Elena Kagan chosen by Obama for Supreme Court

62t

CAGiversary!
Feedback
76 (100%)
President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court on Monday, declaring the former Harvard Law School dean "one of the nation's foremost legal minds." She would be the court's youngest justice and give it three female members for the first time.

The nomination to replace liberal retiring Justice John Paul Stevens set the stage for a bruising confirmation battle, though mathematically Democrats should be able to prevail in the end.

At 50, Kagan is relatively young for the lifetime post and could help shape the high court's decisions for decades. If confirmed by the Senate, she would become only the fourth female justice in history.

Obama cited what he called Kagan's "openness to a broad array of viewpoints" and her "fair mindedness."

Standing beside the president in the East Room of the White House, Kagan said she was "honored and humbled by this nomination."

"I look forward to working with the Senate in the next stage of this process, and I thank you again, Mr. President, for this honor of a lifetime," she said.

Republicans are expected to criticize her for attempting to bar military recruiters from the Harvard Law campus while she was dean. That issue was used against her by critics during her confirmation hearing last year for her current post.

With control of 59 votes in the Senate, Democrats should be able to win confirmation. However, if all 41 Republicans vote together, they could delay a vote with a filibuster.

Republicans have shown no signs in advance that they would try to prevent a vote on Kagan, but they are certain to grill her in confirmation hearings over her experience, her thin record of legal writings and her decisions at Harvard.

The senator who will preside over her confirmation hearing, Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, "The Senate should confirm Ms. Kagan before" Labor Day.

"Our constituents deserve a civil and thoughtful debate on this nomination, followed by an up-or-down vote," said the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said his party would make sure there was a "thorough process, not a rush to judgment" on the nomination.

"Judges must not be a rubber stamp for any administration. Judges must not walk into court with a preconceived idea of who should win," he said, adding that Republicans would have a vigorous debate on that principle.

Obama introduced Kagan as "my friend."

"Elena is widely regarded as one of the nation's foremost legal minds. She's an acclaimed legal scholar with a rich understanding of constitutional law. She is a former White House aide, with a life- long commitment to public service and a firm grasp of the nexus and boundaries between our three branches of government," Obama said.

Kagan served in the Clinton White House.

Obama began with high praise for the retiring Stevens, a leader of the court's liberals, calling him "a giant in the law," impartial and having respect for legal precedence.

Kagan "embodies the same excellence, independence and passion for the law," Obama said.

He noted that neither Kagan's mother nor father "lived to see this day, but I think her mother would relish this moment. I think she would relish, as I do, the prospect of three women taking their seat on the nation's highest court for the first time in history ... a court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before."

Kagan praised Stevens for having "played a particularly distinguished and exemplary role. It is therefore a special honor to be nominated to fill his seat."

In a short tenure as solicitor general "I have felt blessed to represent the United States before the Supreme Court, to walk into the highest court in this country when it is deciding its most important cases, cases that have an impact on so many people's lives," she said.

Seven Republicans voted for her confirmation last year as solicitor general.

One of them, Orrin Hatch of Utah, a member of the Judiciary Committee, issued a statement saying his decision this time "will be based on evidence, not blind faith. Her previous confirmation and my support for her in that position do not by themselves establish either her qualifications for the Supreme Court or my obligation to support her."

Kagan would become the only justice who had no prior experience as a judge. The other justices all served previously as federal appeals court judges. She was named to a federal appeals court by President Bill Clinton, but the Senate never brought that nomination to a vote.

That means Kagan has a smaller paper trail than other recent nominees since there are no prior decisions to scrutinize.

But conservatives were already mounting an attack, one they laid the groundwork for when she was mentioned last year as being on Obama's short list for the Supreme Court post last time around.

Obama's White House team was launching its own broad campaign-style outreach to Capitol Hill and the media. That effort is designed to shape the national image of Kagan, an unknown figure to much of America.

Her selection came after nearly a monthlong process of consideration. Obama always had Kagan on his short list but still considered a broader group of candidates, interviewing four.

The president informed Kagan that she would a Supreme Court nominee on Sunday night. He then called the three federal judges he did not choose for the position, Diane Wood, Merrick Garland and Sidney Thomas.

