Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Assuming she is a lesbian (and I have no idea one way or 'tother) and part of his motivation is to mend fences with homosexuals, I don't think this is going to fly.Nice looking lady, though.
Seriously?I oppose Kagan because she has little judicial experience, is Ivy league educated and simply hasn't impressed me. But beauty she ain't.
Yay! The Court is really starting to look like America now! A daughter of Princeton, Harvard and Bilitis, all rolled into one! L'Chaim!I wonder if she'll ever vote to grant cert to a case with a US Military plaintiff. Because those breeder fascists don't deserve to set foot in the Supreme Court.
Kagan-Sotomeyer-Ginsberg. Huba Huba. I hope Breyer can keep his hands to himself.
It's a trap. Seriously I prefer Kagan to Wood. But they both suck.
Easy confirmation -- solicitor general, former Harvard law dean.She hired a few conservatives at Harvard, and she set up a free skating rink -- she's okay in my books. And Glenn Greenwald despises her -- that's got to be a point in her favour.Yes, she's ridiculously anti-military, but she's a liberal. Goes with the territory.I'm slightly surprised Obama went with her now -- she could probably get confirmed in a Republican Senate.
Diversity Advocates Object to Obama's Appointment of "Yet Another Total Dweeb" to the Supreme Court http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/05/diversity-advocates-object-to-obamas.html
debating whether Marxism is preferable to utopianismLMAO. (Thanks for linking that, Paul.)
I am sure there is a huge identity politics play involved here, though I don't like identity politics and wish politicians would stop playing them.So I'll just say this: the White House must be scared as fuck if they are nominating such a basically centrist nominee.And I'll say one more thing: I have nothing to base this on, but my hunch is that Kagan would have ceded that Congress has every right to withhold funds from a school if it wants to based on national security reasons. There are certain things you do as a dean that you don't do as a sitting Supreme Court Justice, and vice versa.
The NBC release said she is non-controversial so that she will not distract from "Climate Changing Legislation". What a crock.
why do we shy away from saying that she is a lesbian ? i don't know if she is a 'good' choice, but she is certainly an interesting one. let's see how this plays out.
Just for once, for one time in our lives, let's judge Kagan on her ability to be a Supreme Court judge -- not her race, or her religion, or her sexual preferences.Is that so hard?
"Assuming she is a lesbian (and I have no idea one way or 'tother)"Either your butch GAYDAR is not working and/or you are not reading any Left-wing blogs. Just look.
Plus, she hate rotc.
Would you idiots prefer Harriet Myers?
I think it is instructive to read these first dozen or so comments. homophobia, sexism to the extreme, factually wrong comments...well the uber-recht has it going on this topic. When Obama swore his oath to uphold the constitution - seemingly for ALL the people - I bet he had to hold his nose when it came to a few of you.
"Just for once, for one time in our lives, let's judge Kagan on her ability to be a Supreme Court judge"So what are your criteria?Against - No judicial experience, minimal practical legal experience, no legal writing of note. Insider elite pick.For -Nominated by the president. Meets constitutional minimums. By the standard "ability to be a Supreme Court judge" she passes.
No judicial experienceWhy is that important for a USSC position? In recent history, most nominees have been judges, yes. But not through all history.
No judicial experience. Lesbian. No practical, normative experience in either the function of the court system or the vagina.
And when she's nominated, we'll be told how brilliant she is. But just like Obama, there is very little evidence to back up the claim.
Why is that important for a USSC position? In recent history, most nominees have been judges, yes. But not through all history.In the case of the USSC, it may well be that we have career judges because that's best. Frankly, I'm far more concerned about the polarization of where these judges were educated. We seem to have a penchant for Ivy League jurors. I'd like to see someone that came up from elsewhere in the country, for a change.
Is it my imagination or is Kagan the younger sister of Janet Napolitano (without the gray racing stripe through her hair)? Separated at birth or what?
Searching for author:"E Kagan" on Google Scholar shows articles with 528, 196, 99 and 38 citations, before descending into the realm of obituaries and book reviews. There are a couple of papers from the mid '90s that gather a handful of citations apiece.Any of the top 4 articles strike me as an impressive citation count.
I'm no expert on law, but I do feel that we have more than enough academics ruling our lives and influencing opinion. I want some diversity that even a blind man could recognize.
"Would you idiots prefer Harriet Myers?"That's a key difference: the right was against a nominee that was sub par and clearly an inside pick. The right has standards beyond: Our party picked her = she is amazing. The left should pick up some standards and try wearing them for once.
