Kagan gets SCOTUS appointment

posted at 8:48 am on May 10, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The only surprises in the leak that Barack Obama will appoint Elana Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court were the timing and target of the leak.  In retrospect, giving the leak to NBC shouldn’t really surprise anyone, considering how determined its cable network has been to act as Obama’s apologist channel:

President Barack Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, positioning the court to have three female justices for the first time, NBC News reported late Sunday.

Kagan served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009. She was widely viewed as a front-runner when Obama was considering candidates for a Supreme Court opening last year, but the president ultimately chose Sonia Sotomayor for the job.

At 50 years old, Kagan would be the youngest justice on the court, one of many factors working in her favor. She has the chance to extend Obama’s legacy for a generation.

The timing seems less explicable.  The late-Sunday leak gets the White House almost nothing it could have had with an early-Monday leak, and it missed the opportunity of pre-empting the Sunday talk shows’ focus on the Times Square bomber and the Gulf oil spill, two narratives that don’t play well for the administration.  Instead, the news broke when most people weren’t paying attention at all — not quite as bad as a Friday afternoon document dump, since it would just make it in time for the Monday morning newspapers, but pretty close to the famous bad-news strategy every administration employs.

Is the White House that embarrassed by the choice of Kagan?  She has no experience as a judge, and little as a private-sector attorney, either.  Kagan has spent most of her career as an academic, spending six years as Dean of the Harvard Law School — giving the court yet another Harvard connection when people have been questioning Harvard and Yale exclusivity on the Supreme Court.  For the past fifteen months, Kagan has served as Solicitor General, the Obama administration’s representative to the Supreme Court, but that experience seems rather thin as well. One might have expected someone who hadn’t served as a judge to spend at least several years arguing cases before the Court prior to getting appointed to it.

For “the most transparent administration in history,” Kagan has a very thin paper trail to give clues to her beliefs.  She has not published much — a rarity among Harvard Law deans — which Ed Whelan argues doesn’t meet Kagan’s own standards for Supreme Court justices.

What does all this mean?  It signals that the White House doesn’t want a big fight over a Supreme Court confirmation.  They don’t want to appoint someone with a track record of judicial activism or a record of strong political advocacy.  Obama wants a stealth candidate, someone who can win a relatively quick confirmation battle.  Of the names floated by the White House after Stevens’ retirement, Kagan attracted the least amount of public opposition.

Will they get a quick and painless confirmation?  Republicans may feel that Kagan was the least problematic of the available choices.  She is perceived, at the moment, as a moderate liberal, but that may not necessarily be the case when Kagan starts deciding cases.  Her position on keeping military recruiters off of college campuses certainly paints a different picture of those politics:

Beginning in 2004, Kagan changed established Harvard policy and barred recruiters from the school’s career center. The Pentagon responded by invoking the Solomon Amendment, a 1994 law that explicitly requires universities that receive federal funding to allow military representatives at least as much access to campus as any other group. With Harvard’s $400 million in annual grants on the line, Kagan was forced to surrender.

But she kept fighting. Kagan and the university filed an amicus brief arguing that Harvard’s policy did not amount to discrimination against the military. The university, claimed the brief, does “not single out military recruiters for disfavored treatment: Military recruiters are subject to exactly the same terms and conditions of access as every other employer.”

Kagan has since claimed she was merely representing Harvard’s institutional view on the matter. Yet the brief includes a footnote that she signed in her capacity as a professor, not as dean.

Either way, the Supreme Court was not impressed. Not only did the justices dismiss Kagan’s arguments, not a single liberal on the court offered a word of support. Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and John Paul Stevens (the man Kagan would replace), all agreed with the majority decision written by Chief Justice Roberts.

Kagan may have had a sterling reputation as a law school dean, but as a jurist, she’s a mediocrity simply on the basis that she has no experience at all in that position.  There is an argument to be made to appoint people outside of the realm of judges to the Supreme Court to get real-world perspective (the Constitution doesn’t require that an appointee be an attorney, let alone a judge), but very few people would look at Kagan’s career as anything but academic and insider politics.  While Kagan may be the least objectionable of Obama’s potential appointees, the truth is that she’s a lot like Obama — an academic with no experience for the position she seeks, with a profound lack of intellectual work in her CV.  Republicans who oppose Kagan should focus on those shortcomings.

