Another Chick Added To The Supreme Court

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/10/scotus.kagan/index.html?hpt=T1

[The Fool]

cool, I just ordered the "scotus girls" calendar.

[KingMerv00]

Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience.

[lionking]

Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience.
Maybe not judicial experience in the narrow definition of the term, but someone with Solicitor General experience would seem eminently qualified.

[thaiboxerken]

Demonization in 5......4.....3.....2....

[lionking]

Demonization in 5......4.....3.....2....
Okay, I'll start. She must be a socialist. Hasn't she been employed by government?

[cienaños]

Come on, she's a prostitute (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/ed-whelan-compares-elena_n_569552.html) for crying out loud.

[Brainster]

She went to Yale or something. She must be acceptable.

[Cain]

Demonization in 5......4.....3.....2....

Very brave to nominate the first transgender. What's happened to America?

http://chanceseales.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/elena-kagan1.jpg

[rustypouch]

The only thing I have to add is that Elena Kagan is an anagram of An Anal Geek.

Carry on.

[Darth Rotor]

Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience.
That's two of us. Bush had a lady he appointed who had no bench experience, not sure how her resume and this latest "chick" compare, but I was grateful when she was taken off the list.

Scrut: if she's a chick, I'm a Chippendales dancer ...

@ rusty: awesome post.

[WildCat]

Kagan... sounds Jewish. Clearly a puppet of the Israel lobby and the NWO.

[Brown]

I am curious whether any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask her, directly or indirectly, about her sexual orientation.

I am not curious about her sexual orientation, mind you; I am curious as to whether any of the Senators will have the stunningly bad taste to bring up the issue in a public hearing.

[Darth Rotor]

I am curious whether any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask her, directly or indirectly, about her sexual orientation.

I am not curious about her sexual orientation, mind you; I am curious as to whether any of the Senators will have the stunningly bad taste to bring up the issue in a public hearing.
Aren't we past that?

[KingMerv00]

Aren't we past that?

We? Yes.

They? ....

[Peephole]

Terrible choice.

[daredelvis]

Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience.
Her and that looser Earl Warren.

Judicial experience she would have had if the Senate would have voted on her when Clinton nominated her for the bench. Solicitor General... How would that qualify one for the Supreme Court? Bah!

Daredelvis

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I am curious whether any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask her, directly or indirectly, about her sexual orientation.

I think you can count on it.

I am not curious about her sexual orientation, mind you; I am curious as to whether any of the Senators will have the stunningly bad taste to bring up the issue in a public hearing.

A bit of googling hints that she is a lesbian. We'll see.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Kagan... sounds Jewish. Clearly a puppet of the Israel lobby and the NWO.

The Federal Reserve just breathed a sigh of relief.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Terrible choice.

Translation: A fantastic choice

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience.

I think I read/heard somewhere a few weeks ago that the "requirement" for prior judicial experience really only came about in the last 50 years or so. I'll have to try to remember where I saw that.

[GreNME]

I'm not worried about her somewhat activist past-- I can understand people who have strongly-held beliefs, and even while I disagreed philosophically I could respect that when (for example) Alito was nominated.

I'm not going to play the "experience" game-- listening to the Right bitch about experience while defending Sarah "Quitter" Palin is dissonant enough and distracting from actual qualification assessments.

No one should be worried about her sexual orientation-- if a dumbass senator brings it up, I wish she would make a remark to the effect of "no, senator, I have never asked who placed a hair on my Coca-Cola can."

However...

From what I've read she's apparently authored some defenses of extended executive power, and for the same reasons I opposed any extensions to executive power (or, as Cheney liked to invoke, "privilege") in the last administration I find that if Kagen is defending such positions then I would have a problem with her in the SCOTUS. However, I've not dug too deeply into her history on the subject yet. This would, however, be one of the few topics that would be enough for me to oppose her nomination.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not going to play the "experience" game-- listening to the Right bitch about experience while defending Sarah "Quitter" Palin is dissonant enough and distracting from actual qualification assessments.

That's a rather poor comparison, between an elected official and a judge (potentially) appointed for life.

It is experience as a justice that has some people, in varying sides of the political center in this discussion, voicing reservations.

Palin, like her or not, had the executive branch experience of governorship, for whatever that's worth on a resume. Other governors were considered and didn't seem to have her "Q" factor for elective politics.

Kagan isn't in that game: elective politics.

DR

[Brown]

I think I read/heard somewhere a few weeks ago that the "requirement" for prior judicial experience really only came about in the last 50 years or so. I'll have to try to remember where I saw that.Strictly speaking, judicial experience is not a requirement for a position on the Supreme Court bench.

Neither is a law degree.

[NoZed Avenger]

Strictly speaking, judicial experience is not a requirement for a position on the Supreme Court bench.

Neither is a law degree.


True. Regardless, though, her experience as Soliciter General seems adequate -- comparable to Rehnquist, probably (I am only going by memory; I can't say that for certain). I don't think Powell had any experience as a sitting judge, either.

She seems to be a fairly consistent, liberal-leaning pick with sufficient background to show she's qualified. All in all, I haven't seen anything to indicate she isn't qualified.

I have been somewhat mystified by the reaction not on the right, but on the felt -- Greenwald for example, though there were a couple others, as well. Some on the left have compared her to Harriet Miers, which does not appear to be a fair comparison at all, experience-wise. Have you seen any of that and/or have any explanation for it?

(I'll try to root around for the Greenwald link I saw Friday or Saturday, but not sure where I read it).

[marksman]

She was Dean of Harvard Law School and she has served as Solicitor General. She's got the requisite amount of smarts and/or experience. And by all accounts she is indeed smart enough for the job.

Judicial experience is not a prerequisite. (Heck, you don't have to be a lawyer, though I can't remember if any non-lawyer's ever been appointed to the Supreme Court.)

William Rehnquist clerked for the Supreme Court, was in in private practice for 13 years, and an assistant attorney general for three years, before becoming Nixon's nominee to the Supreme Court.

Elena Kagan clerked for the Supreme Court, was in private practice for maybe a year or two, and then became a law professor at University of Chicago Law School. Within 4 years, she was tenured. She then worked at the Clinton White House Counsel's Office for three years, before going to Harvard Law School. She became dean in 2003, where she served for seven years.

She's plenty qualified. Will she be confirmed? That's going to be a political decision, not one based on qualifications. I think she will be.

[daredelvis]

[couch]Earl Warren[/cough] Arguments about a lack of experience are pure partisan hackery.

Daredelvis

[KingMerv00]

Her and that looser Earl Warren.

Judicial experience she would have had if the Senate would have voted on her when Clinton nominated her for the bench. Solicitor General... How would that qualify one for the Supreme Court? Bah!

Daredelvis

I'm not saying judicial experience is an absolute necessity to be a good justice. I just think that there are plenty of qualified people out there. It seems like a no brainer to pick someone who has been a judge before. I mean, why WOULDN'T you?

