When Elena met Antonin and Anthony

posted at 12:56 pm on May 10, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Most people who oppose Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court will focus on either her defense of Harvard’s attempt to bar military recruiters from the campus or her lack of judicial experience.  However, as HA reader Frank points out, her record as Solicitor General will provide an argument on competence, too.  Kagan didn’t do her homework before arguing the Citizens United case on behalf of the Obama administration and the FEC — which her probably-soon-to-be colleagues on the Supreme Court wasted no time in pointing out.  It came at the very beginning of her oral argument, when one might expect a Solicitor General to attempt to impress the panel with her grasp of law and precedent:

ORAL ARGUMENT OF ELENA KAGAN

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLEE GENERAL KAGAN: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:

I have three very quick points to make about the government position. The first is that this issue has a long history. For over 100 years Congress has made a judgment that corporations must be subject to special rules when they participate in elections and this Court has never questioned that judgment.

Number two -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait, wait, wait, wait. We never questioned it, but we never approved it, either.  And we gave some really weird interpretations to the Taft-Hartley Act in order to avoid confronting the question.

GENERAL KAGAN: I will repeat what I said, Justice Scalia: For 100 years this Court, faced with many opportunities to do so, left standing the legislation that is at issue in this case — first the contribution limits, then the expenditure limits that came in by way of Taft-Hartley — and then of course in Austin specifically approved those limits.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don’t understand what you are saying. I mean, we are not a self — self-starting institution here. We only disapprove of something when somebody asks us to. And if there was no occasion for us to approve or disapprove, it proves nothing whatever that we didn’t disapprove it.

GENERAL KAGAN: Well, you are not a self-starting institution. But many litigants brought many cases to you in 1907 and onwards and in each case this Court turns down, declined the opportunity, to invalidate or otherwise interfere with this legislation.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But that judgment was validated by Buckley’s contribution-expenditure line. And you’re correct if you look at contributions, but this is an expenditure case. And I think that it doesn’t clarify the situation to say that for100 years — to suggest that for 100 years we would have allowed expenditure limitations, which in order to work at all have to have a speaker-based distinction, exemption from media, content-based distinction, time-based distinction. We’ve never allowed that.

In fact, the crux of the case was the issue of limiting expenditures as an expression of political speech, not contributions.  Kagan started off her argument by misconstruing the issue and then offering a factually incorrect reading of precedent.  Both Scalia and Kennedy objected to it before Kagan even had time to get the argument completed, although as the transcript notes, she didn’t pay much attention to them.

Without any judicial experience, Kagan has to rely on her performance at the Court as Solicitor General over a short period of fifteen months — and at best, it’s mixed.


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

Look, I’ve been assured by lefties that the woman is brilliant because of her CV. No worries.

myrenovations on May 10, 2010 at 12:59 PM

GENERAL KAGAN: Well, you are not a self-starting institution. But many litigants brought many cases to you in 1907 and onwards and in each case this Court turns down, declined the opportunity, to invalidate or otherwise interfere with this legislation.

IOW, you’re not activist enough, SCOTUS.

Fletch54 on May 10, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Might as well start calling her Justice Kagan.

DrAllecon on May 10, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Isn’t that the woman from SNL.

Oil Can on May 10, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Obamas perfect nominee.
She’s basically him- incompetent but zealous in wanting to wreck our traditions and “oppressive” laws.

jjshaka on May 10, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Academics and facts are not always in line…she only knows her academics, when confronted with facts, she has to ignore them.
I can just imagine some of her rulings…”Because I think so”…

right2bright on May 10, 2010 at 1:03 PM

She must have been shocked to find out that misleading political statements don’t cut any ice in front of the Supreme Court. If only we had a media that asked questions half as pointed when the Regime tries this kind of crap.

forest on May 10, 2010 at 1:04 PM

OH dear, another ‘wise’ one!
L

letget on May 10, 2010 at 1:05 PM

She will soon be the most brilliant legal mind in the country, she will touted as not be fettered by the bench, but free to speak without being part of the judicial crowd.
Her strength will be “She is not one of them”…

right2bright on May 10, 2010 at 1:06 PM

She’s Obama in a dress: Unqualified, an intellectual lightweight, and totally unqualified. Other than that she’ll sail though confirmation.

Probably can’t operate XBox’s as well.