Will there be any massive push against Kagan?  I’m betting she’ll get around 70-75 votes for confirmation despite these shortfalls.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Large, hopefully,not in charge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 8:51 AM

She ain’t Cass Sunstein. That’s a good thing.

Mr. D on May 10, 2010 at 8:52 AM

with no experience for the position she seeks

Experience qualifications for the SC:

1) The ability to read.
2) The ability to write.

Don’t know much about her, but I’m 100% positive it could have been worse.

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 10, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Oh, goody. Another opportunity for Graham to ask tough, probing questions, then lick her feet and lap up some toe jam.

SKYFOX on May 10, 2010 at 8:52 AM

I look forward to someone asking her if she objected to “Don’t ask, don’t tell” when she was working in the Clinton administration.

DADT didn’t bother her there, but it did when she was a dean at a politically correct law school.

Wethal on May 10, 2010 at 8:53 AM

Why won’t it be like Bush’s pick. Does his own party really have so little spine.

tomas on May 10, 2010 at 8:53 AM

That’s a MAN, baby!

rockbend on May 10, 2010 at 8:54 AM

She was also an advisor to Goldman Sachs. The disclosure statement on that should be interesting reading.

Wethal on May 10, 2010 at 8:54 AM

Oh, now there’s an attractive picture.
She kind of looks like a younger Helen Thomas in that one.

ORconservative on May 10, 2010 at 8:55 AM

Her, uh, lifestyle might have more of an impact on any rulings regarding, say, gays in the military than the constitution might have.

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 8:56 AM

I call this a win for everyone. I mean look at the raving moonbat that she is replacing. IMO she couldn’t be any worse.

Johnnyreb on May 10, 2010 at 8:57 AM

She was also an advisor to Goldman Sachs. The disclosure statement on that should be interesting reading.

Wethal on May 10, 2010 at 8:54 AM

How nice … the same Goldman Sachs now heavily invested in the carbon trading scam?

Wonderful.

darwin on May 10, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Not filibustering her is one thing. Voting for her is another. I doubt she gets 70 votes. But those RINOs who do vote for her need not ask for any money from me.

WannabeAnglican on May 10, 2010 at 8:58 AM

I call this a win for everyone. I mean look at the raving moonbat that she is replacing. IMO she couldn’t be any worse.

Johnnyreb on May 10, 2010 at 8:57 AM

She has no experience as a judge. We have no idea how radical she could be on the bench.

darwin on May 10, 2010 at 8:58 AM

According to the AP, she is completely qualified.

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, and now first in Obama’s mind to succeed legendary liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.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.

Kagan came to the fore as a candidate who had worked closely with all three branches of government, a legal mind with both a sense of modesty and sense of humor. The source spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss factors that led to Kagan’s impending nomination.

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. Her standing has risen in Obama’s eyes as his government’s lawyer before the high court over the last year.

Yet Kagan 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.

txag92 on May 10, 2010 at 8:59 AM

She’s 50……so she’s going to be on the court for possibly 35 years.

GOP caves to any real attempt to oppose nomination in 5……4……3…..


Anyone know if she’s a RADICAL gay activist or can we just assume that if the Destroyer appoints her she is?
Never mind, I answer my own question.

PappyD61 on May 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Other then that she’s pretty “Butchy” looking.

b1jetmech on May 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Why are most liberal women so awfully unattractive? I’m not drop dead gorgeous by any stretch of the imagination but at least I know what a feminine haircut, makeup and a dress are.

gophergirl on May 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Her, uh, lifestyle might have more of an impact on any rulings regarding, say, gays in the military than the constitution might have.

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Yeah … funny how we expect our Justices to rule objectively, based on the Constitution, and not because of their “lifestyle”.

darwin on May 10, 2010 at 9:01 AM

bringing together people of competing views

To get her peers to rule for the RADICAL position?

PappyD61 on May 10, 2010 at 9:02 AM

I’m not drop dead gorgeous by any stretch of the imagination but at least I know what a feminine haircut, makeup and a dress are.

gophergirl on May 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM

let me be the judge of that.

blatantblue on May 10, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Kagan can definitely extend Obama’s legacy out to 35 years…anyone up for it???

b1jetmech on May 10, 2010 at 9:03 AM

If he/she/it isn’t half way through a sex change operation, maybe he/she/it is the result of one that failed.
I’d know I was in the wrong bar if I came in and saw that.