Kagan is known as sharp and politically savvy and has enjoyed a blazing legal career. She was the first female dean of Harvard Law School, first woman to serve as the top Supreme Court lawyer for any administration.

A source close to the selection process said a central element in Obama's choice was Kagan's reputation for bringing together people of competing views and earning their respect.

The seven Republicans who supported her when she was confirmed as solicitor general in 2009 included Hatch, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

Kagan has clerked for Thurgood Marshall, worked for Bill Clinton and earned a stellar reputation as a student, teacher and manager of the elite academic world. Yet she would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. The last two were William H. Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell Jr., both of whom joined the court in 1972.

Supreme Court justices wield enormous power over the daily life of Americans. Any one of them can cast the deciding vote on matters of life and death, individual freedoms and government power. Presidents serve four-year terms; justices have tenure for life.

Democrats went 15 years without a Supreme Court appointment until Obama chose federal appellate judge Sonia Sotomayor last year to succeed retiring Justice David Souter. Just 16 months in office, Obama has a second opportunity with Kagan.

Kagan, who is unmarried, was born in New York City. She holds a bachelor's degree from Princeton, a master's degree from Oxford and a law degree from Harvard.

Before she served as a clerk for Justice Marshall, she clerked for federal Appeals Court Judge Abner Mikva, who later became an important political mentor to Obama in Chicago.

Kagan and Obama both taught at the University of Chicago Law School in the early 1990s.

In her current job, Kagan represents the U.S. government and defends acts of Congress before the Supreme Court and decides when to appeal lower court rulings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100510/ap_on_go_su_co/us_obama_supreme_court
 
Love that she's not a judge. Hate that she's from the Ivy League. Wish us libs could get a fire breathing jurist a la Scalia. Libs are salty that she didn't hire more minority/women at Harvard, which is stupid. Cons are salty that she blocked military recruiters from campus, which is stupid.

She's qualified and will sail through. There's a rumor that she's got teh ghey.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']She'll reveal she's a lesbian after she's confirmed. Bank on it.[/QUOTE]

Well if she is it probably wouldn't be the best idea to say it before. Although if she reveals it afterward you'll have a lot of people complaining about how they slipped in a sleeper gay or something.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well if she is it probably wouldn't be the best idea to say it before. Although if she reveals it afterward you'll have a lot of people complaining about how they slipped in a sleeper gay or something.[/QUOTE]

Non-issue in any case as long as we don't see her come out of the closet after confirmation and then have to listen to Obama brag about bringing the first openly gay person to the Supreme Court. As long as that doesn't happen she can gay it up all she wants.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Non-issue in any case as long as we don't see her come out of the closet after confirmation and then have to listen to Obama brag about bringing the first openly gay person to the Supreme Court. As long as that doesn't happen she can gay it up all she wants.[/QUOTE]

Can't be gay out in public. Got it.
 
lol, I kinda agree with FtA.

He's a crappy liberal but a fantastic moderate.
[quote name='perdition(troy']
have ya looked at her lately?

wonder where the rumors started.[/QUOTE]

what do gays look like? I need to know so I know who to avoid on the street.
 
capt.photo_1273459005109-3-0.jpg
 
I personally don't care that much, it'd be nice to see another woman on the bench. But she's 50, so that's kind of sad that if she gets appointed she's stuck for life.

Besides, you don't have to be a judge to be a Justice. It's in the Constitution. But people are going to bitch and moan.
 
Funny thing is that Rehnquist was the last SCOTUS dude who had no judicial experience before joining the court. He was an awesomely conservative justice.

This is a liberal woman though. Different rules now. She has no experience and is supremely unqualified. /endsarcasm
 
There's a lot of speculation in that article. In the 70's there was a lot of distrust in Government, so public reaction was probably harsh then, too. But we don't really know since most people either don't want to talk about it or refuse to acknowledge it.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Conservatives opposed Harriet Myers, if you remember.[/QUOTE]
I despise Roberts with every fiber of my being. I think he is a liar and an opportunist. But I don't question his credentials to sit on the bench. He is a brilliant jurist, even though I think he's full of shit.

There was nothing brilliant about Miers and she should not be brought up as a foil to anyone. It was one of the worst picks in Supreme Court history and arguably one of the worst appointment picks ever (though no one ever thinks of her because Brownie might actually have been the worst). She has no body of work that impresses, no big cases, no major research work or widely cited paper.