JammieWearingFool on May 10, 2010 at 1:06 PM

OH dear, another ‘wise’ one!
L

letget on May 10, 2010 at 1:05 PM

I think someone called her a “wise lesbino”…

right2bright on May 10, 2010 at 1:06 PM

If she were in trial ad, I’de give her a C- .

She’ll fit in just fine with the rest of the Obama-ites.

LASue on May 10, 2010 at 1:06 PM

“She” looks like a dude. Wtf, first tranny nominee?

metric on May 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM

I think we all know the reason why she was picked…

WisCon on May 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM

She’s a clown.

MB4 on May 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Constitutional adherence – questionable at best.

Judicial experience – nil.

Female? – liberal identity politics qualification met.

Gay? – liberal identity politics qualification met.

Yakko77 on May 10, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Just another anti-American baby killer.

Filibuster!

flyfisher on May 10, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Can you say Harriet Miers? In fact, Kagan’s CV is even slimmer than Ms. Miers.

Margee on May 10, 2010 at 1:09 PM

They will be portraying as a common sense, practical wisdom type, rather than some intellectual “egghead.”

Wethal on May 10, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Good Grief. This woman makes Harriet Miers sound like Plato.

Norwegian on May 10, 2010 at 1:10 PM

A solid B+.

Dusty on May 10, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Janet Incompetano’s twin sister?

NebCon on May 10, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Can you say Harriet Miers? In fact, Kagan’s CV is even slimmer than Ms. Miers.

Margee on May 10, 2010 at 1:09 PM

One basic reason Miers pulled out was because she was terrible in the “murder boards,” the practice, dry-runs of the hearings. Miers didn’t know much about federal constitutional law. I doubt Kagan really has done much work in the area. Deans don’t often teach, or if they do, it’s one course a semester. As SG, she had a staff of attorneys to do her research for her.

She’s on her own in the hearings. Without notes.

Wethal on May 10, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Well she is smart enough to figure out how to pay her taxes on time, so she was overqualified for Treasury and they had to put her somewhere, I suppose, so why not the Supreme Court?

Lily on May 10, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Anyone else think she looks like Kevin James’ in drag?

Claypigeon on May 10, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Time to call your Senator and stop this nightmare from wrecking havoc on us for the next 40 years.

Ed Morrissey is right – what happened the last time we got a policy-maker with an academic background, limited private sector experience and a thin track record? Ummmm…we call him President…for the next 2-1/2 years.

God save us from this woman and O’s legacy.

norcalgal on May 10, 2010 at 1:13 PM

This nominee would be an embarrassment if only President Toonces was capable of feeling that particular emotion. Recent history proves otherwise.

trapeze on May 10, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Gee- she sounds BRILLIANT, even if her argument was factually incorrect. Come to think of it, she sounds a lot like Barrack”you lie!”Obama.

3dpuzzman on May 10, 2010 at 1:16 PM

I suspect she’ll withdraw her nomination before it’s all said and done.

ButterflyDragon on May 10, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Hopefully the wise latina will take Kagan under her wing.

darwin on May 10, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Kagan didn’t do her homework before arguing the Citizens United case on behalf of the Obama administration and the FEC — which her erstwhile colleagues on the Supreme Court wasted no time in pointing out.

Someone better tell Hugh Hewitt

Richard Romano on May 10, 2010 at 1:18 PM

This is a tad intetresting!!
=========================================================
Elena Kagan: Solicitous of Shareholders

Exhibit A: In a case against Merck, Kagan’s office is asking the court to let shareholders wait longer to sue companies for securities fraud. The justices are considering whether to allow a lawsuit by investors who say the drugmaker deceived them about the risks posed by its Vioxx painkiller.

But Exhibit B is the case folks are buzzing about: Kagan and SEC lawyers are urging the court to ease the way for investors to sue mutual fund managers over their fees. The fund industry aims to avert more lawsuits by the 90 million investors who together hold $11 trillion in U.S. mutual funds.
==================================================

http://abovethelaw.com/elena-kagan/

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 1:18 PM

I suspect she’ll withdraw her nomination before it’s all said and done.

ButterflyDragon on May 10, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Hmmmm … maybe that’s the plan from the getgo. Offer Kagan, then when she pulls out implant someone much more radical.