Cybergeezer on May 10, 2010 at 9:03 AM

No judicial experience? That makes her as qualified as Obama is for his job.

kingsjester on May 10, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Why are most liberal women so awfully unattractive? I’m not drop dead gorgeous by any stretch of the imagination but at least I know what a feminine haircut, makeup and a dress are.

gophergirl on May 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Feminine? I think you may have put your finger on the problem.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 10, 2010 at 9:04 AM

who’s smart idea was it to impose lifetime membership to the court?

blatantblue on May 10, 2010 at 9:04 AM

rockbend on May 10, 2010 at 8:54 AM
b1jetmech on May 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Stop.

Abby Adams on May 10, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Well,do tell!!!
========================================

Dean Kagan accepts award from Equal Justice Works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJsh7O8z3s

=================================================
=================================================
The Mission/

The mission of Equal Justice Works is to create a just society by mobilizing the next generation of lawyers committed to equal justice.
=================================

http://www.equaljusticeworks.org/about/mission

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Look… They should approve her quickly unless she is unqualified. If she is a weak Justice then that will be a blessing to the country.

al sends

afterdarknesslight on May 10, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Why are most liberal women so awfully unattractive? I’m not drop dead gorgeous by any stretch of the imagination but at least I know what a feminine haircut, makeup and a dress are.

gophergirl on May 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Her and Janet Reno do fall into a “certain” category. Maybe they both their boxer shorts from the same store.

b1jetmech on May 10, 2010 at 9:06 AM

There is an argument to be made to appoint people outside of the realm of judges to the Supreme Court to get real-world perspective (the Constitution doesn’t require that an appointee be an attorney, let alone a judge), but very few people would look at Kagan’s career as anything but academic and insider politics.

The Tea Party People, (of which I’m one) should have a double duty fit over this elitist choice for a SCOTUS appointee.

Have the citizens of this country not had enough of this inside the beltway nonsense?

No, I didn’t expect anything more from our ? in chief, but I and millions of other citizens EXPECT more and we should EXPECT to get it.

2012 can’t come soon enough!

donh525 on May 10, 2010 at 9:06 AM

Just what we need, another leftist academic bureaucrat. Oh well, nowadays we’re grateful she’s not a card carrying communist.

petefrt on May 10, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Didn’t Obama want someone with real world experience? This woman’s only employer has been the government. She is an NYC native and graduated from Harvard Law School. Sounds like a lot of real world experience to me…..

She’s probably one of those liberals who’s never set food in flyover country. She probably sneers at people that don’t have an Ivy league education, like most cocktail party liberals.

This is a far worse choice than Sotomayor……

nazo311 on May 10, 2010 at 9:07 AM

I realize that I’m looking past this nomination, but I’m guessing that Ginsburg is the next to go. I do hope that she hangs in there until after the November elections sweep in a few more GOP senators. Maybe then, the GOP can bottleneck Obama’s nomination of anyone farther left than Kagan and Sotomayor.

I have to say, when Obama got elected, I saw Dems as I saw the Dallas Cowboys with all those first-round draft picks they received years ago from the Herschel Walker trade. But rather than picking the likes of Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith, Obama has started off with Sotomayor and Kagan. So far, no one to match the intellectual horsepower of the conservatives.

BTW: what’s the orientation of Sotomayor? Will Kagan, if appointed, give us a second lesbian?

BuckeyeSam on May 10, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Academics rarely dress stylistically or attractively.

I’ll never forget walking around the linguistics department at my old university. Dear Lord. I’ve never seen such a large group of fashionably inept people in my life.

Every male had khakis two sizes too big, white sneakers, and thick rimmed glasses. Not to mention the wacky, long, unkept hair and beards.

The women all had their hair in horrid ponytails and jeans that didn’t fit. Or awful pant suits. Or horrible Kaganesque hair cuts

…..makes my skin crawl.

blatantblue on May 10, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Hey, I think Kevin James looks nice in earrings.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on May 10, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Stop.

Abby Adams on May 10, 2010 at 9:04 AM

STOP the liberal madness that is destroying our country!

b1jetmech on May 10, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Now that Obama has had his Katrina moment, now it’s time for his Harriet Myers moment.