[Brown]

Most of the appointees to the Supreme Court in recent memory had some experience sitting on the bench. That said, some have had very little experience on the bench before going to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas are notable examples. Both had experience in federal practice, but little bench experience. Roberts (like Kagan) had briefed and argued many cases to the High Court.

Retired Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter were principally state judges (although Souter spent a few months as a federal judge).

Chiefs Justice Earl Warren and William Rehnquist were not judges before going to the Court. Rehnquist (like Kagan) represented the interests of the United States before the High Court. But Warren was an entirely different breed: he was a career politician who had been serving as the Governor of California.

[Brown]

To follow up on a previous post: one of the things that seems to be important for a Supreme Court nomination is clerkship.

Chief Justice Roberts clerked for then-Associate Justice Rehnquist, and also for a federal appellate judge.
Justice Stevens clerked for Justice Wiley Rutledge.
Justice Ginsburg clerked for a federal district court judge.
Justice Breyer served as a law clerk to Justice Arthur Goldberg.
Justice Alito was a clerk to a federal appellate judge.

Elena Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall and federal appellate judge Abner Mikva (who PORTRAYED a supreme court justice in the movie Dave).

Clerkship is one of the best educations there is about what it is like to be a judge. You can see how cases are presented and how they are decided. You analyze briefs and (depending upon the style of the judge you serve) you draft opinions and orders.

[marksman]

It seems like a no brainer to pick someone who has been a judge before. I mean, why WOULDN'T you?

First of all, being an appellate judge and a trial judge are different things. A trial judge spends much of his time dealing with courtroom procedure, reviewing evidence, and handling the daily workings of testimony, which is something appellate judges do not do. So there's a slight difference in skill sets. But trial judges do analyze and interpret the law. I certainly wouldn't say a trial judge is a bad choice for Supreme Court.

Second, you want someone you know can analyze the law and pick apart legal arguments to determine what is properly stated and not stated. There's no reason to choose an appellate judge over a litigator with an equivalent amount of appellate experience. Similarly, a law professor engages in the same process of review and dissertation as an appellate judge. So a well-published law professor would also make a good candidate.

The one skill that an appellate judge has that a litigator, or a professor, or a trial judge, may not is the ability to make consensus. Appellate judges work on panels and need to persuade their fellow jurists to join in their decision. That's the difference between a majority and a dissenting opinion. But that's only one small factor to be considered when appointing a judge.

There's no need to limit the applicant pool to sitting appellate judges.

From a political standpoint, a sitting judge has one big drawback -- a long history of reported decisions that can be picked apart.

[Ziggurat]

She was Dean of Harvard Law School

Yeah, about that... her track record as dean is not exactly spotless. She kicked military recruiters off her campus, and when Congress passed the Solomon Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Amendment) to keep her (and other law schools) from doing so, the AALS sued. She helped file an amicus brief in support support of the suit. The end result? Unanimous rejection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Forum_for_Academic_and_Institutional_R ights) by the Supreme Court. How could she have so misread the constitutional issues involved that she would take the wrong side on an issue that gained a unanimous SC decision? And what does it say about her capacity to be an effective SC judge? Did she not know the suit was doomed and that the brief she signed was crap? Or did she know but decide to sign anyway, because it was politically expedient to do so?

[Brown]

First of all, being an appellate judge and a trial judge are different things. A trial judge spends much of his time dealing with courtroom procedure, reviewing evidence, and handling the daily workings of testimony, which is something appellate judges do not do. So there's a slight difference in skill sets. But trial judges do analyze and interpret the law. I certainly wouldn't say a trial judge is a bad choice for Supreme Court.

Second, you want someone you know can analyze the law and pick apart legal arguments to determine what is properly stated and not stated. There's no reason to choose an appellate judge over a litigator with an equivalent amount of appellate experience. Similarly, a law professor engages in the same process of review and dissertation as an appellate judge. So a well-published law professor would also make a good candidate.

The one skill that an appellate judge has that a litigator, or a professor, or a trial judge, may not is the ability to make consensus. Appellate judges work on panels and need to persuade their fellow jurists to join in their decision. That's the difference between a majority and a dissenting opinion. But that's only one small factor to be considered when appointing a judge.

There's no need to limit the applicant pool to sitting appellate judges.

From a political standpoint, a sitting judge has one big drawback -- a long history of reported decisions that can be picked apart.On the whole, I think this is well said.

I would have one reservation when dealing with law professors nominated for the bench (and this reservation would apply to Kagan): How realistic are the professor's views?

There are some law professors out there who may be super-smart but may also have completely unrealistic views about how the law operates (or how it ought to operate). I have encountered law professors who believed that they should teach the way the law OUGHT to be, rather than how it IS. I have encountered professors who can quote legal theory backwards and forwards but who cannot understand why people behave in the ways that they do. I have encountered professors who felt that their idea of a legal framework was as close to ideal as possible, when in reality it would be unworkable. And I have encountered some professors who were really well-informed about their particular field of study (say, taxes or bankruptcy or criminal law), but didn't know beans about any other field of study.

[marksman]

Yeah, about that... her track record as dean is not exactly spotless
I didn't say it was spotless. I just said it indicates she has the qualifications for the job. Whether positions she took during that job indicate she should not be confirmed despite her qualifications is a political decision for the Senate to make.

As Brown said, there are professors who are very smart, look great on paper, but have no idea how the law impacts real people in the real world. Maybe Kagan is one of those people. Maybe she's not. If she is, that would be a good reason to reject her nomination.

[daredelvis]

As Brown said, there are professors who are very smart, look great on paper, but have no idea how the law impacts real people in the real world. Maybe Kagan is one of those people. Maybe she's not. If she is, that would be a good reason to reject her nomination.
I'm sure this is true, but it could also be said for many judges, even some sitting on the Supreme Court.

Daredelvis

[marksman]

Also true.

[eeyore1954]

Maybe not judicial experience in the narrow definition of the term, but someone with Solicitor General experience would seem eminently qualified.

Why? And how much experience has she had on that job? Do you believe being appointed to a position and holding it for a little over a year make you eminently qualified?

Obviously she is an intelligent person not just anyone can be Dean of Harvard Law School

[Alferd_Packer]

Kagan... sounds Jewish. Clearly a puppet of the Israel lobby and the NWO.

She is.


That would be three of them.

[Accidental Martyr]

I am curious whether any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask her, directly or indirectly, about her sexual orientation.

I am not curious about her sexual orientation, mind you; I am curious as to whether any of the Senators will have the stunningly bad taste to bring up the issue in a public hearing.
American Family Association Demands To Know If Elena Kagan Is Gay; Says That Would Disqualify Her
http://www.alan.com/2010/05/10/american-family-association-demands-to-know-if-elena-kagan-is-gay-says-that-would-disqualify-hera/

quote: "A refusal to answer is a tacit admission of guilt."
"We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of
important civic responsibility."

