It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
darknightbegins
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:51 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby darknightbegins » Sun May 09, 2010 11:53 pm

Drake014 wrote:
darknightbegins wrote:Obama shouldn't feel pressure to pick someone based on gender or race. Put on who he thinks is the best candidate. I see no problem with this candidate. I'm surprised Stevens is retiring, I figured they'd have to take him out horizontally.


Actually, I think its clear he's trying to fix the thin/chunky disparity on the court to make it look a little more representative of the average American.

Image

Image


Yikes. But they still don't top Taft. Guy went over 3 bills at a time when America wasn't nearly as obese as it is now.
Last edited by darknightbegins on Mon May 10, 2010 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Drake014 » Sun May 09, 2010 11:54 pm

A'nold wrote:
Tautology wrote:There is no such thing as neutrality; it is a myth perpetuated by those who cannot tell the difference between it and moderation.


Thank you for that deep, awe-inspiring insight.


Image

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby romothesavior » Sun May 09, 2010 11:56 pm

A'nold wrote:I mean, when things get too political, nobody wins. Look at the Keeler case in CA where the CA Supreme Court let that guy off the hook after killing his ex-wife's full-term baby b/c they didn't want to set abortion precedent. Yikes.


I hate the "judicial activism card" as much as the next guy, but isn't the definition of murder best left up to the legislature? I'm not saying this guy wasn't a slimeball who did something morally reprehensible, but broadening the law just to get a conviction seems to be unjust.

(getting back on track...)

I like this nomination, and I think the fact she doesn't have a record will be a good thing. There's nothing I hate more in these nomination proceedings than listening to some dimwit senator twist a judge's prior decision around (probably without even reading the case). Hopefully that hopes to minimize the politicization of the whole nomination process.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Drake014 » Sun May 09, 2010 11:58 pm

romothesavior wrote:
A'nold wrote:I mean, when things get too political, nobody wins. Look at the Keeler case in CA where the CA Supreme Court let that guy off the hook after killing his ex-wife's full-term baby b/c they didn't want to set abortion precedent. Yikes.


I hate the "judicial activism card" as much as the next guy, but isn't the definition of murder best left up to the legislature? I'm not saying this guy wasn't a slimeball who did something morally reprehensible, but broadening the law just to get a conviction seems to be unjust.

(getting back on track...)

I like this nomination, and I think the fact she doesn't have a record will be a good thing. There's nothing I hate more in these nomination proceedings than listening to some dimwit senator twist a judge's prior decision around (probably without even reading the case). Hopefully that hopes to minimize the politicization of the whole nomination process.


I thought it was the reverse. I thought they struck down the law he was being prosecuted under.

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Pearalegal » Mon May 10, 2010 12:01 am

tommytahoe wrote:
Yeah, good points. Neutrality should be sought by all judges. Be true to precedent as much as you can, look at the law from all angles, make the judgment. I guess I was just saying that the divisions will always occur. I do agree that a moderate stance can be a breath of fresh air. I fall on the left on a great many issues, but also know that the law as it stands should act as a moderating force that prevents judges from freewheeling, or disregarding past precedent like in... ahem... Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District



I agree with you to an extent--almost completely, actually. I just never understood the idealistic need to divorce conviction and passion from the law. During the last confirmations, I was completely blown away by the pressure both sides put on seperating oneself from life experiences in order to make balanced judgements. I would hope life experiences would allow someone to be wiser and more balanced. Why can't a belief in moderation be just as passionate a belief in the left or right?

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby romothesavior » Mon May 10, 2010 12:01 am

Drake014 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
A'nold wrote:I mean, when things get too political, nobody wins. Look at the Keeler case in CA where the CA Supreme Court let that guy off the hook after killing his ex-wife's full-term baby b/c they didn't want to set abortion precedent. Yikes.


I hate the "judicial activism card" as much as the next guy, but isn't the definition of murder best left up to the legislature? I'm not saying this guy wasn't a slimeball who did something morally reprehensible, but broadening the law just to get a conviction seems to be unjust.

(getting back on track...)

I like this nomination, and I think the fact she doesn't have a record will be a good thing. There's nothing I hate more in these nomination proceedings than listening to some dimwit senator twist a judge's prior decision around (probably without even reading the case). Hopefully that hopes to minimize the politicization of the whole nomination process.


I thought it was the reverse. I thought they struck down the law he was being prosecuted under.


I thought they said that the courts are bound by the definition of the legislature, and "murder" as defined by the legislature only covered people who had been born. But I'll defer to those of you with more knowledge of the case...

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby romothesavior » Mon May 10, 2010 12:05 am

Pearalegal wrote:
tommytahoe wrote:
Yeah, good points. Neutrality should be sought by all judges. Be true to precedent as much as you can, look at the law from all angles, make the judgment. I guess I was just saying that the divisions will always occur. I do agree that a moderate stance can be a breath of fresh air. I fall on the left on a great many issues, but also know that the law as it stands should act as a moderating force that prevents judges from freewheeling, or disregarding past precedent like in... ahem... Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District



I agree with you to an extent--almost completely, actually. I just never understood the idealistic need to divorce conviction and passion from the law. During the last confirmations, I was completely blown away by the pressure both sides put on seperating oneself from life experiences in order to make balanced judgements. I would hope life experiences would allow someone to be wiser and more balanced. Why can't a belief in moderation be just as passionate a belief in the left or right?


