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

She’s also described as potentially the “first openly gay justice.”

Please, not before breakfast, this just created a horrible visual.

NoDonkey on May 10, 2010 at 9:47 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. 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.

If they announced it when it would get a lot of press, you’d accuse them of trying to “distract” from other stories. If they announced it when it would get little press, you’d accuse them of trying to hide the bad news. Is there a time that they could have announced it such that you wouldn’t have framed it in a bad way?

tneloms on May 10, 2010 at 9:47 AM

I do not care whether she has experience as a judge.

Can she interpret the Constitution and apply it to real life with common sense? Or will she look at the Leftist agenda and apply it to the Constitution?

Many an experienced judge has chosen the latter.

Who the hell is she and what does she think?

That’s what I want to know.

Saltysam on May 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

We don’t know what she’ll do as a judge.

blink on May 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM

Wow, what a great argument for nomination!

We better know all we can before confirmation and what I see so far isn’t encouraging.

Progressive, progressive, progressive….

donh525 on May 10, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Kissmygrits on May 10, 2010 at 9:09 AM

I was just thinking about what it has gotten us and what that could mean on the court. Consider how almost 18mos of Kagan’s no. 1 fan running this country has galvanized all of us who value limited government and the constitution. Look at what happened in Utah senate race- even RINO supporters are beginning to turn on the party’s status quo.

So, given this and how SCOTUS totally opposed her on that Harvard recruiter case, is it possible that Kagan will have the same affect on the the other judges- will she be so judically crass and mediocre to cause other judges to rediscover their love for Madison’s constitution and galvanize their will to vote down statists’ idea of law?

beselfish on May 10, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Justice Ginsburg is the happiest woman alive today.

She will now only be the 2nd ugliest member of SCOTUS.

angryed on May 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM

MEMO to GOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
========================

Elena Kagans nomination has to be torpedoed!!

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM

So that’s a “no, I can’t explain it, I just like ripping on the looks of anyone Obama nominates that isn’t more conservative than Scalia”?

Neither of these things means that she would vote this way if she was a justice.

As a lawyer, she was merely doing a job for her client, the Obama admin.

We don’t know what she’ll do as a judge.

blink on May 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM

…so exactly what are we supposed to base our opinions on, if not her own words? Stating that we don’t know what she’ll do as a judge, after basically stating you already know her intentions by claiming she’s doing Obama’s bidding, really tends to cause a contradiction.

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 9:51 AM

WAPO:

The president listed the qualities he will look for in a nominee: “an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.”

The selection of a professional Harvard academic with no judicial or private sector experience, and whose crowning legal achievement was being unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court is preposterous.

SlaveDog on May 10, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Dude…I would SO hit that.

LtE126 on May 10, 2010 at 9:52 AM

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Won’t happen. That would be anti-ghey and raaaaacist.

Fletch54 on May 10, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Saltysam we’ll never know if she clams up during the hearings. Despite her thoughts on judicial nominees being open and honest. Thank ginsburg for that.

cmsinaz on May 10, 2010 at 9:52 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

They don’t. If you are referring to my comment it was more of a general observation.

gophergirl on May 10, 2010 at 9:52 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

No she didn’t, and yes, she was a radical. You seem to have a short memory.

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 9:53 AM

She’s for the little guy.

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Going to get another enema, are we?

A progressive with no paper trail.

tarpon on May 10, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Our next Supreme Court Justice… Jabba The Kagan. I wonder how many cats she has?

SeLFMaDE on May 10, 2010 at 9:53 AM

volsense on May 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Really, so none of Obamas nominees have sufficient experience? Is that the new meme? Jesus, if you are going to attack the woman for her views, OK, but dont start making crap up.

Squid Shark on May 10, 2010 at 9:55 AM

… it’s only inside the conservative cocoon … sesquipedalian on May 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Says the lonely moth to the field of butterflies.

ray on May 10, 2010 at 9:55 AM

They don’t. If you are referring to my comment it was more of a general observation.

gophergirl on May 10, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Hopefully, general observations will continue to be allowed.

donh525 on May 10, 2010 at 9:56 AM

She’s a wise lesbina.

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 9:56 AM

After witnessing the destructive onslaught by the ogabe regime, some are willing to believe ogabe is going to nominate anything less than a destructive activist to the court?