[KingMerv00]

I heard that if she is confirmed, the Supreme Court will have zero Protestants for the first time in history.

[marksman]

You heard correctly. Three Jews and Six Catholics would be sitting on the Court.

[marksman]

"We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of important civic responsibility."

Another? To whom do they refer?

[Darth Rotor]

You heard correctly. Three Jews and Six Catholics would be sitting on the Court.
I wonder: if I were an American Protestant, would I have a problem with this, and might I argue that the SC needs to look more like America?

*No, that's not a grenade I tossed on to the floor with it's pin freshly pulled, why do you ask?*

:cool:

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Another? To whom do they refer?

Larry Craig?

[KingMerv00]

You heard correctly. Three Jews and Six Catholics would be sitting on the Court.

Remember when people were freaked out by JFK being Catholic? (Well I don't remember. I was -19 years old.)

The world has changed.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Remember when people were freaked out by JFK being Catholic? (Well I don't remember. I was -19 years old.)

The world has changed.

No it hasn't. I'm still freaked out about it.

[KingMerv00]

No it hasn't. I'm still freaked out about it.

Did you know chicks have jobs now?

Fortunately, they still make less than men for the same work.

[WildCat]

I heard that if she is confirmed, the Supreme Court will have zero Protestants for the first time in history.
The Pope and the Jews will run it all from their secret lair in the Bohemian Grove.

[pgwenthold]

American Family Association Demands To Know If Elena Kagan Is Gay; Says That Would Disqualify Her
http://www.alan.com/2010/05/10/american-family-association-demands-to-know-if-elena-kagan-is-gay-says-that-would-disqualify-hera/

quote: "A refusal to answer is a tacit admission of guilt."
"We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of
important civic responsibility."

Once again, some organization that includes "family" in their name espouses the non-family value of hate.

[KingMerv00]

Another? To whom do they refer?

Bill Clinton? Ted Haggard?

[marksman]

Did you know chicks have jobs now?

Fortunately, they still make less than men for the same work.

How much will taxpayers save by getting Kagan on the Supreme Court? ;)

[Alferd_Packer]

American Family Association Demands To Know If Elena Kagan Is Gay; Says That Would Disqualify Her



Isn't that the group where one of the leaders recently took a trip to Europe with a "rent boy?"

[thaiboxerken]

I think Kagan isn't a very good choice. She seems to have some rather conservative views.

[daredelvis]

Bill Clinton? Ted Haggard?

Vitter?

Daredelvis

[Random]

Isn't that the group where one of the leaders recently took a trip to Europe with a "rent boy?"

At this point, whenever I hear someone talking trash about gays, I just assume that they are homosexual. It really does save time in the long run.

[MattusMaximus]

American Family Association Demands To Know If Elena Kagan Is Gay; Says That Would Disqualify Her
http://www.alan.com/2010/05/10/american-family-association-demands-to-know-if-elena-kagan-is-gay-says-that-would-disqualify-hera/

quote: "A refusal to answer is a tacit admission of guilt." "We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of important civic responsibility."

Personally, I'd love to see some moron bring this up in her confirmation hearing. The political backlash would be quite something to see, in my opinion. Plus it would be very entertaining to watch the GOP/conservatives alienate yet another minority group - first Hispanics & then gays :)

ETA: Having said all of that, I give it 3-to-1 odds that she'll be confirmed by the August recess. There will be the usual bluster on both sides, at least the veiled threat of a filibuster, and then a vote where a few moderate Republicans will vote for her.

[DavidJames]

Personally, I'd love to see some moron bring this up in her confirmation hearing. The political backlash would be quite something to see, in my opinion. Plus it would be very entertaining to watch the GOP/conservatives alienate yet another minority group - first Hispanics & then gays :)Yes, gays are a key component of the diverse Republican constituency. ;)

[GreNME]

That's a rather poor comparison, between an elected official and a judge (potentially) appointed for life.

An elected official who quit when public opinion got critical and a life appointment that amounts to the same as a tenure position. I think it's a good comparison, not because of the nature of the jobs but because when it comes to the matter of qualifications one (Kagan) spent twenty-five years in varying positions in the subject field (including an administrative role) while the other one (Palin) pretty much played the folksy game until it failed (and then quit). Trying to play the experience card displays a cognitive dissonance.

It is experience as a justice that has some people, in varying sides of the political center in this discussion, voicing reservations.

Sure, and in those varying cases there is a lack of understanding of the history of appointed justices' experience, some of which-- like the SCOTUS who presided over Brown v. Board of Ed., among others-- were comprised primarily of justices without prior judicial experience but still had a firm grasp of the law they were upholding and defining.

Palin, like her or not, had the executive branch experience of governorship, for whatever that's worth on a resume. Other governors were considered and didn't seem to have her "Q" factor for elective politics.

Kagan isn't in that game: elective politics.

DR, I hope you know that I respect you intellectually. However, as I mentioned above there is a vast sea of difference between someone who has had gobs of experience in the subject of the position they are possibly going to hold and someone who just happened to fall into it with no education or prior work in the field, and then subsequently quit when the one-trick pony show they played stopped working. I also think we both know the reason that Palin was picked for the veep spot, and it had less to do with her "Q" factor and more to do with the presence of two X chromosomes-- I really have a hard time believing anyone still thinks otherwise at this point. If you want to count that as her "Q" factor that's fine, but her being a female that the vetting team thought could contribute conservative credibility while undermining a possible Hillary veep choice by Obama was so transparent a move that there was really little doubt.

My point stands: complaining about experience on the right side of the aisle is a partisan display of cognitive dissonance at best, hypocrisy at worst. I may still be in the "undecided" camp about Kagan as a potential justice, but experience is not one of the factors that seems reasonable to keep on the fence (or against) over.

[MattusMaximus]

Yes, gays are a key component of the diverse Republican constituency. ;)

You would be surprised to know just how many gays are at least tangentially supportive of the GOP.

[INRM]

I wonder how far left leaning she is

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I wonder how far left leaning she is

Not very far.

[Puppycow]

What the Kagan pick says about Obama (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6495UC20100510)

It's the audacity of caution. :D

[Puppycow]

You heard correctly. Three Jews and Six Catholics would be sitting on the Court.

They're also all Ivy-leaguers.

[Puppycow]

True. Regardless, though, her experience as Soliciter General seems adequate -- comparable to Rehnquist, probably (I am only going by memory; I can't say that for certain). I don't think Powell had any experience as a sitting judge, either.

She seems to be a fairly consistent, liberal-leaning pick with sufficient background to show she's qualified. All in all, I haven't seen anything to indicate she isn't qualified.

I have been somewhat mystified by the reaction not on the right, but on the felt -- Greenwald for example, though there were a couple others, as well. Some on the left have compared her to Harriet Miers, which does not appear to be a fair comparison at all, experience-wise. Have you seen any of that and/or have any explanation for it?

(I'll try to root around for the Greenwald link I saw Friday or Saturday, but not sure where I read it).

