Patterico's Pontifications

5/9/2010

Justice Kagan?

Filed under: Judiciary,Obama — DRJ @ 7:53 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Via the Instapundit, NBC says President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee will be Elena Kagan.

— DRJ

37 Responses to “Justice Kagan?”

  1. Amusingly, CNN is reporting that NBC News broke the story on Kagan yet the CNN anchor has to check-in with ‘the best political team on television’ (namely themselves.) Knowing NBC News scooped the ‘best political team on television,’ all 782 CNN viewers chucked.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/9/2010 @ 8:05 pm

  2. Hmm…the cypher president picking a judicial nominee with no judicial record to examine. Somehow that makes sense in a sad, sad kind of way.

    MunDane (54a83b) — 5/9/2010 @ 8:05 pm

  3. I wonder why MSNBC got this scoop?

    DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/9/2010 @ 8:13 pm

  4. Well, whether it’s a sure thing, I always assumed that at 49 and the youngest of those believed to be in contention she might get it–for that reason. At her age, barring unforeseen circumstances, she could sit on and influence the court for 35-40 years.

    elissa (7c69ad) — 5/9/2010 @ 8:21 pm

  5. I wonder why MSNBC got this scoop?

    since they spend their days dog paddling around the top of the septic tank, they have first shot at the floaters.

    redc1c4 (fb8750) — 5/9/2010 @ 9:24 pm

  6. As a conservative, an opponent of judicial activism, and a Republican, I’m more pleased with the selection of Kagan than I would have been with any of the other three who were supposedly on the short list.

    Obama will get his nomination confirmed. But there will be much good discussion in the process of whether it’s in the public interest to pick presidents who pick Justices like Kagan: a career academic administrator (administratrix? that sounds kinda kinky), another “Harvard” type, someone who’s almost never actually practiced law, someone who until the past year had never had responsibility for a big case or even argued a big appeal, someone whose academic prowess is modest, but someone who can be convincingly shown to be deeply, deeply seeped in the partisan identity politics of the Democratic Party.

    As with Sotomayor, I think Obama has missed a chance for strategic gains and, in that sense, wasted another nomination. She will vote the Leftie statist position as reliably as Stevens did, and she’ll do it for a long time. But I don’t think she’s going to influence other Justices much, including the uniquely situated Mr. Justice Kennedy.

    Beldar (a33a2a) — 5/9/2010 @ 9:26 pm

  7. To clarify: I don’t think she (or any of the other short-listers) is ever going to promote politically conservative principles, judicial restraint, or Republican politics; in my own capacity, though, in which those things are important to me, I’m mildly gratified at Kagan’s selection because I think she will be less effective at opposing these things that I cherish than others on Obama’s short list might have been (especially Judge Wood).

    Beldar (a33a2a) — 5/9/2010 @ 9:31 pm

  8. ” someone who’s almost never actually practiced law, someone who until the past year had never had responsibility for a big case or even argued a big appeal, someone whose academic prowess is modest, but someone who can be convincingly shown to be deeply, deeply seeped in the partisan identity politics of the Democratic Party”

    Pretty much describes Barry…

    gazzer (7588eb) — 5/9/2010 @ 10:12 pm

  9. I pretty much agree with Beldar, except I’d call her position Statist(left) instead of Leftie statist. In much the same way that Scalia is Statist(right), and Thomas isn’t.

    Kevin Murphy (5ae73e) — 5/9/2010 @ 11:03 pm

  10. I don’t think lesbians should be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    nk (db4a41) — 5/10/2010 @ 12:05 am

  11. She’s one of those moderates who carefully hide her views. As an academic, she’s barely published, too. I don’t think someone is moderate if they have put that much energy into hiding how they feel about things… and in a few years I doubt anyone thinks Kagan is a moderate.

    She is the moderate choice, which is as sure an indictment of our Senate as I have ever heard. How can a person who has no judicial experience preside over our judicial system, at the top, with a lifetime appointment? How does she know she even wants to do that? How will the courts deal with her interacting with them about things she should be the expert on… but has never done?

    But because she kept her mouth shut for all these years, she’s the smart, easy to confirm choice. But we know from her rare lapses that she has very strong views. Our lack of awareness of those views is like a dealer shredding a carfax before you read it, pointing to the worse one on Dianne Woods as proof no insight is better than tons.

    Dustin (b54cdc) — 5/10/2010 @ 12:28 am

  12. Did anyone else get the feeling that it was a smokescreen when word was floated that Obama might pick someone from the world of politics instead of from the usual academic/judiciary nexus? This Administration is turning so predictable that it is surprising that anyone still falls for their various feints.

    JVW (08e86a) — 5/10/2010 @ 12:50 am

  13. This is defing moment. Will any Senator, Republican or Democrat, have the testicular fortitude to say “No Supreme Court Justice whose brain is ‘wired differently'”?

    nk (db4a41) — 5/10/2010 @ 1:34 am

  14. *defining* moment Or, *defying* moment

    nk (db4a41) — 5/10/2010 @ 1:36 am

  15. nk, if her brain is “wired different” than Ginsburg’s, that is a good thing. Our favorite lefty editorialist, Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com, is bitching that she will swing the court to the right — because compared to the leftist Stevens she is relatively centrist.

    More disturbing is the way in which the AP, within their story about Kagan’s likely nomination, characterizes the SCOTUS as a body:

    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.

    — By “life and death” I’m sure they meant Roe v. Wade. [Is there any tally on how many death penalty cases the court has actually chosen to hear over the years? I’m thinking that the number is low.]