Inanemergencydial on May 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM

No she didn’t, and yes, she was a radical. You seem to have a short memory.

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 9:53 AM

She has been on the right side on some issues which is all I really expected of her and she and Alito are the most judicially experienced appointees in years. And Alito is turning out poorly overall. IMO.

Squid Shark on May 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Yes, Obama’s nominees have had insufficient experience, mirroring their boss. Their poor performance is a reflection of this reality. That’s why the “O” has got to Go.

ray on May 10, 2010 at 9:58 AM

She’ll be a fine addition to the barackracy, a good barackrat.

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM

Another acadmic who has never worked in the private sector. Guess we will find out how she will adjudicate after we pass the bill.

Inanemergencydial on May 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM

And Alito is turning out poorly overall. IMO.

Squid Shark on May 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Did he run over you’re cat?

donh525 on May 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Dean Kagan….I’m confused….Dean is the ugly dude’s first name right?

Rayhummel on May 10, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Kagan’s entire career has been spent ping-ponging her way up the ladder of academic incompetence to reach the holy grail of “educational administration.” A brief stint in the Clinton White house as a lower-level advisor had to substitute for her lack of publications in even achieving tenure.

Somehow I’m not seeing anything that would make me think she has even the basic competence to be a Federal Judge, much less a Supreme Court Justice.

notropis on May 10, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Did he run over you’re cat?

donh525 on May 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Ha, nice one! I was starting to think he slept with the guy’s wife or something.

ray on May 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM

John Lovitz in drag.

Bobbertsan on May 10, 2010 at 10:05 AM

That’s what I want to know.

Saltysam on May 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

You can read all the books you want about fishing…it doesn’t mean you will catch a fish…you can read all you want about hitting a baseball, doesn’t mean you can play for the big leagues…you can read all the books on engineering, it doesn’t mean you can step out and build the city’s tallest building, or strongest bridge.
Experience means something, and she has none, only academic…she has lived in a make believe world, shielded by her contemporaries from the real world.
You or no one else has the slightest idea of how she will interpret the laws…except she will interpret them through her very narrow experience of being an academia, isolated, ivy league.
When a person presents a case to her, will she look at the evidence, or fit the evidence to her academics…no one knows because she has never, ever, faced that very basic and simple challenge…of discerning right from wrong from evidence.

right2bright on May 10, 2010 at 10:05 AM

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

Conservatives who fret about the interpretations of Leftists intent on destroying our Constitution are not much better than Leftists who worry what the arab street is thinking when they ask “why do they hate us.”

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Conservatives who fret about the interpretations of Leftists intent on destroying our Constitution are not much better than Leftists who worry what the arab street is thinking when they ask “why do they hate us.”

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 10:05 AM

I’m glad you care enough about the Constitution that you’re willing to rip on the looks of a SCOTUS candidate rather than waste time addressing her opinions and resume.

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 10:06 AM

And Alito is turning out poorly overall. IMO.

Squid Shark on May 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Based on what? His Stevens dissent?

Abby Adams on May 10, 2010 at 10:07 AM

As a general rule, any justice P.BO nominates will probably be either a doctrinaire Marxist or some kind of political pay-off.

Count to 10 on May 10, 2010 at 10:08 AM

This is a great day for Vagitarians everywhere!

SurferDoc on May 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM

She has been on the right side on some issues which is all I really expected of her and she and Alito are the most judicially experienced appointees in years. And Alito is turning out poorly overall. IMO.

Squid Shark on May 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Right side as in…what? Not being a dissenter in overwhelmingly one-sided decisions? And exactly how is Alito turning out poorly? He’s operating as a Constitutionalist.

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 10:05 AM

How morally equivalent of you.

Fletch54 on May 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Here is a copy of Kagan’s Senior Thesis from Princeton, 30 years ago. It provides some insight.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/elena_kagan_radical.asp

kingsjester on May 10, 2010 at 10:11 AM

From The Wall Street Journal:

“From 2005 to 2008, Ms. Kagan was a paid member of the Research Advisory Council of Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute.”

Emperor Norton on May 10, 2010 at 10:11 AM

As a general rule, any justice P.BO nominates will probably be either a doctrinaire Marxist or some kind of political pay-off.

Count to 10 on May 10, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Wasn’t she dean when Obama was attending classes there?