Here (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html)

It's anything but surprising that President Obama has chosen Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Nothing is a better fit for this White House than a blank slate, institution-loyal, seemingly principle-free careerist who spent the last 15 months as the Obama administration's lawyer vigorously defending every one of his assertions of extremely broad executive authority. The Obama administration is filled to the brim with exactly such individuals -- as is reflected by its actions and policies -- and this is just one more to add to the pile.
. . .
One final thought about Kagan for now. As I said from the beginning, the real opportunity to derail her nomination was before it was made, because the vast majority of progressives and Democrats will get behind anyone, no matter who it is, chosen by Obama. That's just how things work. They'll ignore most of the substantive concerns that have been raised about her, cling to appeals to authority, seize on personal testimonials from her Good Progressive friends, and try to cobble together blurry little snippets to assure themselves that she's a fine pick. In reality, no matter what they know about her (and, more to the point, don't know), they'll support her because she's now Obama's choice, which means, by definition, that she's a good addition to the Supreme Court. Our politics is nothing if not tribal, and the duty of Every Good Democrat is now to favor Kagan's confirmation. Conservatives refused to succumb to those rules and ended up with Sam Alito instead of Harriet Miers, but they had a much different relationship to George Bush than progressives have to Obama (i.e., conservatives -- as they proved several times late in Bush's second term [Miers, immigration, Dubai Ports] -- were willing to oppose their leader whey they disagreed). The White House knows that progressives will never try to oppose any important Obama initiative, and even if they were inclined, they lack the power to do so (largely because unconditional support guarantees impotence).

[OnlyTellsTruths]

I wonder, if the pick had been male, would the title of this thread be:

"Another Man/Dude Added To The Supreme Court"

Or does the sex of the person only come to the front of one's mind when it is female.

Is this one of those "It was just a [bad] joke" situations?

[The Fallen Serpent]

You would be surprised to know just how many gays are at least tangentially supportive of the GOP.

Quite a few open homosexuals agree with areas of Republican politics that do not deal with social conservatism. To reference one opinion I have heard, "If the choice is giving up on marriage or dying at the hands of terrorist bombers, I will choose to give up on marriage." Now I disagreed with this person on many levels, but it should come as no shock that homosexuals are just as varied in political thought as real people :p

I wonder, if the pick had been male, would the title of this thread be:

"Another Man/Dude Added To The Supreme Court"

Or does the sex of the person only come to the front of one's mind when it is female.

Is this one of those "It was just a [bad] joke" situations?

It would have been "Another sausage for the roast!"

[KingMerv00]

I wonder, if the pick had been male, would the title of this thread be:

"Another Man/Dude Added To The Supreme Court"

Or does the sex of the person only come to the front of one's mind when it is female.

Is this one of those "It was just a [bad] joke" situations?

It's one of those Scrut situations. :D

[Darth Rotor]

For those keeping score, Kagan apparently advised Bill Clinton to work on banning late term aboritons, and, in another matter ... from an AP article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37074480/ns/politics-supreme_court/

Kagan and White House science adviser Jack Gibbons urged the president to support a congressional ban on human cloning. Clinton followed that advice but the bill died in Congress
Kagan also recommended that Clinton support legislation banning human cloning in May 1997. At the time, the scientific and religious communities were abuzz about news that scientists had cloned a sheep, Dolly. The news raised questions about the legal and ethical boundaries of such research.

Kagan and White House science adviser Jack Gibbons urged the president to support a congressional ban on human cloning. Clinton followed that advice but the bill died in Congress
Not sure if this is germane to President Obama's picks, but that clone deal seems to relate to stem cell issues (does it?) that President Obama got off of top dead center.

Will try to see if there's some info on her position on stem cells running about the net.

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I wonder, if the pick had been male, would the title of this thread be:

"Another Man/Dude Added To The Supreme Court"

It would have been: Another Person Added To The Supreme Court

Or does the sex of the person only come to the front of one's mind when it is female.

Yes

Is this one of those "It was just a [bad] joke" situations?

No

[Darth Rotor]

Nothing yet on Kagan and positions on stem cell research. Don't know if she participated in her role as solicitor general in the decision last year to move forward on that.
Proponents from former first lady Nancy Reagan to the late actor Christopher Reeve had pushed for ending the restrictions on research.
That was an interesting tidbit in the stem cell article I read.

A couple of pro-life/anti-abortion sites have already gotten exercised over her support for abortion.

DR

[Bikewer]

So this morning when I got in the car to go buy donuts... NPR was on and they played a snippet from one of our august congressmen (didn't hear who...) who said:

"She needs to answer why she wanted to bar the men and women that serve our country from her campus."

This leads me to believe that the Reptilians are indeed among us, and that a fair percentage of our legislature is indeed from another planet...

Perhaps because it was the written policy of the university to bar recruitment by groups which discriminate?

[Newtons Bit]

Perhaps because it was the written policy of the university to bar recruitment by groups which discriminate?

I find it quite ironic that their policy bars recruitment from "groups which discriminate" while at the same time they greedily solicit every dime that they can possibly get from said group.

Maybe I shouldn't find it ironic. Maybe I should just call it hypocritical. It'd be more accurate.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So this morning when I got in the car to go buy donuts...

I thought that was just a stereotype. :)

[pgwenthold]

So this morning when I got in the car to go buy donuts... NPR was on and they played a snippet from one of our august congressmen (didn't hear who...) who said:

"She needs to answer why she wanted to bar the men and women that serve our country from her campus."

This leads me to believe that the Reptilians are indeed among us, and that a fair percentage of our legislature is indeed from another planet...

Perhaps because it was the written policy of the university to bar recruitment by groups which discriminate?

Hey, they don't want someone who simply follows the rules set forth by a document, and they want someone is able to think about the bigger perspective and what is right for the country and its citizens.

(:))

[Peephole]

Nothing yet on Kagan and positions on stem cell research. Don't know if she participated in her role as solicitor general in the decision last year to move forward on that.
Don't expect a lot of answers:

In the post I wrote yesterday after the Kagan announcement, I noted one genuinely encouraging aspect of her record: in 1995, she rightly excoriated the Supreme Court confirmation process as a "vapid and hollow charade" because nominees refuse to answer any meaningful questions about what they think or believe. Kagan argued that "it is an embarrassment that Senators do not insist that any nominee reveal what kind of Justice she would make, by disclosing her views on important legal issues."

...

So much for adhering to the standards one imposes on others or feigning even a small amount of intellectual consistency:

Elena Kagan no longer thinks Supreme Court nominees should have to answer direct questions

The White House Monday said that Supreme Court nominee won't follow her own advice from 1995 in answering questions on specific legal cases or issues, supporting Kagan’s flip flop on the issue that she first made a year ago.

...

"She was asked about it and said that both the passage of time and her perspective as a nominee had given her a new appreciation and respect for the difficulty of being a nominee, and the need to answer questions carefully," Klain said, prompting laughter from a few reporters.