Again, I don't want to come off as some originalist conservative or something (and I'm not... I'm quite liberal), but this type of mentality just undercuts the effectiveness of democracy. There are many, many things I passionately believe, but I recognize that I'm in the minority. If I could be "judge for a day," my life experiences and political passions wouldn't give me the authority to just say, "Hey sorry majority... F*ck you."

Tautology
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:40 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Tautology » Mon May 10, 2010 12:07 am

romothesavior wrote:
Pearalegal wrote:
tommytahoe wrote:
Yeah, good points. Neutrality should be sought by all judges. Be true to precedent as much as you can, look at the law from all angles, make the judgment. I guess I was just saying that the divisions will always occur. I do agree that a moderate stance can be a breath of fresh air. I fall on the left on a great many issues, but also know that the law as it stands should act as a moderating force that prevents judges from freewheeling, or disregarding past precedent like in... ahem... Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District



I agree with you to an extent--almost completely, actually. I just never understood the idealistic need to divorce conviction and passion from the law. During the last confirmations, I was completely blown away by the pressure both sides put on seperating oneself from life experiences in order to make balanced judgements. I would hope life experiences would allow someone to be wiser and more balanced. Why can't a belief in moderation be just as passionate a belief in the left or right?


Again, I don't want to come off as some originalist conservative or something (and I'm not... I'm quite liberal), but this type of mentality just undercuts the effectiveness of democracy. There are many, many things I passionately believe, but I recognize that I'm in the minority. If I could be "judge for a day," my life experiences and political passions wouldn't give me the authority to just say, "Hey sorry majority... F*ck you."


So you would ignore knowledge you have because not everyone else has it?

User avatar
voice of reason
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:18 am

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby voice of reason » Mon May 10, 2010 12:11 am

How does one get tenure at Chicago and HLS with so thin a publication record?

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Pearalegal » Mon May 10, 2010 12:12 am

romothesavior wrote:
Pearalegal wrote:
tommytahoe wrote:
Yeah, good points. Neutrality should be sought by all judges. Be true to precedent as much as you can, look at the law from all angles, make the judgment. I guess I was just saying that the divisions will always occur. I do agree that a moderate stance can be a breath of fresh air. I fall on the left on a great many issues, but also know that the law as it stands should act as a moderating force that prevents judges from freewheeling, or disregarding past precedent like in... ahem... Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District



I agree with you to an extent--almost completely, actually. I just never understood the idealistic need to divorce conviction and passion from the law. During the last confirmations, I was completely blown away by the pressure both sides put on seperating oneself from life experiences in order to make balanced judgements. I would hope life experiences would allow someone to be wiser and more balanced. Why can't a belief in moderation be just as passionate a belief in the left or right?


Again, I don't want to come off as some originalist conservative or something (and I'm not... I'm quite liberal), but this type of mentality just undercuts the effectiveness of democracy. There are many, many things I passionately believe, but I recognize that I'm in the minority. If I could be "judge for a day," my life experiences and political passions wouldn't give me the authority to just say, "Hey sorry majority... F*ck you."


Which is why in a democracy you aren't the ONLY judge or the ONLY executive power.

However, your experiences contribute to a whole.

Aqualibrium
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:57 am

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Aqualibrium » Mon May 10, 2010 12:13 am

voice of reason wrote:How does one get tenure at Chicago and HLS with so thin a publication record?



By being good at what you do.

User avatar
darknightbegins
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:51 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby darknightbegins » Mon May 10, 2010 12:20 am

hombredulce wrote:
voice of reason wrote:How does one get tenure at Chicago and HLS with so thin a publication record?



By being good at what you do.


And what would that be exactly? She has such a then record how can we tell how good she is?

User avatar
tommytahoe
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:46 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby tommytahoe » Mon May 10, 2010 12:27 am

darknightbegins wrote:
hombredulce wrote:
voice of reason wrote:How does one get tenure at Chicago and HLS with so thin a publication record?



By being good at what you do.


And what would that be exactly? She has such a then record how can we tell how good she is?


She overhauled and improved the HLS 1L curriculum, brought on board a bunch of high-profile profs of both the right and the left, has extensive crossover knowledge of the law and legislation/policy (with Clinton and Obama Admins), taught for several years at Chicago, clerked for two years for Thurgood Marshall, did NOT write much in law reviews at all, true, but has looked more than capable (by many neutral observers) arguing before the Court in one year as SG.
So, that may not be judge work, or scholarly work, but neither is it for nothing.

User avatar
darknightbegins
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:51 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby darknightbegins » Mon May 10, 2010 12:29 am

tommytahoe wrote:
darknightbegins wrote:
hombredulce wrote:
voice of reason wrote:How does one get tenure at Chicago and HLS with so thin a publication record?