EMD on May 10, 2010 at 9:08 AM

So,another Liberal Progressive for Social Justice!!

I wonder how she would vote on Immigration!!

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Ugh – Need to fully investigate her “time served” at U of C and the other seditious miscreants infesting that place at the time. Once upon a time, Hyde Park might have been saved by a neutron bomb but only a scorched earth policy would suffice now.

MayorDaley on May 10, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Why are most liberal women so awfully unattractive? I’m not drop dead gorgeous by any stretch of the imagination but at least I know what a feminine haircut, makeup and a dress are.

gophergirl on May 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM

I have no idea. Liberal women tend to be predominately ugly. There are a handful of attractive ones, like Kirsten Powers and that chick Bill O’Reilly has on his show sometimes(I think her name is Leslie Marshall). But those are few and far between.

Doughboy on May 10, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Another academic with no experience. Look what that got us the last time it happened.

Kissmygrits on May 10, 2010 at 9:09 AM

I like how NBC’s Today Show was blaring this morning about “OBAMA’S HISTORIC SCOTUS PICK!”

Ummmm, being 4th is not historic.

Quick, name the 4th man on the moon or, hey, what about the 4th female astronaut for that matter.

Cuffy Meigs on May 10, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Cybergeezer on May 10, 2010 at 9:03 AM

That’s uncalled for.

Abby Adams on May 10, 2010 at 9:09 AM

…..makes my skin crawl.

blatantblue on May 10, 2010 at 9:07 AM

blatantblue:Shes a Pant Suit wearer!!!:)

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 9:10 AM

That’s uncalled for.
Abby Adams on May 10, 2010 at 9:09 AM

So was a POTUS using the term “Teabaggers”.

kingsjester on May 10, 2010 at 9:10 AM

I agree it could’ve been a much worse choice, but her tortured logic against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is still scary enough. The entire court didn’t even buy it and voted her down! This is the kind of reasoning that will now sit on the court?

I, too, beleive she’ll get 70-75 votes or more but now is the an opportunity to grade your GOP senators. Like NFL mini camp.

cartooner on May 10, 2010 at 9:11 AM

blatantblue on May 10, 2010 at 9:07 AM

It’s called “collectivist sheik”.

Fletch54 on May 10, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Another worthless idiot appointee by the incompetent and corrupt Obama “administration”.

Keep the ROTC out of Harvard?

Kick Harvard and this cretinous water buffalo out of the United States.

NoDonkey on May 10, 2010 at 9:12 AM

As you say, Kagan had a big role in the practice of denying military recruiters to college campuses, and the entire Supreme Court disagreed with that, making her far to the left of even Stevens.

I would really hope that, whether Kagan ultimately gets confirmed or not, GOP senators pin her to the wall on this issue. How can you be appropriate for the Supreme Court when you try to deny the volunteer military the right to seek volunteers? And why do I suspect Kagan would be far more comfortable with the draft, instead?

If you can’t even treat the basic institutions of government with their appopriate respect, why should we give you such a big role — and a lifetime appointment — in government?

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 10, 2010 at 9:13 AM

which Ed Whelan argues doesn’t meet Kagan’s own standards for Supreme Court justices.

“Silly Proles standards are for you!”

Caper29 on May 10, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Great. The worst of both worlds.

She’s likely defer to government on both civil liberties and regulatory and commerce issues.

Rae on May 10, 2010 at 9:14 AM

OK, when Sotomayor was named we were told that the GOP should hold its fire and wait for the next appointment. OK guys, here it is. Let’s see what happens. I say the GOP folds as usual. She’s a shoo-in.

ddrintn on May 10, 2010 at 9:14 AM

She makes me uneasy… and, frankly, it has little to do with the premise that she might be gay. Personal experience with driven female lawyers(gay or straight)has shown me that they are perpetually ‘on a mission’.The ones I have known are always looking to right some perceived wrong or other on many fronts, not just one of gender preference. These were like puppies with bones, shaking them every which way and refusing to let go in the face of anything, even solutions. They seem to have to perpetually prove something , mostly to themselves. I hope she is not of this mold.

jeanie on May 10, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Is the White House that embarrassed by the choice of Kagan? She has no experience as a judge, and little as a private-sector attorney, either.