"You will see before the committee that she walks that line in a very appropriate way. She will be forthcoming with the committee. It will be a robust and engaging conversation about the law, but she will obviously also respect the conventions about how far a nominee should or shouldn’t go in answering about specific legal questions," Klain said.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/11/kagan/index.html

[KingMerv00]

I find it quite ironic that their policy bars recruitment from "groups which discriminate" while at the same time they greedily solicit every dime that they can possibly get from said group.

Do they get money from the military?

[thaiboxerken]

So this morning when I got in the car to go buy donuts... NPR was on and they played a snippet from one of our august congressmen (didn't hear who...) who said:

"She needs to answer why she wanted to bar the men and women that serve our country from her campus."

This leads me to believe that the Reptilians are indeed among us, and that a fair percentage of our legislature is indeed from another planet...

Perhaps because it was the written policy of the university to bar recruitment by groups which discriminate?

It could be that she doesn't think the military should recruit on University grounds.

[KingMerv00]

It could be that she doesn't think the military should recruit on University grounds.

Her objection was to "don't ask don't tell". School policy prohibited groups that discriminated to appear on campus.

[Darth Rotor]

Her objection was to "don't ask don't tell". School policy prohibited groups that discriminated to appear on campus.
A policy of discrimination by the school that presents an interesting, if only semantic, irony. ;)

It's interesting to note this policy stand objected to lawful discrimination as a cover for a commonly found Ivy League disdain for the American military that seems to have arisen around the time of the Viet Nam War. (Maybe it predates that, don't know). The source of the discrimination is clearly encoded in the laws which are the provenance of our Congress: is that who they were going after? I am skeptical. I got to meet my share of Ivy League ***** 's in the late 70's and early 80's who were nothing if not disdainful of my chosen profession.

But it gets more interesting.

We have a variety of lawful discrimination in America, to include gender discrimination against males who turn 18: females are not required to register with selective service, males are, with penalty of voiding possible educational loans/benefits if they don't. That is rather blatant gender discrimination. Where's Harvard on this one, insisting that women enroll in selective service? (If they have taken that stand, I'd love to see their position paper on it).

There is lawful discrimination that makes even less sense: you can't sell beer to a twenty year old.

Idiotic age discrimination.

I wonder how Kagan feels on the selective service issue.

DR

[thaiboxerken]

Her objection was to "don't ask don't tell". School policy prohibited groups that discriminated to appear on campus.

Well, if that's the policy, I don't see any legitimacy for complaint from the right.

[KingMerv00]

Well, if that's the policy, I don't see any legitimacy for complaint from the right.

Her side got annihilated by the Supreme Court (8-0). I suppose one could argue the dean of Harvard Law School should have seen it coming. Maybe she was supporting the cause in protest rather than hoping for victory.

[Newtons Bit]

Do they get money from the military?

The same person who sets the policy in the military sets the budget for the federal government ;)

I have to wonder why they don't forbid him from going on campus.

[Darth Rotor]

Her side got annihilated by the Supreme Court (8-0). I suppose one could argue the dean of Harvard Law School should have seen it coming. Maybe she was supporting the cause in protest rather than hoping for victory.
Ah, hadn't thought of it in that light. Answers some of the mail.

DR

[KingMerv00]

The same person who sets the policy in the military sets the budget for the federal government ;)

I have to wonder why they don't forbid him from going on campus.

That's a rather specious argument. The federal government is certainly big enough to support one section while hating another.

[KingMerv00]

Ah, hadn't thought of it in that light. Answers some of the mail.

DR

In all fairness, the third circuit supported her side so maybe it wasn't all that boneheaded.

[thaiboxerken]

Her side got annihilated by the Supreme Court (8-0). I suppose one could argue the dean of Harvard Law School should have seen it coming. Maybe she was supporting the cause in protest rather than hoping for victory.

It could be protest. However, if that's what the policy reads, and the military does discriminate against homosexuals......

[KingMerv00]

It could be protest. However, if that's what the policy reads, and the military does discriminate against homosexuals......

Federal law (the Solomon Amendment) said colleges that banned recruiters would lose federal funding. Kagan's side said the law infringed on their 1st Amendment rights. The SCOTUS upheld the law.

The case was much bigger than simple college policy.

[thaiboxerken]

So federal law trumped the policy. Gotcha. I still don't think I agree with the SCOTUS at all. However, it is rather hyperbolic for the Right to say that she just doesn't like our soldiers.

[KingMerv00]

So federal law trumped the policy. Gotcha. I still don't think I agree with the SCOTUS at all.

We can debate about the morality of don't ask don't tell but precedentially speaking, the SCOTUS had it right. Congress' spending power is nearly unlimited.

However, it is rather hyperbolic for the Right to say that she just doesn't like our soldiers.

That we agree on.

[Darth Rotor]

So federal law trumped the policy. Gotcha. I still don't think I agree with the SCOTUS at all. However, it is rather hyperbolic for the Right to say that she just doesn't like our soldiers.
Standard hot air battle beginning in re a Supreme Court nom. Same old crap, different day.

DR

[Newtons Bit]

That's a rather specious argument. The federal government is certainly big enough to support one section while hating another.

Huh?

One person has the authority to change "don't ask, don't tell".

[Darth Rotor]

Huh?

One person has the authority to change "don't ask, don't tell".
No. We've been through this in the DADT thread. If one person could, Bill Clinton would not have had to settle for DADT.

DR

[Newtons Bit]

No. We've been through this in the DADT thread. If one person could, Bill Clinton would not have had to settle for DADT.

DR

DADT is an executive order. Can't the executive go a step further and say "don't investigate" period?

[GreNME]

Her side got annihilated by the Supreme Court (8-0).

I think calling it "annihilated" is hyperbole. Keep in mind that her side had won and the opposition had appealed it, losing consecutively all the way up to SCOTUS. Her side lost the fight but won the early rounds, hardly what could be considered "annihilated" to me.

[Darth Rotor]

DADT is an executive order. Can't the executive go a step further and say "don't investigate" period?
It's not that simple. The law DADT is related to cannot be simply ignored by executive order. I don't think that executive orders overriding laws in their entirety is something anyone is comfortable with. That runs into a serious balance of powers problem.

DADT has no meaning unless it is related to the actual law on the books concerning who is or is not qualified for military service.

Defense Directive 1304.26 is related to National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). That included the continuation of the rule that homosexuals were banned from military service. The law was signed by President Clinton. Its impact was to continue Reagan's continuation of the ban on homosexuals (Remember Sergeant Matlovich, in the early 1970's? He was a homosexual may who challenged the anti-homosexual rule in the Air Force, and lost. Part of his problem was that the law wasn't on his side). President Reagan signed an executive order consistent with the laws Matlovich failed to get overturned.

See how that fell into place?