    Icy Texan (15edd3) — 5/10/2010 @ 2:00 am

  16. Call me an elitist, but the Supremes are our rulers, and I want them to be from the ruling class. Not from the fringe.

    nk (db4a41) — 5/10/2010 @ 2:27 am

  17. And I thought we were only supposed to have just one Jewish seat.

    nk (db4a41) — 5/10/2010 @ 2:33 am

  18. The number of death penalty cases is relatively small but the impact of those few decisions is very large. There are three kinds of law in Ameica: Law, First Amendment cases, and death penalty cases.

    nk (db4a41) — 5/10/2010 @ 2:36 am

  19. Gahh, I misspelled “America”. Damn new laptop.

    nk (db4a41) — 5/10/2010 @ 2:39 am

  20. yeah, to excuse my misspelling I buy a new one every few months 🙂

    EricPWJohnson (554c4e) — 5/10/2010 @ 2:57 am

  21. The SCOTUS are not our “rulers”, nk; nor should their makeup be divided among strict demographic lines. 51% of the U.S. population is female; are 5 out of 9 justices female? No. The population is 1% Jewish; should the SCOTUS therefore be Jew-free? Of course not. Catholics make up 24% of the population, but 5 out of 9 justices are Catholic — problem? If Kagan is confirmed, NONE of the justices will be protestant; but 52% of the country is protestant! Problem?

    Of course not. Decisions are not, despite all of the rhetoric in the world, dictated along strict demographic lines. Gays make up what? 3% of the population? And Kagan is allegedly gay. So what? If she’s to the right of Stevens I say it’s one of Bee Ho’s better moves.

    Icy Texan (15edd3) — 5/10/2010 @ 3:00 am

  22. EPWJ, it might be the alcohol talking, but you’ve provided me with one of the better laughs I’ve had for months. 😉

    Icy Texan (15edd3) — 5/10/2010 @ 3:05 am

  23. ICET

    Well they just dont make laptops that can hit a wall like they used too…

    EricPWJohnson (554c4e) — 5/10/2010 @ 4:33 am

  24. Dim Won has finally found the bottom of the barrel, a Supreme Court nominee with no judicial experience and scant political experience. Obama sets low expectation, and then fails to meet them.

    DavidL (e74857) — 5/10/2010 @ 4:38 am

  25. Theoretical College professors making life changing decisions – now in all three branches of government – It could be worse – we could be facing increasing terrorism, global market uneasiness and on of the deepest recessions in history with the added benefit of the highest deficits and unemployment in history

    EricPWJohnson (554c4e) — 5/10/2010 @ 4:46 am

  26. damn new laptops now interfering with grammer

    EricPWJohnson (554c4e) — 5/10/2010 @ 4:47 am

  27. Can’t wait to read all Kagan’s judicial decisions can you? What? She’s never been a judge? Oh well, Obama was never a President and that’s worked out really, really well hasn’t it?

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    cedarhill (77b72d) — 5/10/2010 @ 4:48 am

  28. Some of my best friends are Jewish or gay. 😉

    By the “one Jewish seat” I meant the custom started with Brandeis and continued by every President making Supreme Court appointments since. I did not make up the phrase — I read it.

    nk (db4a41) — 5/10/2010 @ 5:47 am

  29. She hasn’t even been a traffic court judge.

    Neo (7830e6) — 5/10/2010 @ 5:54 am

  30. We should have seen it coming. Solicitor General is the pathway to the Supreme Court.

    nk (db4a41) — 5/10/2010 @ 6:45 am

  31. For reference only, there have been quite a few SCOTUS justices without prior judicial experience, most recently, Rehnquist. Link to list below.

    http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

    elissa (71e6a7) — 5/10/2010 @ 6:53 am

  32. Several years ago I heard Jan Crawford (then Greenberg) speak. She made a point which has stuck with me. SCOTUS justices who have lived a rich life apart from the closed “legal and judicial community” may bring better instincts and insights for service on the high court. That is, just for example, someone who has litigated for/against a small business or corporation, or has served as the governor of a state, or as a legislator, is perhaps better positioned to understand how the court’s rulings affect economies and real people and their lives.

    Personally, Kagan’s lifetime in east coast academia concerns me much, much more than her not having been a judge.

    elissa (71e6a7) — 5/10/2010 @ 7:17 am

  33. Harriet Miers changed her name.

    The Dana who remembers (3e4784) — 5/10/2010 @ 7:42 am

  34. #10, nk, I’m not so much concerned about Kagan’s unnatural proclivities (I certainly won’t ask if she won’t tell, and I’d turn my head and change direction rather than walk behind her) however, I’m opposed to Kagan’s confirmation on aesthetic grounds: the woman bears an unsettling resemblance to Nikita Khrushchev.

    ropelight (a91bd1) — 5/10/2010 @ 8:57 am

  35. Kagan = Harriet Meyers

    If one wasn’t fit for the court because of lack of bench experience, neither is Kagan.

    PCD (1d8b6d) — 5/10/2010 @ 11:28 am

  36. Comment by MunDane — 5/9/2010 @ 8:05 pm

    And, an academic who has virtually a non-existant paper-trail on anything.

    AD - RtR/OS! (321c7a) — 5/10/2010 @ 11:59 am

  37. Miers v. Kagan…
    Somehow I think that Ms.Miers has a greater breadth of experience than does Ms.Kagan; and, that other than being appointed by a nominal conservative, she would not have been opposed by the President’s base, and would have won confirmation.

    AD - RtR/OS! (321c7a) — 5/10/2010 @ 12:07 pm


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0783 secs.