Johnnyreb on May 10, 2010 at 10:11 AM

While Kagan may be the least objectionable of Obama’s potential appointees, the truth is that she’s a lot like Obama

Which is quite convenient for her and the O team. We’ve seen what a radical, determined, inexperienced President can do, now a SCOTUS nominee in his likeness. And she’s only 50!

It’s bizarro world to nominate someone to the highest court with so little relevant experience and record, and have the WH frame it in “upbeat terms.”
(iPhone won’t paste; here’s long version)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

conservative pilgrim on May 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM

“Wasn’t she dean when Obama was attending classes there?

Johnnyreb on May 10, 2010 at 10:11 AM”

No, she’s only 50 years old. She became dean in about 2003 or so….

notropis on May 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM
==============================
Won’t happen. That would be anti-ghey and raaaaacist.

Fletch54 on May 10, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Fletch54:Well,I made sure that on zee gay part,it came from
LeftWing news source,HuffPuff!!:)

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM

I’m glad you care enough about the Constitution that you’re willing to rip on the looks of a SCOTUS candidate rather than waste time addressing her opinions and resume.

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 10:06 AM

I’m sorry, but ludicrous appointees like this from the left do not deserve our benefit of the doubt, our respect or even our sympathy. That train left the station ten years ago. They are to be attacked from every angle, to be mocked, despised, etc…

Today there is absolutely no negotiating with the left, especially anyone from the Obama camp. They are little more than terrorists with mostly non-violent methods.

ray on May 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM

Just a side note…isn’t there any good looking attorneys that qualify?
I know, I know, but why not have both? Do all women attorneys have to look like they just ate the defendant?

right2bright on May 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM

Conservatives who fret about the interpretations of Leftists intent on destroying our Constitution are not much better than Leftists who worry what the arab street is thinking when they ask “why do they hate us.”

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 10:05 AM

This is a joke, right? Right?

donh525 on May 10, 2010 at 10:15 AM

notropis on May 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Thanks, that rules out payback IMO.

Johnnyreb on May 10, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Emperor Norton on May 10, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Great….another one…good catch.

right2bright on May 10, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Obama better hope he doesn’t have many more imaginary bad weeks!

blink on May 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM

he had a pretty darn good week, including the jobs report and the pathetic attempts to resurrect the stillborn “obama’s katrina” meme.

sesquipedalian on May 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

sesquipedalian on May 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Heh. Good one.

Abby Adams on May 10, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Today there is absolutely no negotiating with the left, especially anyone from the Obama camp. They are little more than terrorists with mostly non-violent methods.

ray on May 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM

What does that have to do with insulting a woman’s looks? Would she be less terrorist-like if she were pretty, or would the insult then simply change to how being pretty means she’s stupid?

Esthier on May 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM

but very few people would look at Kagan’s career as anything but academic and insider politics.

…no judicial experience….no experience arguing cases on a high level:

http://michellemalkin.com/?frontpage=1&print=1
(via Michelle Malkin)

“Dean Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be concerning given her complete lack of judicial or appellate experience. She has never been a judge or even argued a case in a court of appeals. It is difficult to see how her experience fundraising for Harvard Law School qualifies her for a seat on the Nation’s high court.

….all she is or has done…is be a liberal activists.
The typical leftist standards of not needing any experience in the field you are supposed to be an “expert” in but an undying devotion to liberal ideology.
This nomination makes about as much sense as electing a President whose only accomplishments were of voting present over 130 times as a Senator,writing two books about yourself,and being a failed community organizer.

…well there is going to be one good positive about this nomination…I am going to absolutely enjoy watching liberals argue and praise a judicial nominee that fought so hard for the rights of indefinite detention ….
….going to be fun watching the “peace loving” crowd that screamed “war crimes” 24/7 now support and defend these policies…..

Baxter Greene on May 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Conservatives who fret about the interpretations of Leftists intent on destroying our Constitution are not much better than Leftists who worry what the arab street is thinking when they ask “why do they hate us.”

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 10:05 AM

I’m glad you care enough about the Constitution that you’re willing to rip on the looks of a SCOTUS candidate rather than waste time addressing her opinions and resume.

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Hello! What opinions? The woman is another of Maobama’s minted ciphers. She’s not a judge and hasn’t written anything anyone knows of. Other than her opposing Heller and advocating against military recruiters, WHERE ARE HER OPINIONS?