How many communists are left on the short list?

darwin on May 10, 2010 at 1:19 PM

From Mall Cop to Supreme Court in a few years … not too shabby.

lorien1973 on May 10, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Without any judicial experience, Kagan has to rely on her performance at the Court as Solicitor General over a short period of fifteen months — and at best, it’s mixed.

Hey, “we” elected a community organizer with little experience, (something like 125 days in the senate), to the highest office in the land. In Obama’s world, anyone’s qualified.

Rovin on May 10, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Richard Romano on May 10, 2010 at 1:18 PM

I used to be fond of Hugh Hewitt–and then then I started paying attention to him.

flyfisher on May 10, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Filibuster till November, then till January. It can be done.

It will be very interesting to see how the ABA rates her, when they gave Clarence Thomas, a Federal Appellate judge for a year, a split between qualified and not qualified.

Bet she gets a “Well Qualified” although wtf for, no one will have a real clue.

Marybeth on May 10, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Not that I’m inclined to defend anyone aligned/associated with the President, but you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill, Ed.

The fact that an advocate is twice interrupted during oral argument before an appellate court merely suggests that the case is somewhat controversial. And the advocate’s opening statements are frequently overarching and general in nature, at which point a justice can step in and force the attorney to proceed with a bit more nuance.

You can certainly disagree with her substantive position here. (And the President was just as off-base at the SOTU address for the same reason.) But in terms of advocacy skills, I don’t really see anything lacking based on the portion you’ve quoted.

Honestly, the better measure would be a written brief, or else by watching the arguments in person.

cackcon on May 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM

It will be very interesting to see how the ABA rates her, when they gave Clarence Thomas, a Federal Appellate judge for a year, a split between qualified and not qualified.

Marybeth on May 10, 2010 at 1:24 PM

The ABA loves Kagan. They’ve already given her an award for a well written law review article or some such. She’ll get a “super duper qualified” from them.

myrenovations on May 10, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Wow. That snippet makes her look unbelievably stupid. As in, not even as smart as President Obama. Horrifying, simply horrifying.

WesternActor on May 10, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Don’t hit Elena Kagan on competence. She has an impressive pedigree and I can tell you from the times I’ve met her (I was a student at HLS during her first year as dean) and from friends of mine who took her for Civil Procedure and Administrative Law that she’s a very bright and competent law professor and legal scholar.

We should also be careful not to hit her for not having judicial experience. Remember–neither did Justice Rehnquist. And there might be a day when Republicans are back in power where we might want to nominate someone to the Court who does not have prior judicial experience, and we don’t need the Democrats hitting us.

Where you want to hit her is on: (i) her poor judgment of banning military recruiters from the HLS campus; and (ii) her judicial philosophy. With respect to #2, she’s in trouble because she has no past history that can allow you to divine her philosophy, except a law review article where she specifically says that Supreme Court nominees should give detailed testimony about their beliefs prior to confirmation. So you make her give that detailed testimony and crucify her when she starts saying that you have a constitutional right to polygamous marriage to a man, woman, and donkey.

Outlander on May 10, 2010 at 1:29 PM

I think we all know the reason why she was picked…

WisCon on May 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Indeed we do.

Bob's Kid on May 10, 2010 at 1:30 PM

I can only pray that the Republicans and some Democrats with brains have the balls to strike this nomination down. I mean, in the inimitable words of Bugs Bunny, “what a maroon”!!

ultracon on May 10, 2010 at 1:31 PM

At Princeton, she wrote a senior thesis under historian Sean Wilentz studying the socialist movement in New York City in the early 20th century

faraway on May 10, 2010 at 1:32 PM

That’s why they have clerks! To explain stuff!!!!!!!!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Every hook and line needs a sinker.

Kagan fills that role…

landlines on May 10, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Well,in Canada,here in Ontario,you have to
have at least 20 to 30 years as a lawyer,with
a stellar record,to be picked as a judge!!!

Jus sayin!

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 1:36 PM

I wonder how Kagan would rule on Immigration!!!!

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Anyone else think she looks like Kevin James’ in drag?

Claypigeon on May 10, 2010 at 1:13 PM

I wish Kevin James were the pick instead.

NebCon on May 10, 2010 at 1:40 PM

It can also be the case, sometimes, that the solicitor general is forced to use the inferior legal arguments of the administration that they work for, because no good arguments exist. A solicitor general on their own might have another strategy, but the administration wants to fight it their own way. I have no idea who picked the strategy in this case, but it could be someone further up the chain.

