Elena Kagan most likely to be new SCOTUS Justice

Karalysia

Deity
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
8,438
WASHINGTON — 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/politics/10court.html?hp

This is highly disappointing. Obama chooses a conservative over a liberal like Diana Wood. Grow some balls Obama learn to fight the Republicans.
 
I think he's saving Wood and the rest for his (hopeful) second term, when Scalia and Kennedy will die/retire. Kagan isn't really all that conservative (there are many reasons for continuing the Bush-era policies besides believing that they are right or legal), and by appointing Kagan breaks the frankly incestuous nature of the Supreme Court: all of the current justices were previously federal judges, which makes the court even more out-of-touch than it should be. People tend to forget that it wasn't until quite recently that justices typically came from the lower federal benches; for instance, the court in 1954 (the one that decided Brown v. Board) contained precisely one justice (Sherman Minton) out of nine who had previously been a federal judge.

Besides, replacing Stevens won't do very much to change the balance of the Court.
 
Obama hasn't shown himself to be willing to fight hard for liberal goals. In his second term there's no guarantee that there will be a Democratic controlled Congress, really right now is when he has his political capital, sure he's spent a lot of it on the weak healthcare bill but he still has influence as long as the Democrats control majorities in Congress and he might as well use it. The only thing Kagan has going for her is her support for gay rights.

When Obama is in his second term I get the feeling he's saving Garland whose far right so he'll have a safe bet. Kagan is fairly conservative, particularly her support for strong executive government to the detriment of civil rights and she's supported by a lot of conservatives and Republicans. Hell Coburn voted for her, frankly if she's supported by Republicans I don't want her. She could shift the court to the right.

Diane Wood had better qualifications, was more liberal, and showed abality to form consensus with coservatives which would have been vital in the current set up of SCOTUS.
 
“I am fully prepared to argue, consistent with Supreme Court precedents, that the death penalty is constitutional.”

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’”

“It seems now utterly wrong to me to say that religious organizations generally should be precluded from receiving funds for providing the kinds of services contemplated by the Adolescent Family Life Act.”

“There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

-Elena Kagan
 
Without doing extensive research, she looks like a good pick as a fair-minded person suitable for the court.
 
^^ Exactly what I'm talking about.

People on the right like her because she's a conservative. This is intolerable, Obama has really screwed up badly on this one.
 
“I am fully prepared to argue, consistent with Supreme Court precedents, that the death penalty is constitutional.”

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’”

“It seems now utterly wrong to me to say that religious organizations generally should be precluded from receiving funds for providing the kinds of services contemplated by the Adolescent Family Life Act.”

“There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

-Elena Kagan

I'm not seeing a particular problem with any of those, really. The first and last one are just true statements about the constitution without saying "I support the death penalty" or "I oppose same-sex marriage". Consistent with the constitution means neither "mandatory" nor "a good idea".

The second one is very mainstream for an American. The third, with the key word "generally", is likewise sensible.
 
yeah, I'm not seeing it either. She seems to be a moderate /liberal pick. Many Reps voted to confirm her as Sol. Gen. in 2009. Plus. I'm going to guess that some of those quotes were parts of larger documents, and I wonder if they're from her stint as Sol. Gen.

I do not see how Obama so fouled up here
 
In any case, the word out on the street is that she will be an activist judge, making decisions based on her own belief system rather than on the constitution.
 
First gay justice? Will this be an issue?
 
First gay justice? Will this be an issue?

Well, that is a rumor... probably exposes the underlying biases of the person who started the rumor, that an ugly chick with a short haircut is automatically a lesbian.
 
Well, that is a rumor... probably exposes the underlying biases of the person who started the rumor, that an ugly chick with a short haircut is automatically a lesbian.

I read she had a long time partner at Harvard and was relatively open but not officially out I guess. I of course have no idea but I just wonder how it will play politically if true.
 
In any case, the word out on the street is that she will be an activist judge, making decisions based on her own belief system rather than on the constitution.

Does the street have any basis upon which to justify this word?
 
If they did, it wouldn't be the 'street'.
 
Seriously, what is it about femaile US government officials and being ugly as sin? Its like in order to get above GS13 you have to hack off all your hair and put on 50 pounds.
 
I'm not particularly happy with her. I would have liked to see a real liberal judge nominated to the seat that since 1916 has only been held by three people: Louis Brandeis, William O. Douglas, and John Paul Stevens.

She's quite pro-executive branch, which I think doesn't need any more representation on the Court. There's also quite a bit of evidence that she's pro-corporate power, which is strange given Obama's very public condemnation of Citizens United. Of course, public condemnations don't really mean anything if you're just going to appoint justices who agree with the decisions anyway.*

One interesting note is that she wrote an article criticizing the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justices, specifically noting that nominees should be pushed to answer specific questions about issues that the Court might face. I'm sure a few Senators will be happy to confront her with herself if she decides to stonewall them on those types of questions.

But who knows? She has no judicial track record, and when faced with the responsibility to decide cases that will affect millions of people, she might take another approach. It's very hard to predict what kind of justice she'll be.

Cleo

*Cf. basically the entire Obama administration so far.
 
First openly gay justice is a first. That's cool I guess. Not too excited with her in general though.

Not digging the whole Harvard Yale monopoly but that seems to be the way of the world.

Wake me up when we replace Kennedy.
 
Do any of you legal types want to comment on the Havard/Yale takeover of the court? Does that raise any eyebrows in your circles?
 
Do any of you legal types want to comment on the Havard/Yale takeover of the court? Does that raise any eyebrows in your circles?

I think it's stupid, but I think most "where'd you go to school" stuff is stupid. I know idiots* who went to top schools, and I know brilliant people who didn't go to college (brilliant people, by the way, who I'm convinced would make better lawyers than some of those graduates of top schools).

The legal profession, I think, attracts people more concerned with prestige than the normal population, so there is probably less concern about the issue among lawyers. They'd take it as self-evident that the Supreme Court Justices went to Harvard and Yale (and Chicago and Stanford), since those are the "best" schools. When in reality, of course, it was very different not so long ago. Like many things.

Cleo

*Note that I do not mean to suggest that Elena Kagan is an idiot. By all accounts she's very, very smart.
 
Top Bottom