It seems you cant wrap your mind around the fact that it’s the liberals in this country who want to altogether eliminate qualifications from the deliberative process, which is why they put up these clowns. In light of this, what other criteria do you think they want the lumpen proles to zero in on?

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM

he had a pretty darn good week, including the jobs report and the pathetic attempts to resurrect the stillborn “obama’s katrina” meme.

sesquipedalian on May 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Uh huh. And those sure are some shiny golf clubs he has, too. Almost as pretty as Nero’s violin.

kingsjester on May 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM

I would easily take the most wrinkled, shriveled, ugly supreme court nominee so long as she didn’t keep making up ‘rights’ for the unproductive to steel from the productive.

Count to 10 on May 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Obama makes another mediocre, borderline incompetent choice. The MSM gives him another blowjob. Every week is a good week when the Press likes to suck your dick.

SurferDoc on May 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM

The selection of a professional Harvard academic with no judicial or private sector experience, and whose crowning legal achievement was being unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court is preposterous.

SlaveDog on May 10, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Obama……….

saiga on May 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM

She sounds like the little gorilla character Rosie played in the Tarzan cartoon.

Alden Pyle on May 10, 2010 at 10:22 AM

he had a pretty darn good week, including the jobs report and the pathetic attempts to resurrect the stillborn “obama’s katrina” meme.

sesquipedalian on May 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Whoa! Propaganda rules in alternate reality?

donh525 on May 10, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 9:56 AM

A wisegay?

NoDonkey on May 10, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Separated at birth: Elena Kagan and the late folk singer

Allan Sherman.

Emperor Norton on May 10, 2010 at 10:23 AM

I’m sorry, but ludicrous appointees like this from the left do not deserve our benefit of the doubt, our respect or even our sympathy. That train left the station ten years ago. They are to be attacked from every angle, to be mocked, despised, etc…

ray on May 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM

DemocraticRepublicanUnderground

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 10:23 AM

he had a pretty darn good week, including the jobs report and the pathetic attempts to resurrect the stillborn “obama’s katrina” meme.

sesquipedalian on May 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

yea because in liberal land,not acting fast enough to carry out disaster plans or having the equipment to carry them out while you are on vacation and yucking it up with leno is a sign of true leadership….

I bet now that Obama says Europe is a “country” liberals like sesquip here believe it is so.

Maybe Obama can come out and brag some more about his Health Care bill that was supposed to help the democrats out so much but instead they are running from it night and day.

….or condemn Arizona for putting forth the effort to enforce Immigration law that federal leaders like Obama won’t do but criticize while over 60% of the country supports it.

…yea,in liberal land Obama had a great week….the rest of the country that is based in reality…not so much.

Baxter Greene on May 10, 2010 at 10:26 AM

How morally equivalent of you.

Fletch54 on May 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM

This is a joke, right? Right?

donh525 on May 10, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Well, it wasn’t meant as a joke, but think about it. Who has done more damage to Conservatism and Constitutional Republicanism in the last 20 years–is it the radical leftist clown screaming for entitlements based on group victimology? Or is it the elected RINO (and RINO electorate) who walks on eggshells afraid to be called a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe and compromises on policy which waters down individual rights? It’s a little hard to pick, no? I’m not making a moral equivalence–just trying to show the worthless of spoils of Faustian bargain making.

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM

“he had a pretty darn good week, including the jobs report and the pathetic attempts to resurrect the stillborn “obama’s katrina” meme.

sesquipedalian on May 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM”

So he’s got that whole oil spill cleaned up? Great. Guess I missed it, here in my conservative cocoon. Because, if I were president, I wouldn’t consider it a very good week, if there were an impending natural catastrophe on my country’s shores, and my people couldn’t figure out a darn thing to do about it.

notropis on May 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM

he had a pretty darn good week, including the jobs report and

sesquipedalian on May 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM

10% unemployment after Obama promised that spending over 800 billion tax dollars we would not go past 8%….

…about 4 million jobs lost since the signing of the stimulus that was supposed to “jump start job growth”….

yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!….what a success…..

Obama is a genius.