She has as much experience as Obama.

Johan Klaus on May 10, 2010 at 9:15 AM

And why do I suspect Kagan would be far more comfortable with the draft, instead?

I’m sure she’s of the elite opinion that the military is uncecessary, as war is bad for children and other living things.

Her entire worldview could doubtlessly be summarized by a collection of 60s posters and liberal bumper stickers.

Utterly useless, stupid, jackass woman.

NoDonkey on May 10, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Oh, goody. Another opportunity for Graham to ask tough, probing questions, then lick her feet and lap up some toe jam.

SKYFOX on May 10, 2010 at 8:52 AM

I can’t wait to hear what thoughtful and informed questions Al Franken has to ask her.

BigWyo on May 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM

But what about her acting day job? Can she handle both?

iurockhead on May 10, 2010 at 9:17 AM

After what happen in Utah last week let’s see if the Rep in the Sen.now have the fear of God with the voters to stand up and not just say no.But Hell No to this left wing socialist women.

thmcbb on May 10, 2010 at 9:17 AM

who’s smart idea was it to impose lifetime membership to the court?

blatantblue on May 10, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Our nation’s founders. It’s a good thing to have one of the three branches independent of the public’s opinions & whims. To make tough & unpopular choices. What mitigates this is that the justices are appointed by an elected President & voted on by elected Senators.

itsnotaboutme on May 10, 2010 at 9:18 AM

So her opinions on the War on Terror and the Second Amendment aren’t worth mentioning, Ed?

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 9:18 AM

Paying too much attention to Kagan will ruin the chances of ending the reign of Nancy Pelosi in the House. A fight over social issues would inspire the Democrats, and we really need for them not to be inspired.

thuja on May 10, 2010 at 9:20 AM

This is going to be a socialist’s love fest in D.C. when she goes through confirmation. C’mon Scott Brown 41 and company, bork her.

Mojave Mark on May 10, 2010 at 9:21 AM

nazo311 on May 10, 2010 at 9:07 AM
Kissmygrits on May 10, 2010 at 9:09 AM

BINGO!

Abby – just tryin’ to understand here: any comments on her appearance are verboten but attacks on her lifestyle and lack of experience are OK?

rockbend on May 10, 2010 at 9:22 AM

Pardon me for being naive, but shouldn’t one have experience as a lower court judge before being appointed to the highest court in the land?

Even a traffic court judge has more experience than her in the judicial sense. And that’s a little weird.

mjk on May 10, 2010 at 9:23 AM

Lol! It does seem as if being generally quite unattractive is a necessary quality for being a woman Supreme Court member.

jeanie on May 10, 2010 at 9:24 AM

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 9:18 AM

On some of my hot button issues, she is actually a good pick. From just poking aorund a little this AM, she seems to be a better than I thought at first.

Johnnyreb on May 10, 2010 at 9:25 AM

A lot like her boss

Stop with gay smears ;-)

No Niks on May 10, 2010 at 9:25 AM

What is with Maobama’s fetish for Miss Jane fugly ducklings? Hillary, Big Sis, the wise latina, and now Kagan the Hutt. Is this a function of wifey telling him not to put up anyone who would outshine the ravenous Michele? Oh that’s right, they’re all Marxists. Duh.

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 9:26 AM

I, too, beleive she’ll get 70-75 votes or more but now is the an opportunity to grade your GOP senators. Like NFL mini camp.
cartooner on May 10, 2010 at 9:11 AM

One name. Sen. Bob Bennett. He’s already been graded. Failed!

Any more Republican senators want to join him?

This nominee has no standing to be on SCOTUS. It’s time to pick a fight and make a stand. Does the common man want to be ruled by an elite class or does he want representation on the court.

How the Republican senators vote on this will be determined by their constituency. Right now they are listening because of what happened to Bennett.

donh525 on May 10, 2010 at 9:26 AM

rockbend on May 10, 2010 at 9:22 AM

Lack of experience? Go all out. That’s perfectly alright.
“Her lifestyle” is only a rumor, and frankly, shouldn’t matter anyway.

But simply attacking her on looks is what the left does, and isn’t necessary. You can call her unattractive (because, well, she’s not perfect) but it’s the mean, spiteful, asshat comments that need to stop.