RBMN on May 10, 2010 at 1:40 PM

If Zero wants to
Appoint dim bulbs to the court
I say we let him.

It doesn’t sound like
Kagan can persuade the rest…
Same thing with Sonya.

Let them rant and rave.
As long as they always lose,
I’m OK with that…

Haiku Guy on May 10, 2010 at 1:41 PM

academia at its finest representing the US in front of scotus…yowser

scary times folks…

cmsinaz on May 10, 2010 at 1:42 PM

JammieWearingFool on May 10, 2010 at 1:06 PM

spot on jwf

cmsinaz on May 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM

“She” looks like a dude. Wtf, first tranny nominee?

metric on May 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM

That’s unfair to trannies.

SWLiP on May 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Kagan is female, why is everyone worried about her legal acumen when the important issue is how many females are on the SCOTUS.

Bishop on May 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM

If the process stalls…
Zero will drop the big bomb:
“Gay American”…

Haiku Guy on May 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Can you say Harriet Miers? In fact, Kagan’s CV is even slimmer than Ms. Miers.

Margee on May 10, 2010 at 1:09 PM

But definitely not her waist!

Miers didn’t know much about federal constitutional law. I doubt Kagan really has done much work in the area. Deans don’t often teach, or if they do, it’s one course a semester. As SG, she had a staff of attorneys to do her research for her.

She’s on her own in the hearings. Without notes.

Wasn’t she mentored by the Great Hahvid Constitutional Law Professor (cough!) himself?

Time for Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to do THEIR homework and ask her some tough questions. If she proves to be truly incompetent during the hearings, some of the Dems might turn against her, as some Republicans did against Harriet Miers.

Steve Z on May 10, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Steve Z on May 10, 2010 at 1:45 PM

BUT will the gop bring it….highly doubtful imo, with orrin and grahamnesty leading the gop in this committee

maybe Kyl will bring it?

cmsinaz on May 10, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Wow. That snippet makes her look unbelievably stupid. As in, not even as smart as President Obama. Horrifying, simply horrifying.

WesternActor on May 10, 2010 at 1:28 PM

You mean she’s even DUMBER than a rock?

Daggett on May 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM

maybe this has been addressed already, but did she try ANY cases prior to becoming SG for dear leader?

cmsinaz on May 10, 2010 at 1:52 PM

I am by no means that can be construed a fan of Kagan, however I am even less a fan Of Obama. This nomination comes at an opportune time for the administration as they would like nothing more than the distraction of a huge fight over a relatively moderate appointee. It is advantageous to them to have a tempest in a tea cup over Kagan, who will be approved barring some skeleton, when the public is focusing on the gross incompetance of response to the Gulf spill and the Times Sqr bomber.

Further more, if Kagan’s arguements are already held in low esteem with the sitting Supremes this means she would rather inneffectual on the court and therefore not too great a danger. Where as if we let Obama change the subject, a man who arguably is the greatest danger this nation has ever faced, from his negligence and unseriousness in the face weighty issues only serves to enable him in his performance review in 2012.

The other day I chastised Ed and argued that we should create a furor over Kagan due to her stance of recruiters at campuses at a time of war and how that plays with the public, upon further reflection I recant.

We need to keep the focus on Obama’s inadequacies, not hers. His position of authority has greater ramifications than her taking the bench.

Not to mention that stiff opposition by Republicans or TEA Partiers only serves to further the extremist meme that that the left and their MSM allies are trying to push.

Keep our eyes on the Big Game and leave the squirel alone!

Archimedes on May 10, 2010 at 1:53 PM

She’s lacking a level or two, or three.

Speakup on May 10, 2010 at 1:54 PM

At Princeton, she wrote a senior thesis under historian Sean Wilentz studying the socialist movement in New York City in the early 20th century

faraway on May 10, 2010 at 1:32 PM

faraway: Possible jackpot!!:)
===================================
Kagan’s Notable Statements and Writings (PFD’s)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/10/us/politics/20100505-kagan-opinions.html?ref=politics

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Knock of the ‘looks’ and ‘orientation’ crap, idiots. Not only does it not reflect well on you, but on the rest of conservatives as well. Even if you think that crap is important, at least have the presence of mind to shutup and quit giving the lefties ammo to shoot you/us with.

