatest families in American history, such as the Roosevelts and the Kennedys. During this Independence Day holiday week, we should also honor those who encouraged our military men and women to serve our country and a cause greater than themselves.

Let us hope that the day will come when leaders of our country's most elite schools fully embrace military service and encourage their students to commit their lives and talents to their nation and one of its great institutions, the U.S. military.

John McCain is a Republican senator from Arizona.

Obama and He/she's
 

Sadly, I cannot tell if Obama's appointees are male or female? My wife told me- don't even guess.

:munchin

Kagan booted military recruiters out of Harvard. How can someone be appointed to interpret the Constitution who has no respect for the first line of defense of the Constitution???

Source is here.IMO, Senator Brown demonstrated good political instincts in how he phrased his vote against Ms. Kagan's confirmation.

The one positive aspect I see here is that she is replacing a liberal justice, thereby, keeping the ratio in place. If she was replacing a conservative justice, I think it would be extremely detrimental to future issues. She has already stated there are issues she will have to recuse herself from. If we can keep the current ratio of conservative justices in the near future, I think her appointment, and her probable liberal/progressive decisions, can be mitigated.