Abby Adams on May 10, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Why are most liberal women so awfully unattractive? I’m not drop dead gorgeous by any stretch of the imagination but at least I know what a feminine haircut, makeup and a dress are.

gophergirl on May 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Mirrors…Do liberal women own mirrors?

DJ from MA on May 10, 2010 at 9:27 AM

She has no experience as a judge, and little as a private-sector attorney, either.

OK seriously, I think that this argument is a little thin. She was a SCOTUS clerk as well, which is often considered the primary stepping stone for the court.

Scalia spent a big chunk of his career in academia and working in government before his fairly brief term on the DC Circuit, same with Thomas who spent most of his career in government before the 3rd circuit.

Sotomayor had a wealth of Judicial experience, but that was not good enough either. I dont like the idea of Obama appointing justices either, but we have not got 2 super radicals, it could have been alot worse. Even Bush f%^$ked this up, look at Alito.

Squid Shark on May 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Why are most liberal women so awfully unattractive? I’m not drop dead gorgeous by any stretch of the imagination but at least I know what a feminine haircut, makeup and a dress are.

gophergirl on May 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Haven’t you notice a pattern? Napolitano, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Because I’m not convinced of the competence of any of them for the roles Obama has been putting them in, I have to wonder whether his wife isn’t influencing the picks so that she remains the glam gal of DC. Meow.

BuckeyeSam on May 10, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Don’t think she’ll get 70. Probably lindsey, orrin, scott

cmsinaz on May 10, 2010 at 9:30 AM

What is with Maobama’s fetish for Miss Jane fugly ducklings? Hillary, Big Sis, the wise latina, and now Kagan the Hutt. Is this a function of wifey telling him not to put up anyone who would outshine the ravenous Michele? Oh that’s right, they’re all Marxists. Duh.

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 9:26 AM

Seriously? You are really bringing that card out.

The picking field for SCOTUS picks is not littered with lookers. Have you looked at Scalia lately? He is the best justice on the court, and probably the ugliest.

Squid Shark on May 10, 2010 at 9:30 AM

He is the best justice on the court, and probably the ugliest.

Squid Shark on May 10, 2010 at 9:30 AM

He looks better than Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

ddrintn on May 10, 2010 at 9:31 AM

I think it helps that she’s Jewish. Between Barack Obama’s diplomacy with Israel and Goldman Sachs being called on the carpet, the Jews could use a little more love from this administration. Two Jewish Supreme Court Justices is not enough. Three might be about right.

David Blue on May 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 9:26 AM

I’m really wondering what looks have to do with someone’s intelligence and how they will vote as a Supreme Court justice. Can someone explain the relevance?

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 9:34 AM

So basically under Obama everyone is qualified for everything… if they know which way to vote and/or can bring some money to the table. No experience necessary, just follow the directions handed to you and kick back some $$$. And whatever you do, don’t start thinking for yourself or get all technologified.

ray on May 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Nominating someone for the Supreme Court without any judicial experience makes her a perfect fit for this adminstration’s appointees.This continues to be one of the most educated of administrations and at the same time the most incompetent in our country’s history. Butch Kafan will carry on the traditions of Obuma long after his presidency is over, IF he ever leaves.

volsense on May 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM

I’m really wondering what looks have to do with someone’s intelligence and how they will vote as a Supreme Court justice. Can someone explain the relevance?

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 9:34 AM

It isn’t relevant.

ddrintn on May 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM

when people have been questioning Harvard and Yale exclusivity on the Supreme Court.

Not just the S.Ct. Also for cabinet members and presidents
Dear Liar – Harvard Law
W. – Yale undergrad, Harvard MBA
Clinton – Harvard Law
H.W. – Yale undergrad.

Previous guy – Eureka College. He did pretty darn well as president.

We need to get away from Harvard & Yale elites. Quite honestly, they aren’t just that good.

rbj on May 10, 2010 at 9:37 AM

I don’t like her for a number of reasons, but one that would definitely get me to oppose her: If she is a closeted Lesbian.

I have no objection from a rule-of-law basis against a homosexual justice, but if she or he is closeted, then No. No secret motivations.

raybury on May 10, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Related parody: Diversity Advocates Object to Obama’s Nomination of “Yet Another Total Dweeb” to the Supreme Court http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/05/diversity-advocates-object-to-obamas.html

Mervis Winter on May 10, 2010 at 9:37 AM

If he/she/it isn’t half way through a sex change operation, maybe he/she/it is the result of one that failed.
I’d know I was in the wrong bar if I came in and saw that.