All she did was nod her head yes when the President spoke to her.

Surprise liberals!
Kagan in '97 urged Clinton to ban late abortions

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – As a White House adviser in 1997, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan urged then-President Bill Clinton to support a ban on late-term abortions, a political compromise that put the administration at odds with abortion rights groups.

The abortion proposal was a compromise by Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle. Clinton supported it, but the proposal failed and Clinton vetoed a stricter Republican ban.
Hmm. A Democratic president offered 99% of what Republicans wanted but they refused to compromise and got nothing. I'm seeing a pattern here.
 
You won't find a pattern here in terms of the Presidents base opposing his SCOTUS pick. Like I said, the base are sheep. Obama opposed any kind of ban on abortion, a little bit at odds with his own pick.
 
[quote name='Strell']Can't be gay out in public. Got it.[/QUOTE]

Nope, never said anything of the sort actually. All I said was I don't care if she's a lesbian or straight, in the closet or out. What I don't want is to hear Obama tootin' his own horn about how he's responsible for the first openly gay woman to the Supreme Court. Thus using something like someone's sexuality for personal political gain.

Then again, me not having a problem with her sexual agenda conflicts with your pre-conceived notion that since I have conservative fiscal and governmental ideals that I obviously have to hate the gheys.

Reply or not, it makes no difference because your reply reminded me why I quit coming to the politics forum a month ago.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Funny thing is that Rehnquist was the last SCOTUS dude who had no judicial experience before joining the court. He was an awesomely conservative justice.

This is a liberal woman though. Different rules now. She has no experience and is supremely unqualified. /endsarcasm[/QUOTE]
You could also just attach this too how Robert Bork screwed the pooch on judge selection. He was combative with the Senate and when nobody got pissed that they were attacking him back the entire game changed and the way we choose judges changed as well. After him articles in the media attacking judical nominees grew like crazy and we now have the clown show we see on television today.

Fun fact about the supreme court, they don't allow video recording equipment into their hearings, although an angry politician brought one in once and started taping. However they do record them and for over 20 years they were kept secret until a political science professor found the tapes and started releasing them. Pissed the supreme court off something fierce. However after realizing they served the public they retracted their pissed off statements directed at the guy and started releasing the tapes themselves. Sorry I gotta make my education seem useful.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Nope, never said anything of the sort actually. All I said was I don't care if she's a lesbian or straight, in the closet or out. What I don't want is to hear Obama tootin' his own horn about how he's responsible for the first openly gay woman to the Supreme Court. Thus using something like someone's sexuality for personal political gain.
[/QUOTE]

It's just funny that everyone is going to keep quiet on her sexual preference until after she's confirmed. Everyone is playing the game, not just whoever you oppose. And that's because this country can't grow the hell up about something as personal and not-your-business as what goes on in someone's bedroom. Call it out on one side, though, when you've got every chance to bring it up now, harp on it forever, and potentially create a backlash of backward ridicule over someone preferring one set of genitals over the other. For shit's sake, pouring it all over on one side like it's not the soup du jour everyone seems to be having.

So, again. Keep it quiet until she gets confirmed. THEN we'll set up the attacks, the showboating, the pandering, etc etc etc. You make it sound like the Democrats will champion it as a rights issue, yet fail to think we won't have an equal GAY CONSPIRACY! charge coming from the right.

Don't worry. We won't miss your devastatingly insightful commentary.
 
If she keeps quiet about being gay before she's confirmed, then comes out - can Obama really "brag" about appointing the first "openly-gay" Justice? If she was /hiding/ it beforehand? (By 'hiding', I don't mean hiding, I mean not being 'open' about it. I wonder if someone asked her directly, what her answer would be...) I don't care one way or another and, currently, see no reason to oppose this individual. Someone should ask her what she thinks of Arizona right now. ;)
 
What does it matter if she's gay or not?IF she is then she isn't saying anything because she knows better.She knows about the dumbasses in this country who would somehow hold that against her. As if being gay somehow makes someone unqualified to be a judge.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't know anything about her. I'll wait to hear what Beck tells me to think of her.[/QUOTE]
She's probably one of the most researched jurists ever. She's been on "the short list" for about 15 years. The perverse side effect is that during those 15 years she stopped her legal writing because she didn't want to be nit picked on dumb shit.