Midas on May 10, 2010 at 1:57 PM

How many members of the judicial committee are facing reelection in November? They vote for TARP, Health Care, and this unqualified nominee should cost them their jobs!

ultracon on May 10, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Least experienced of any SCOTUS nominee in _______ years?

Perfect nominee for Mr. Experience in the Oval Office.

Next nominee? Vera Baker for Sec’y of State (she is “living” offshore)….and she apparently does have some experience in Foreign Affairs.

PappyD61 on May 10, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Can she use a teleprompter from the bench?

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 2:02 PM

I’ve been assured by lefties that the woman is brilliant

Anyone on the “left” is hailed as “brilliant” as long as they think exactly the same as every other lefty.

Because trotting out the same failed solutions to the same old problems, passes as “brilliance” to the lunatic left.

NoDonkey on May 10, 2010 at 2:03 PM

boy the msm are really spinning for her…

anything to make dear leader good

*sigh*

cmsinaz on May 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM

We need to an a wise lesbina to the barackracy.

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Obamarchy: rule by incompetence.

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Why does the Obama regime hate female ankles? Have they been outlawed?

Inanemergencydial on May 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM

OT: nice header ad, PA’s “We know where you are” tax collector’s ad.

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Next nominee? Vera Baker for Sec’y of State (she is “living” offshore)….and she apparently does have some experience in Foreign Affairs.

PappyD61 on May 10, 2010 at 2:00 PM

I guess that would be somewhat better than Monica Lewinsky, she only had experience in Foreign Objects.

Sorry, I just couldn’t pass that opportunity up, I know, shame on me. I repent.

Archimedes on May 10, 2010 at 2:11 PM

You try responding to rapid fire questions from hostile appellate judges during oral argument. It is not fun and the justices certainly have the upper hand.

That being said, she made a tactical error in brining up a debatable point as her premise number one. She needed to build her argument on indisputable premises first and get into the more difficult areas later.

She seemed to actually think her first point was indisputable, which does call her competence into question. A failure to address an issue is not precedent. Duhh…

tommylotto on May 10, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Competence and following the constitution and the law, you say?

Empathy and consensus building is what Obama is all about. He’s named his perfect stooge.

Schadenfreude on May 10, 2010 at 2:16 PM

This nomination is yet another example of the Obama administration’s extreme mediocrity. I can’t think of a single person in this administration Americans will look to ten years from now, much less 100, with either fondness or respect.

RobertE on May 10, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Wow. So she totally misunderstood the issues involved. That explains how Obama got it so wrong when he condemned the decision. His council was incompetent.

Yet there she is.

I foresee a three way split in the future. And the split will be on the left.

What an odd odd duck this woman is. Do we really need anymore odd ducks making the rules?

I don’t think so. Yet there she is. Quack quack.

petunia on May 10, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Janet Incompetano’s twin sister?

NebCon on May 10, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Hmm I wonder if they’ve met… they seem perfect for each other.

Maybe Obama is running a match making service for odd women.

petunia on May 10, 2010 at 2:22 PM

“She” looks like a dude. Wtf, first tranny nominee?

metric on May 10, 2010 at 1:07 PM

metric:Automatic or standard shift!!(i kid).

canopfor on May 10, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Those supreme court photos are really getting ugly. Just another lib on the court, yawn.

echosyst on May 10, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Janet Reno and Janet Napolitano. A failed cloning experiment.

seven on May 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM

My oh my… remember how Alito reacted when Obama used this line of thinking in his speech? My my… what must they all be thinking? That such a mental light weight is coming to be their equal.

I can respect a liberal who has good arguments but silliness is just silliness.

petunia on May 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM

The left was outraged over the Miers nomination because she was ostensibly unqualified due to her relative lack of experience. How will the left feel about Kagan and her utter and complete lack of experience? When you compare the two, it would seem that Miers had mountains of experience.

dczombie on May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM

A failure to address an issue is not precedent. Duhh…

tommylotto on May 10, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Precisely, making the hierarchy of judicial pronouncements: holding, dictum, and duhh.

Barnestormer on May 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM

OT here, but…hmmmmm,

Farrakahn: “Obama was selected before he was elected.”