Baxter Greene on May 10, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Wow. The entire liberal judiciary to choose from, plus people like Jennifer Granholm and Kathleen Sebelius, and he picks a woman who has never even been a judge in a law school moot court. His own wife is better qualified for the job than Elena Kagan, for crying out loud.

rockmom on May 10, 2010 at 10:32 AM

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.

All of which mirrors Obama’s M.O.

Tack on her views on the 2nd Amendment, the WoT, (most significantly) the authority of the Executive branch, and the reality that a more radical nominee would only further reinforce the popular view that Obama’s a Leftist radical (with consequences in November), and it’s not hard to see why he nominated her. For him right now, she is a safe, comfortable choice.

Harpazo on May 10, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Is this the Chaz Bono thread?

Koa on May 10, 2010 at 10:35 AM

His own wife is better qualified for the job than Elena Kagan, for crying out loud.

rockmom on May 10, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Please. Don’t give him any ideas.

notropis on May 10, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Thought I was looking at a picture of Fiorello LaGuardia.

faol on May 10, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Mark Levin is likely to have a kick-ass show today. It would be highly advisable to tune in to get Levin’s take on Kagan.

Levin has tipped already (last month) that he thinks the GOP should hold up the appointment of any left-wing Supreme until after election day. He’ll be a ball of fire today, count on it.

Edouard on May 10, 2010 at 10:53 AM

Seriously, I want an answer. Between Christine Romer, Samantha Power, and Elena Kagan… and, erm, his wife, what is it with Obama and mannish looking women?

Red Cloud on May 10, 2010 at 10:55 AM

if I were president, I wouldn’t consider it a very good week, if there were an impending natural catastrophe on my country’s shores, and my people couldn’t figure out a darn thing to do about it.

notropis on May 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM

…But…But…But they have been on the case since “Day One”..

.According to this law passed in 1989:

A law passed a year after the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster makes the owner of a rig or vessel responsible for cleaning up a spill. But oversight of the cleanup is designated to the Coast Guard, with advice from other federal agencies.

…oversight…which was non-existent.

….Napolitano shows up 9 days later and gives a great example of how “the system works” in the Obama administration:

The delay meant that the Homeland Security Department waited until late this week to formally request a more robust response from the Department of Defense, with Ms. Napolitano acknowledging even as late as Thursday afternoon that she did not know if the Defense Department even had equipment that might be helpful.

…and where was one of the top men in the Obama administration who was in charge of handling this disaster..

….Strickland decided it was a good time to go white water rafting:

Though his agency was charged with coordinating the federal response to the major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Department of the Interior chief of staff Tom Strickland was in the Grand Canyon with his wife last week participating in activities that included white-water rafting, ABC News has learned.

….priorities…priorities…priorities.

………Obama shows up 12 days later…..
….after taking a vacation and playing comedian with Leno.

….to blame everybody but himself……

…not a single fire boom to enact their own plan to burn off the oil slick even though the weather was fine those first few days……

..even the AP calls bullsh!t on this bogus “there from day one”:

SPIN METER: There since Day One? Maybe not
By ERICA WERNER (AP) – 10 hours ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLiUWM39KjSOCwqEl9nZDVncfSlgD9FFSJ8O0

WASHINGTON — To hear Obama administration officials tell it, they’ve been fully engaged on the Gulf Coast oil spill since Day One, bringing every resource to bear and able to ensure without question that taxpayers will be protected.

Not quite.

But in the land of unicorns and butterfly farts…this passes as “leadership from day one”….

Baxter Greene on May 10, 2010 at 10:55 AM

I’ve never heard of her. Let me just check my Ipod, Ipad, and Xbox for the unfiltered information. Being spoon-fed by the liberal media is soooo uncool; why it’s like turning to Robert Gibbs for truthful anwers!

TN Mom on May 10, 2010 at 10:56 AM

If Kagan can’t get nominated, maybe Kevin James is available?

profitsbeard on May 10, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Impeach Kagan!

Perhaps Elena Kagan will help undermine the prestige of an essentially evil institution, the Supreme Court. We can only hope. She is a state functionary of an all too familiar sort, who has dedicated her life to expanding state power and especially executive power, as she climbed the greasy pole of domination. She could have served in any totalitarian regime, and will be unopposed in any real sense in this one. [...] Kagan is openly a commissar. She also worked for Goldman Sachs. The police state + Wall Street = Obamaism.