All potential judicial appointees do the same thing, but she's been in a holding pattern for so damn long now that there's just not going to be anything new. The "bombshell" yesterday was a political opinion she gave to Clinton about 12 years ago. That's all that's gonna be of it.

That was a long winded way of saying all the research about her is out there if you look.
 
I believe you speed.

Honestly, I don't much care as long as there isn't a long string of examples where she made activist-like decisions or statements. If there isn't, good on her.
 
Activist like allowing corporations the same rights as humans. How long do we have to wait before they get their 2nd Amendment rights through private armies?
 
Apparently during her Solicitor General hearings she wouldn't even give her opinion on Massachusetts v. EPA, which was decided 2 years before her hearing.

Her answers were mostly my position would depend on what the gov't position is b/c I'm defending the gov't position. That I can completely understand, but the idea that she can't give an opinion on a case that Obama definitely supports and that has been decided already is kinda weird.

It's almost like she knew she was going to be a SCOTUS nominee at some point so she just stopped giving out her opinions on...well, anything. We know she's a Mets fan though.
 
From her friend/colleague, in the Rachel Maddow interview last night:

"She will advance the government's goals as the government sees fit."

This was said in a positive light.

Kind of funny that this colleague had spent the entire interview saying Greenwald was/is wrong, when Greenwald's whole premise is, essentially, that she will advance the government's goals as the government sees fit.
 
Have to say that i'm not really liking this woman. I know a judge is supposed to think of the law and leave personal opinion at the door, but she doesn't even seem to have a mind of her own.
 
Yeah thats a great point FtA. I didn't see Maddow, but I read Greenwald's post on Salon trying to rebut Kagan's friend who he believed mis characterized Greenwald's argument.

Why does he even bother though? Obama has shown he doesn't care about his progressive base. Even if he does, they have proven they are lapdogs who will roll over when the administration tells them to.
 
I did uncover where she spent her childhood:

gallery-msg-125479079813-3.jpg


Probably means she'll be called out for suggesting people to "bite my nosehair."
 
Not really sold on this pick. Who knows what she's going to do. There have been some serious missteps lately, Supreme Court is in a rebuilding mode, and what the team needs is a young knock-it-out-of-the-park capital L Liberal.

Privately, conservatives have to be happy, they get to put on a bitch and moan show plus they get a judge that we really don't know much about. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']Activist like allowing corporations the same rights as humans. How long do we have to wait before they get their 2nd Amendment rights through private armies?[/QUOTE]

I'm totally waiting on that. Shadowrun for the win.

...

Regarding the topic on hand, the victor receives the spoils of war. All of the "liberal" should consider stepping down so they can be replaced with < 50 year old women.
 
Kagan wrote in 1995 that its complete bullshit that SCOTUS nominees don't answer any questions, and the whole thing is a dog and pony show. I think she used the word 'farce'.

She is now doing a complete 180 (or in Knoell's world it would be a 360.) Biden's Chief of Staff was saying she is reversing her 95 position, basically admitting she won't be answering questions.

She believes that 'battlefield law' e.g. indefinite detention without a trial could apply outside a traditional battlefield. This is a GWB position.

Would people here agree that if GWB appointed someone like this liberals would be going batshit? I heart double standards.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']What does it matter if she's gay or not?IF she is then she isn't saying anything because she knows better.She knows about the dumbasses in this country who would somehow hold that against her. As if being gay somehow makes someone unqualified to be a judge.[/QUOTE]

It only matters when she makes it an issue. If she says it before the hearings/vote, she'll get pulled. If she says it after a confirmation, hell will be unleashed.

Either way, Republicans can make another ad testifying about how Obama (and democrats) is lying to, and out of touch with the country, and for the most part, it will work.
 
The cons here and in general have a consistent focus on what will "work" for them (looking at you ram), what would work for the country or what works with basic human decency never comes into the picture.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Attack ads in general work. You can deny it all you want, but they do.[/QUOTE]

I am not denying the ability of cons to make hay out of almost anything.

I am not denying cons aren't able to win a few elections here and there throwing red meat to their turnip brained followers.

I just wish they were able to talk (or even think about) policy let alone govern.
 
bread's done
Back
Top