After signing the defense authorization bill into law, President Clinton signed Defense Directive 1304.26 — the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which did not change the law on the ban. He could not overturn it, and Clinton was smart enough to relaize that to overrule a law that he had just signed would make him look a fool.

While he was unable to change the law, he was able to dictate what limits his executive branch operated under in terms of discovering violations of that law as written. That tactic passed legal muster.

It was a boon to some commanding officers. (TO include one of mine). It allowed commanding officers to leave some people well enough alone, and to make sure they were left well enough alone. Previously, they didn't have that latitude.

If for example, someone had an issue with a service member, and was able to get the system to start the infamous witch hunt, a CO could not stop it. With DADT he could.

Mine did.

DR

[Unabogie]

From Kagan and the Military: What Really Happened (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703880304575236502953055276.html#p rintMode). (Liberals, click HERE (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/023757.php) :D)

As dean, Ms. Kagan basically followed a strategy toward military recruiting that was already in place. Here, some background may be helpful: Since 1979, the law school has had a policy requiring all employers who wish to use the assistance of the School's Office of Career Services (OCS) to schedule interviews and recruit students to sign a statement that they do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on.

For years, the U.S. military, because of its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, was not able to sign such a statement and so did not use OCS. It did, however, regularly recruit on campus because it was invited to do so by an official student organization, the Harvard Law School Veterans Association.

The symbolic effect of this special treatment of military recruiters was important, but the practical effect on recruiting logistics was minimal. In 2002, however, the Air Force took a hard line with Harvard and argued that this pattern did not provide strictly equal access for military recruiters and thus violated the 1996 Solomon Amendment, which denies certain federal funds to an education institution that "prohibits or in effect prevent" military recruiting. It credibly threatened to bring an end to federal funding of all research at the university.

This penalty would not have hurt the law school, which has virtually no such funding. But it would have hurt other schools at Harvard, principally the medical school and the school of public health. It would have eliminated about 15% of the university's operating budget.
After much deliberation with the president of Harvard and other university officials, we decided to make an exception for the military to the school's nondiscrimination policy. At the same time, I, along with many faculty and students, publicly stated our opposition to the military's policy, which we considered both unwise and unjust, even as we explicitly affirmed our profound gratitude to the military. Virtually all law schools affiliated with large universities did the same.

When Ms. Kagan became dean in July of 2003, she upheld this newer policy. Military recruiters used OCS services, but at the beginning of each interviewing season she wrote a public memorandum explaining the exception to the school's nondiscrimination policy, stating her objection to "don't ask, don't tell," and expressing her strong view that military service is a noble and socially valuable career path that should be encouraged and open to all of our graduates.

In November 2004, however, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Solomon Amendment infringed improperly on law schools' First Amendment freedoms. So Ms. Kagan returned the school to its pre-2002 practice of not allowing the military to use OCS, but allowing them to recruit via the student group.

Yet this reversion only lasted a semester because the Department of Defense again threatened to cut off federal funding to all of Harvard, and because the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit's decision. Once again, military recruiters were allowed to use OCS, even as the dean and most of the faculty and student body voiced opposition to "don't ask, don't tell."

[KingMerv00]

Huh?

One person has the authority to change "don't ask, don't tell".

I was saying that it is not hypocritical to want government funding and hating DADT at the same time.

[KingMerv00]

I think calling it "annihilated" is hyperbole. Keep in mind that her side had won and the opposition had appealed it, losing consecutively all the way up to SCOTUS. Her side lost the fight but won the early rounds, hardly what could be considered "annihilated" to me.

The opposition didn't lose consecutively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Forum_for_Academic_and_Institutional_R ights,_Inc.#Case_background). Kagan's side lost in district court, won in the circuit and then lost again in the Supreme Court.

Anyway, let's look at what I said:

Her side got annihilated by the Supreme Court (8-0). I suppose one could argue the dean of Harvard Law School should have seen it coming. Maybe she was supporting the cause in protest rather than hoping for victory.

Not the bold part. I followed that with:

In all fairness, the third circuit supported her side so maybe it wasn't all that boneheaded.

[boooeee]

You heard correctly. Three Jews and Six Catholics would be sitting on the Court.


They all walk into a bar....

[KingMerv00]

They all walk into a bar....

Scalia and Thomas have exactly the same thing to drink.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Scalia and Thomas have exactly the same thing to drink.

Thomas doesn't speak a word...

[Regnad Kcin]

A bit of googling hints that she is a lesbian. We'll see.I'll thank you to google your lesbians behind closed doors, fella.

[KingMerv00]

Thomas doesn't speak a word...

Kennedy can't decide between grog or a shirley temple...

[Regnad Kcin]

Three Jews and Six Catholics would be sitting on the Court.No, no. They need to walk into a bar.

ETA: They all walk into a bar....Grr. Serves me right for not reading the entire thread first.

[GreNME]

The opposition didn't lose consecutively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Forum_for_Academic_and_Institutional_R ights,_Inc.#Case_background). Kagan's side lost in district court, won in the circuit and then lost again in the Supreme Court.

Anyway, let's look at what I said:



Not the bold part. I followed that with:

Okay, I stand corrected on the order of wins and losses. Still, my point stands that "annihilated" is hyperbolic. Also, I missed that you qualified it in a different post, which actually covered what I was getting at anyway. So nevermind :)

[KingMerv00]

Okay, I stand corrected on the order of wins and losses. Still, my point stands that "annihilated" is hyperbolic.

8-0

Under the circumstances, she could not have lost by more. (Had Alito taken part, it is safe to say it would have been 9-0.) If that's not annihiliation, then nothing can be.

[marksman]

Well, she could have lost in the Appellate Court, too. The Appellate decision was a split decision, 2-1. So, all in all, 10 judges disagreed with her and two agreed. Not a great record, but at least she can say that two sitting judges agreed with her.

[KingMerv00]

Well, she could have lost in the Appellate Court, too. The Appellate decision was a split decision, 2-1. So, all in all, 10 judges disagreed with her and two agreed. Not a great record, but at least she can say that two sitting judges agreed with her.

We are getting into semantics now but I said they were annihilated in the Supreme Court.

[marksman]

Ah. Good point.

[dudalb]

You get a feeling that lot of the people who are opposed to the Military Recruting on Campus just don't like the military, and it it was not the gay issue they would find another reason to want to kick the military off campus.

[thaiboxerken]

You get a feeling that lot of the people who are opposed to the Military Recruting on Campus just don't like the military, and it it was not the gay issue they would find another reason to want to kick the military off campus.

Why do you get that feeling? Do you not think there is a time and place to recruit people for the military and that there are times where it's inappropriate?

[dudalb]

If just about any company can come and recruit on campus, why not the US Military?

[thaiboxerken]

If just about any company can come and recruit on campus, why not the US Military?

Is the US Military "just another company?"

[pgwenthold]

If just about any company can come and recruit on campus, why not the US Military?

Do any of those companies have policies that discriminate against homosexuals?