Rae on May 10, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Ed Whelan of NRO’s “Bench Memos” weighs in with further thoughts: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWNmYmViMTg5YTgwMDMwMDI1Y2EzODUwYjk1NzMwNjM=

What bothers me about Kagan is her position on expanding the role of executive power via agencies. She began that slide toward a skewed system during the Clinton years.

onlineanalyst on May 10, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Right side as in…what? Not being a dissenter in overwhelmingly one-sided decisions? And exactly how is Alito turning out poorly? He’s operating as a Constitutionalist.

MadisonConservative on May 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Read the Gant case, it is probably the best example of Alito and to a lesser extent Robert’s willful disregard for proper Criminal Procedure. Thank god we have Scalia and Thomas who have some damn sense.

Scalia puts a pretty hard smackdown on Alito in the Gant case.

Squid Shark on May 10, 2010 at 11:16 AM

No. It isn’t hard to pick.

blink on May 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM

I’m with you in spirit. I agree that the Leftists have committed most of the active damage, but the Right has committed passive neglect (and sometimes collaborated with the Left). But really, who cares about pointing fingers at this juncture? The Left will never accept any blame (too stupid and too much cognitive dissonance), because they don’t see anything wrong with having a Marxist icon controllling their lives. Conservativism is somehow stuck trying to operate above the political fray while accomplishing restorative goals which are anathema to the cheerleaders of dreck like Enema Kagan.

Western_Civ on May 10, 2010 at 11:20 AM

From the linked NBC article,

She has the chance to extend Obama’s legacy for a generation.

And there you have it.

Nothing about her adherence to the Constitution or this is for the better of the United States as a whole… it’s all about Obama.

Yakko77 on May 10, 2010 at 11:48 AM

She has the chance to extend Obama’s legacy for a generation.

It sends shivers up my spine when you talk like this.

Sultry Beauty on May 10, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Nothing about her adherence to the Constitution or this is for the better of the United States as a whole… it’s all about Obama.

Yakko77 on May 10, 2010 at 11:48 AM

The same statements were made about Roberts and Alito because they were so young.

Squid Shark on May 10, 2010 at 11:58 AM

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.

So even the “liberals” on the court thought she was a whack job.

MB4 on May 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM

If Kagan ever goes on Saturday Night Live, they should bring Horatio Sanz back as “Rick”. Seperated at birth.

OxyCon on May 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Doesn’t she have some Goldman Sachs baggage as well? I thought they were part of “big wall street” and, as we all know, “wall street==baaaad”, so, how does she get around those chops?

ted c on May 10, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Squid Shark on May 10, 2010 at 11:16 AM

If you were giving a critique of Ginsberg or Stevens I’d probably give your comments half a thought. When you start critiquing judges who run against your belief system, I don’t give your comments any weight at all. You’ve never shown yourself to be anything but a ideologue who demagogues everything to do with politics from the center going to the right.

Sultry Beauty on May 10, 2010 at 12:02 PM

I’ve already written Senators Corker and Alexander to oppose her nomination on the grounds she is unqualified for the job. Sometimes the truth hurts, but I’m not qualified either and I’d expect the left to scream bloody murder if a conservative was nominated…. oh wait, too late for that one!

Mini-14 on May 10, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Red Cloud on May 10, 2010 at 10:55 AM

When your daddy abandons you 10 seconds after planting his seed, you get accustomed to being ordered around by hippie chicks.

He’s just doing what comes naturally.

Why do we keep electing Democrats with daddy issues?

NoDonkey on May 10, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Damn! The libs have no shortage of homely bull-dikes, do they? WTF!

ErinF on May 10, 2010 at 12:08 PM

She’s famous for “concensus building” and “empathy”, in Obama’s 2005 words for what he looks in a potentisl SCOTUS judge.

Judges are supposed to follow the constitution, the law, not to build concensus and be empathetic. Otherwise they c/b empathetic to terrorists, union thugs and all kinds of scum. She is also foremost an Obamabot, one for maintaining his executive orders and czar camps, no matter what he decides with both.

A side note – she looks like Napolitano and both look like seargeants in the Marines. Having both of them top/center on Drudge, is enough to scare children and a nation.

When women look like the two of them and men look like Geithner, we know we’re in a steep decline.

Schadenfreude on May 10, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3