Cybergeezer on May 10, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Cybergeezer: Heres some facts,jus try’n to help!!:)
========================================================
In a post for CBS written by Ben Domenech, who is also editor of The New Ledger, Kagan is described as President Barack Obama’s most likely choice. She’s also described as potentially the “first openly gay justice.”
===============================

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/elena-kagan-gay-rumor-whi_n_540143.html

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Sotomayor had a wealth of Judicial experience, but that was not good enough either. I dont like the idea of Obama appointing justices either, but we have not got 2 super radicals, it could have been alot worse. Even Bush f%^$ked this up, look at Alito.

Squid Shark on May 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM

This nation isn’t being changed by “super radical” decisions, but by baby steps to the left. The progressives are patient. They expect to get their way over time.

This appointee is definitely a progressive. Reason enough to oppose.

Alito is no progressive!

donh525 on May 10, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Honest Headlines

Lightweight Nominates “Light”weight

ray on May 10, 2010 at 9:39 AM

We need to get away from Harvard & Yale elites. Quite honestly, they aren’t just that good.

rbj on May 10, 2010 at 9:37 AM

You got it. And I imagine there are lots of them likewise steering quite a few media outlets into the ground.

ddrintn on May 10, 2010 at 9:39 AM

^ Although I’d probably have to include Columbia in that one.

ddrintn on May 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM

I’m really wondering what looks have to do with someone’s intelligence and how they will vote as a Supreme Court justice. Can someone explain the relevance?

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Hmm. What do looks have to do with anything? What is ethnic makeup on the Census if not a way to parse us out by “looks?” I have a question for you: What does bald political correctness have to do with someone’s intelligence?

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM

Haven’t you notice a pattern? Napolitano, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

BuckeyeSam on May 10, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Yeah, none of them have children or a husband. You could add Condi to the list (though she is attractive). Men can be dedicated to a career and find a wife to handle most of the childcare, but women seldom have that option.

dedalus on May 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM

O’bama is just preparing us for the next SCOTUS opening, when he will appoint crr6.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Alright, let’s leave the ‘fugly’ and ‘lesbian’ stuff aside, shall we? Does that have any relevance to whether she’s a good pick or not?

I’d like to think that my fellow conservatives have a bit more going on than a primary concern for her relative attractiveness and/or orientation.

Lefties will certainly love to point out that we’re overly concerned with those shallow and unserious things – are they right?

Midas on May 10, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Will there be any massive push against Kagan? I’m betting she’ll get around 70-75 votes for confirmation despite these shortfalls.

I’ll take the over, Ed. At least half the “Republican” caucus will ignore all the brickbats thrown at the last several nominees chosen by Republican Presidents and vote for her.

As for her views, I’ll wager that she subscribes to the Living Constitution Theory, with words/concepts enshrined by those who wrote that specific section/amendment discarded and words/concepts never considered by those who wrote any section/amendment deemed to be in the Constitution.

steveegg on May 10, 2010 at 9:45 AM

The timing seems less explicable. The late-Sunday leak gets the White House almost nothing it could have had with an early-Monday leak, and it missed the opportunity of pre-empting the Sunday talk shows’ focus on the Times Square bomber and the Gulf oil spill, two narratives that don’t play well for the administration.

after tying the coming leak to obama’s imaginary bad week, of course you find it inexplicable. perhaps because it’s only inside the conservative cocoon that the two narratives “don’t play well” for the administration.

sesquipedalian on May 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Well, she’s got about the same experience as former California GOP Governor Earl Warren. What could go wrong?

Mark30339 on May 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM

I think it helps that she’s Jewish. Between Barack Obama’s diplomacy with Israel and Goldman Sachs being called on the carpet, the Jews could use a little more love from this administration. Two Jewish Supreme Court Justices is not enough. Three might be about right.

David Blue on May 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Uh, they are about 2-3% of the US population. If anything the court needs more WASP’s.

This administration’s closest advisor’s are overwhelmingly Jewish – Axelrod, Emmanuel, Summer’s, on and on.

For goodness sakes, enough with the anti-Jewish facade.

True_King on May 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3