No, so you have nothing but a non-sequitor.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You get a feeling that lot of the people who are opposed to the Military Recruting on Campus just don't like the military, and it it was not the gay issue they would find another reason to want to kick the military off campus.

I think this is accurate.

[Shalamar]

Every time I see this thread, I can't help but think 'Obama nominated Jack Chick?'

[cwalner]

Every time I see this thread, I can't help but think 'Obama nominated Jack Chick?'

You're not alone. I thought this thread was about some chick tract bashing on the SCOTUS when I first saw the title.

[Darth Rotor]

Is the US Military "just another company?"

Let's hope it never becomes that. (Comments about Admiral "Corporate" Clark as CNO censored ... :mad: )

[Alferd_Packer]

You heard correctly. Three Jews and Six Catholics would be sitting on the Court.

That's not the worst part.

There would be three New Yorkers sitting on the court.

[marksman]

That's just to offset Alito and Scalia, the two justices from South Joisey.

[daredelvis]

You get a feeling that lot of the people who are opposed to the Military Recruting on Campus just don't like the military, and it it was not the gay issue they would find another reason to want to kick the military off campus.

If just about any company can come and recruit on campus, why not the US Military?
Go ahead and keep saying that if it makes you feel better, but discriminating against homosexuals is reason enough in my book. There is no excuse for the continuing military policy against homosexuals.
Do any of those companies have policies that discriminate against homosexuals?

No, so you have nothing but a non-sequitor.
Darn right.

Daredelvis

[SaveAmericaFightNWO]

She went to Yale or something. She must be acceptable.

Harvard! thanks... turn off your television damn...

[SaveAmericaFightNWO]

Kagan Involved In 9/11 Cover Up

Supreme Court Nominee Helped Obama Shut Down 9/11 Families Lawsuits

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

In addition to the attacks on free speech, detainee rights and the close connections to Goldman Sachs, another noteworthy black mark on the record of Elena Kagan, the president’s nominee to the Supreme Court, is that she played a significant part in killing off the efforts of 9/11 victims’ families to bring lawsuits against members of the Saudi Royal family for financial links to the conspiracy.

Last year, thousands of family members filed suits claiming that Saudi Arabia and four of its princes actively aided in financing the terrorist attacks through front groups posing as charities.

The New York Times ran a report in June highlighting how documents uncovered by lawyers for the 9/11 families “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.”

The documents consisted of “several hundred thousand pages of investigative material” assembled by the 9/11 families, according to the report.

Snipped in accordance with Rule 4. Do not post long tracts of text available elsewhere. Instead, post a short quote and a link to the other source.

[SaveAmericaFightNWO]

Kagan... sounds Jewish. Clearly a puppet of the Israel lobby and the NWO.

agreed, the part about her being for the NWO

[SaveAmericaFightNWO]

Another? To whom do they refer?

Barney Franks

Larry Craig

Mark Foley

sick, perverted, with power!

they should not be in our government, sorry, no offense to homosexuals, but I think we've had enough sex scandals in washington d.c.

we need some good faithful women and men, to take up seats and SUPPORT strictly.. the Constitution!

[cwalner]

Barney Franks

Larry Craig

Mark Foley

sick, perverted, with power!

they should not be in our government, sorry, no offense to homosexuals, but I think we've had enough sex scandals in washington d.c.

we need some good faithful women and men, to take up seats and SUPPORT strictly.. the Constitution!

Interesting. On your list, the only one who has not been involved in a sex scandal (that I am aware of) is Barney Frank. He is also the only person on your list that acknowledges his homosexuality.

The sex scandals are not caused by them being homosexual, but them felling that they cannot openly acknowledge their homosexuality (due to bigots like yourself).

If you want less sex scandals in DC, accept homosexuality from your politicians.

[cwalner]

Kagan Involved In 9/11 Cover Up

Supreme Court Nominee Helped Obama Shut Down 9/11 Families Lawsuits

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

<snip>


Based on your username and the highlighted portion, is it really worth my reading the rest of this post?

[Meadmaker]

Interesting. On your list, the only one who has not been involved in a sex scandal (that I am aware of) is Barney Frank. He is also the only person on your list that acknowledges his homosexuality.

I think his roommate was a prostitute, but I might be getting him confused with someone else. It's not quite a major scandal, but it's a bit scandalous.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Based on your username and the highlighted portion, is it really worth my reading the rest of this post?

No. I pretty much stopped where you did.

[cwalner]

I think his roommate was a prostitute, but I might be getting him confused with someone else. It's not quite a major scandal, but it's a bit scandalous.

Fair enough, but still, for me, the major scandal of Foley and Craig was not the homosexuality by itself, but that, in combination with their public anti-homosexual views. With Foley, add the age as well. It would have been just as scandalous if he was caught with female pages (just not quite as salacious).

[Meadmaker]

Fair enough, but still, for me, the major scandal of Foley and Craig was not the homosexuality by itself, but that, in combination with their public anti-homosexual views. With Foley, add the age as well. It would have been just as scandalous if he was caught with female pages (just not quite as salacious).

I looked it up. The scandal with Frank was that the guy he was having a relationship was a prostitute, living, at least part time in Frank's home, and bringing "clients" to that home. They could never prove, though, that Frank was aware that his home was being used for prostitution, so the scandal never went anywhere.

[Brainster]

She apparently lamented the decline of socialism in her college thesis:

"The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America."

Ann Althouse comes up with a novel excuse (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/05/read-elena-kagans-college-thesis-and.html):

Not only is it likely that she has changed since she was in her early 20s, but it is also nearly a certainty that she wrote to obtain the favor of her teachers in the Princeton University History Department. I think there is a lot more evidence that Kagan knows how to please and win the favor of those with the power to advance her career than that Kagan is a socialist. I'm just going to guess — correct me if I'm wrong — that in 1981, Princeton students were able to discern that their history professors liked socialism.

See, she was just sucking up to her socialist profs!

BTW, I'm a little puzzled why Kagan thought socialism declined "more than half a century" before she wrote her thesis in 1981.

[daredelvis]

She apparently lamented the decline of socialism in her college thesis:



Ann Althouse comes up with a novel excuse (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/05/read-elena-kagans-college-thesis-and.html):



See, she was just sucking up to her socialist profs!

BTW, I'm a little puzzled why Kagan thought socialism declined "more than half a century" before she wrote her thesis in 1981.
Think there might be any context to that? In a thesis titled, "To The Final Conflict: Socialism In New York City, 1900-1933."


Epic fail.

Daredelvis

[daredelvis]

She apparently lamented the decline of socialism in her college thesis:




Really, my previous comment was not strong enough. It is not just a fail, it is a lie of omission by redstate, and who knows what by you. Lazy, or as disingenuous as redstate, only you know for sure.

Daredelvis

[Brainster]

Really, my previous comment was not strong enough. It is not just a fail, it is a lie of omission by redstate, and who knows what by you. Lazy, or as disingenuous as redstate, only you know for sure.