This right up at the 1st of the clip, but it gets more interesting after that.

http://www.breitbart.tv/farrakhan-on-obama-before-he-was-elected-he-was-selected

Archimedes on May 10, 2010 at 2:41 PM

I think someone called her a “wise lesbino”…

right2bright on May 10, 2010 at 1:06 PM

I don’t care one bit about her sexuality. However, if she isn’t a lesbian, she should be. She looks like she would be great at it :-)

MJBrutus on May 10, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Just as I said, women lawyers are most generally out to prove something. This time it appears that she is going to prove she can out shout and out argue–however, she fallS way short in the out reason dept. Dangerous never to have had to face the realities and give and take of the courtroom. She does not bode well.She is a know it all.

jeanie on May 10, 2010 at 2:48 PM

jeanie on May 10, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Well put. She’s chock full of academic knowledge, but no experience in how the real world works. Hmmm, sounds just a little like the man her appointed her, wouldn’t you say?

MJBrutus on May 10, 2010 at 2:56 PM

ah…more smart power, huh?

If she fails, Kal Penn is next in line.

wildweasel on May 10, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Both Scalia and Kennedy objected to it before Kagan even had time to get the argument completed, although as the transcript notes, she didn’t pay much attention to them.

That’s sure to make her the deal-making voice of reason that helps the left get the swing vote, isn’t it? Part of me thinks it’d be good for the country if Kagan is appointed. She’ll be wholly unable to convince experienced, educated Justices to support her side of an argument. By default, that means more wins for conservative jurisprudence.

hawksruleva on May 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM

The left was outraged over the Miers nomination because she was ostensibly unqualified due to her relative lack of experience. How will the left feel about Kagan and her utter and complete lack of experience? When you compare the two, it would seem that Miers had mountains of experience.

dczombie on May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM

The left cares not a whit about ability, qualifications, or integrity. They’ll swallow the party line and smile about it. Then in 10 years when government is reaching into their pockets, they’ll yell at Republicans (or Tea Parties, if the GOP is dead by then).

hawksruleva on May 10, 2010 at 3:18 PM

To be fair, the court ripped up Mr. Olson (Olsen) as well, asking him about foreign expenditures by individuals during elections. He said they were a different matter, and Scalia said no, they weren’t, otherwise he wouldn’t have asked about them.

hawksruleva on May 10, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Is she a lesbian on a crusade or not?

Captain America on May 10, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Kagan and Sottomayor are qualified, but THANK GOODNESS we kept Robert Bork off the SCOTUS….

DavidM on May 10, 2010 at 3:29 PM

(sarcasm)
in case anyone missed it.

DavidM on May 10, 2010 at 3:30 PM

“Kagan’s handful of publications touch on topics like regulating offensive speech, analyzing legislative motivations for speech regulations”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-01/the-next-harriet-miers/full/
We know what means-Look out Christians!!

Bullhead on May 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM

I can’t remember if it was Kagan who argued this or someone else… But wasn’t it the governments position in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that if “Hillary The Movie” was in book form as opposed to a movie, that it would of put the government in the position of banning books? OMG it’s true, KAGAN SUPPORTS BANNING BOOKS!!11!

CultureWar on May 10, 2010 at 3:43 PM

To be fair, the court ripped up Mr. Olson (Olsen) as well, asking him about foreign expenditures by individuals during elections. He said they were a different matter, and Scalia said no, they weren’t, otherwise he wouldn’t have asked about them.

hawksruleva: I was at the Citizens United hearing. Justice Scalia did not “rip up” Olson. To the contrary, several of the Justices were asking Olson’s opinion on what Congress could or could not do with respect to regulating speech of foreign corporations or individuals. It was extremely interesting and flattering to Olson.

ultraloser on May 10, 2010 at 3:54 PM

I can’t remember if it was Kagan who argued this or someone else… But wasn’t it the governments position in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that if “Hillary The Movie” was in book form as opposed to a movie, that it would of put the government in the position of banning books? OMG it’s true, KAGAN SUPPORTS BANNING BOOKS!!11!

The FEC took that position in the first Citizens United hearing, and that is what prompted the Supremes to take the highly unusual step of scheduling an off-term re-hearing. Kagan did not argue at the first hearing, but she did argue the FEC position at the re-hearing.

At the re-hearing, Kagan tried to walk back the prior FEC position on banning books. In response to that, Justice Roberts made one of the all time great statements: “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.”

ultraloser on May 10, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2