@Rick:"...(without the gray racing stripe through her hair)?.."In fashion circles that stripe is know as the 'skunk-line'. Appropriate, no?
The left should pick up some standards and try wearing them for once.That's the problem. Leftist thinking has no logical or moral basis. It's based on five-year-old thinking, which is why all you hear is "mine, mine, mine," and "that's not fair." Leftist thinking conveniently shifts with the situation; they have no standards.
Windbag said..."That's the problem. Leftist thinking has no logical or moral basis. ... they have no standards."You are aptly named.
@Windbag: Yes, as evidenced by these comments, the right definitely has standards--no lesbians, no uglies, no (more) Jews on the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm proud to be an American when I read a thread like this (not so much).
No real world experience at anything outside Ivy Walls, just like the Usurper. Lord help us.
Whew. I am so relieved that the SCOTUS will now have one more Harvard law graduate(5 soon) putting those uppity Yalies (3) in their place. Dang...if Ginsburg retires, they could go for 6 to 3, Harvard vs Yale, of the 9 total...oh, wait, that is the 9 total.Ain't diversity of legal minds grand?
I don't care if she is a lesbian or not (but the left sure does and not in a good way). I just want to know if there is some rule that a hot babe can't be nominated. Surely there are a few who have both the brains and the body for the job.
MadisonMan said:"Why is [judicial experience] that important for a USSC position? In recent history, most nominees have been judges, yes. But not through all history."Fair enough, but what non-judicial experience does Kagan have that qualifies her for the USSC?She was a law professor for most of her working life, but her legal scholarship (essentially, three law review articles) is serously lacking in both quantity and quality. I don't know what her reputation was as a classroom teacher; assuming it was good, I don't think teaching experience is very relevant to the challenges of being an effective Justice.She was Dean of Harvard Law School, but has no substantial administrative or organizational achievement to claim as her own (apart from resisting the military's recruitment efforts at the law school). Although some interesting hires were made during her tenure, the Dean has little or no influence on faculty recruitment, which is the (jealously guarded) responsibility of the faculty itself.Her stint as Solicitor General has been too short to give her much experience of Supreme Court advocacy. Her performance so far has been undistinguished. For example, her oral arguments in the campaign finance case - by far her most prominent - were simply embarassing. Kagan's elevation to USSC is very similar to Obama's ascent to the presidency.
My vague recollection (vague because who really cares about what happens at Harvard Law? I mean really!) is that she did do some bridge-building while Dean, meaning she took a dysfunctional faculty family and made it less contentious. In addition to applying the Non-discrimination law to campus recruiters.Plays well with others might not be necessary for a Senator from Utah, but maybe it's helpful for a USSC judge. I'm not Obama, though, so I don't know why he picked her.
"Kagan's elevation to USSC is very similar to Obama's ascent to the presidency." And we all know how well that has turned out, don't we?
MadisonMan said:"[S]he did do some bridge-building while Dean, meaning she took a dysfunctional faculty family and made it less contentious." Bridge-building on the USSC appears to require a level of intellectual horsepower that Kagan shosn no sign of having. The great counter-example, Earl Warren, had a level of political ability and experience that Kagan shows no sign of having as well. Still, you never know."In addition to applying the Non-discrimination law to campus recruiters." Not true, MM. The federal anti-discrimination-in-employment statute did not forbid discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. (Maybe Massachusetts aw was different, but I doubt it.)
I think that she will be just fine, and likely notably better than Obama's previous pick, who comes across, so far, as a light weight. I don't like the Harvard angle, but given the alternatives, the President could have done far, far, worse.
I am very disappointed.How could the President ignore a respected legal mind who so embodies his world view.Lynn Stewart gets screwed again.
Trooper York said..."Lynn Stewart gets screwed again."Yeah Trooper but when you are finished with Lynn I doubt any man would satisfy her - ya' big lug ya'....and PS, every time you do her we don't need to read about it.Oh? that was a figure of speech? my my you are a wit!
"...Lynn Stewart gets screwed again."and I have to remind you ,again, that Ron Kuby is available.
As if anyone's still watching...I didn't mean to hit and run, but Internet time has been relatively scarce and I haven't made it back until this afternoon.@hdhouse: windbag I am, yes. I'd like to hear a counterargument instead of the typical, childish name-calling that liberals revert to when challenged to defend any position.@commenter: I haven't spoken against ugly people, lesbians, or Jews, so except for pointing that out, there's nothing to say to you.
I oppose Kagan because she has little judicial experience, is Ivy league educated and simply hasn't impressed me. But beauty she ain't.Law
Post a Comment