Daredelvis

Thanks for reminding me why I have you on ignore.

Given that I myself was a socialist in college, I don't think it's disqualifying by any means. But I do apologize for bringing it up; it's the top story on Memeorandum right now but that doesn't mean it should be discussed at the JREF forums.

[daredelvis]

Ahhh... Just asking questions, I see. Please, you presented as Keagan professing a love affair with socialism and the wacky excuse posited by some of the lefties out there that she was, "just sucking up to her socialist profs!". It is a quote presented so far out of context that it is not in the least informative. Parroting Memeorandum, parroting garbage from RedState (without attribution), is a novel defense.

Daredelvis

[BeAChooser]

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-flashback-a-supreme-court-nominee-with-no-judicial-experience-requires-extreme-scrutiny/

OBAMA FLASHBACK: A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WITH NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE REQUIRES EXTREME SCRUTINY"

Here's what Obama said referring to the Harriet Meirs nomination:


One thing I do think is important, is that the White House recognize that in the absence of any judicial record on her part … uh … in the absence of any … uh … significant … uh … work that she appears to have done related to Constitutional issues, that she is going to need to be more forthcoming and the White House is going to need to be more forthcoming than they were during the Robert's nomination. … uh … Ms Meyers is completely a blank slate.



Think Obama feels the same about Kagan?

:D

[thaiboxerken]

Think Obama feels the same about Kagan?

:D

Probably not, since he actually knows Kagan and her views, personally. However, you seem to imply that Obama is being inconsistent. Have you looked on your side of the aisle?

[Freddy]

I'm not saying judicial experience is an absolute necessity to be a good justice. I just think that there are plenty of qualified people out there. It seems like a no brainer to pick someone who has been a judge before. I mean, why WOULDN'T you?

I agree with this. I would have liked to see Obama nominate Ann Williams of the 7th Circuit, who was rumored to be on the short list. But I'm biased because she's an ND Law grad. It also would have been nice to get a non-Ivy League justice. There are plenty of law schools that produce people who are qualified for the Supreme Court. They don't all need to come from Yale, Harvard, or Stanford (which I realize is not an Ivy).

That said, I think Kagan has shown herself to be up to the job. Also, as Dean of Harvard Law she did a good job mediating between faculty of different ideological stripes, and even brought in several prominent conservatives to Harvard Law School. I expect her to be confirmed easily unless she has a major skeleton in the closet that hasn't come to light yet.

[BeAChooser]

Probably not, since he actually knows Kagan and her views, personally.

Of course he knows her and her views. Afterall, she's a socialist.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Of course he knows her and her views. Afterall, she's a socialist.

:tinfoil

[thaiboxerken]

Of course he knows her and her views. Afterall, she's a socialist.

I can only hope.

[fishbob]

I wonder, if the pick had been male, would the title of this thread be:

"Another Man/Dude Added To The Supreme Court"

Or does the sex of the person only come to the front of one's mind when it is female.

Is this one of those "It was just a [bad] joke" situations?

Just Scrut being a scrote.

[sphenisc]

I'm disappointed to find this isn't about Jack Chick.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm disappointed to find this isn't about Jack Chick.

I am too.

[ZirconBlue]

I agree with this. I would have liked to see Obama nominate Ann Williams of the 7th Circuit, who was rumored to be on the short list.

I would have liked to see him nominate Ann Wilson of Heart. Or maybe Nancy.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2011/may/documents-raise-questions-about-supreme-court-justice-kagan-s-role-obamacare-defense-s


Washington, DC -- May 18, 2011

Judicial Watch … snip … announced today that it has obtained documents suggesting Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan helped coordinate the Obama administration’s legal defense of the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) while she served as Solicitor General. Kagan has said she was not involved in Department of Justice (DOJ) preparations for legal challenges to Obamacare. Moreover, the Supreme Court justice did not recuse herself from the High Court decision in April 2011 not to “fast-track” for Supreme Court review Virginia’s lawsuit challenging Obamacare.

The following are highlights from the documents obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on February 24, 2011. … snip …

From this article (read all of it rather than just the quoted excerpt), it appears clear that Kagan and members of her staff LIED during the nomination process and hearings. So in my opinion, this lying socialist "chick" should now be IMPEACHED.

[ANTPogo]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2011/may/documents-raise-questions-about-supreme-court-justice-kagan-s-role-obamacare-defense-s


From this article (read all of it rather than just the quoted excerpt), it appears clear that Kagan and members of her staff LIED during the nomination process and hearings. So in my opinion, this lying socialist "chick" should now be IMPEACHED.

Oh My God! Elena Kagan received and sometimes forwarded emails saying that other people in the office she was in charge of were working on and meeting to discuss HCR legislation! And your link quotes CNS News!

Obviously a slam-dunk for impeachment.

[BeAChooser]

Oh My God! Elena Kagan received and sometimes forwarded emails saying that other people in the office she was in charge of were working on and meeting to discuss HCR legislation!

You shouldn't make your dishonesty so transparent. You should be more like the Obama adminstration and try to hide your dishonesty, ANTPogo. The documents indicate that Kagan herself was involved. As one of those emails stated: "Elena would definitely like OSG [Office of Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues…we will bring in Elena as needed." And even if it were only other people in her office who attended the meetings, Katyal told a Department of Justice investigator that "[Elena] has never been involved in any of it. I’ve run it for the office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit.” Which based on the emails is an obvious lie. Afterall, there is an email chain entitled “Health care litigation meeting,” which references an “internal government meeting regarding the expected litigation”, where Kagan is both author and recipient in the chain. It's amazing the number of issues where you have your head in the sand, ANTPogo. :D

[Kopji]

Help me a little here. The documentation says that she was never asked about recusal during the questioning.

In this email exchange, Ms. Kagan and the White House
staff members formulated and revised a draft answer to an anticipated
question that Ms. Kagan might have been asked by Senators during the
confirmation process. The anticipated question and draft answer related to
Ms. Kagan’s recusal decisions as Solicitor General. OSG staff reviewed
the record of Ms. Kagan’s hearing before the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, including the questions to the record posed by members of the
Committee, and ascertained that Ms. Kagan was not asked the question
contemplated in the email exchange and that Ms. Kagan did not provide
any version of the draft answer during the confirmation process.
pg 11-12

http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2011/mrc-kagan-vaughn-declaration-docs.pdf

Bold mine. And this just a question. This seems to imply that no lie took place because the question was never asked if she would recuse herself or not.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2011/may/documents-raise-questions-about-supreme-court-justice-kagan-s-role-obamacare-defense-s


From this article (read all of it rather than just the quoted excerpt), it appears clear that Kagan and members of her staff LIED during the nomination process and hearings. So in my opinion, this lying socialist "chick" should now be IMPEACHED.

EXECUTE her first, then IMPEACH her.

[DavidJames]

So in my opinion, this lying socialist "chick" should now be IMPEACHED.

Edited for Rule 12.