By being good at what you do.


And what would that be exactly? She has such a then record how can we tell how good she is?


She overhauled and improved the HLS 1L curriculum, brought on board a bunch of high-profile profs of both the right and the left, has extensive crossover knowledge of the law and legislation/policy (with Clinton and Obama Admins), taught for several years at Chicago, clerked for two years for Thurgood Marshall, did NOT write much in law reviews at all, true, but has looked more than capable (by many neutral observers) arguing before the Court in one year as SG.
So, that may not be judge work, or scholarly work, but neither is it for nothing.


The question was how did she get tenure at Chicago. I don't think you have answered that question.

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Pearalegal » Mon May 10, 2010 12:30 am

tommytahoe wrote:
darknightbegins wrote:
hombredulce wrote:
voice of reason wrote:How does one get tenure at Chicago and HLS with so thin a publication record?



By being good at what you do.


And what would that be exactly? She has such a then record how can we tell how good she is?


She overhauled and improved the HLS 1L curriculum, brought on board a bunch of high-profile profs of both the right and the left, has extensive crossover knowledge of the law and legislation/policy (with Clinton and Obama Admins), taught for several years at Chicago, clerked for two years for Thurgood Marshall, did NOT write much in law reviews at all, true, but has looked more than capable (by many neutral observers) arguing before the Court in one year as SG.
So, that may not be judge work, or scholarly work, but neither is it for nothing.


Agreed but, mostly because of what I bolded. I'd like much more of that in my nom.

In no way do I think Kagan is a bad pick, just not in anyway my first. Haha, not that my opinion matters.

Fark-o-vision
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Fark-o-vision » Mon May 10, 2010 12:31 am

I think the idea of "neutrality" in the political realm is a bit of a joke. After all, so much of it is based on culture and culture is heavily influenced by age, or region. Even on issues like Abortion, which lend themselves to the conclusion that one side must be right, we rarely see agreement. We view political issues in dichotomy because thats easy, and it makes communicating in our everyday life a little more convenient, but it doesn't represent reality. After all, very few people are "for" abortion. Suggesting that you'd be neutral only suggests that you believe yourself to be fair based on your own cultural heritage. In this case, though, it's a meaningless term.

APimpNamedSlickback
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:33 am

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby APimpNamedSlickback » Mon May 10, 2010 12:33 am

to what extent do you all expect a populist backlash against some notion of academic elitism during the coming weeks? if so, do you expect that this could actually have a substantive impact on how judges and clerks are selected in the future?
Last edited by APimpNamedSlickback on Mon May 10, 2010 12:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

Tautology
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:40 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Tautology » Mon May 10, 2010 12:33 am

Fark-o-vision wrote:I think the idea of "neutrality" in the political realm is a bit of a joke. After all, so much of it is based on culture and culture is heavily influenced by age, or region. Even on issues like Abortion, which lend themselves to the conclusion that one side must be right, we rarely see agreement. We view political issues in dichotomy because thats easy, and it makes communicating in our everyday life a little more convenient, but it doesn't represent reality. After all, very few people are "for" abortion. Suggesting that you'd be neutral only suggests that you believe yourself to be fair based on your own cultural heritage. In this case, though, it's a meaningless term.


I tried to say that earlier but they got mad at me, good luck to you.

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Pearalegal » Mon May 10, 2010 12:36 am

Tautology wrote:
Fark-o-vision wrote:I think the idea of "neutrality" in the political realm is a bit of a joke. After all, so much of it is based on culture and culture is heavily influenced by age, or region. Even on issues like Abortion, which lend themselves to the conclusion that one side must be right, we rarely see agreement. We view political issues in dichotomy because thats easy, and it makes communicating in our everyday life a little more convenient, but it doesn't represent reality. After all, very few people are "for" abortion. Suggesting that you'd be neutral only suggests that you believe yourself to be fair based on your own cultural heritage. In this case, though, it's a meaningless term.


I tried to say that earlier but they got mad at me, good luck to you.


In no way did we get mad at you...I completely agreed, but because of a lack of real-life examples, there was no way to argue.

Fark-o-vision
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Fark-o-vision » Mon May 10, 2010 12:36 am

romothesavior wrote:
Pearalegal wrote:
tommytahoe wrote:
Yeah, good points. Neutrality should be sought by all judges. Be true to precedent as much as you can, look at the law from all angles, make the judgment. I guess I was just saying that the divisions will always occur. I do agree that a moderate stance can be a breath of fresh air. I fall on the left on a great many issues, but also know that the law as it stands should act as a moderating force that prevents judges from freewheeling, or disregarding past precedent like in... ahem... Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District



I agree with you to an extent--almost completely, actually. I just never understood the idealistic need to divorce conviction and passion from the law. During the last confirmations, I was completely blown away by the pressure both sides put on seperating oneself from life experiences in order to make balanced judgements. I would hope life experiences would allow someone to be wiser and more balanced. Why can't a belief in moderation be just as passionate a belief in the left or right?


Again, I don't want to come off as some originalist conservative or something (and I'm not... I'm quite liberal), but this type of mentality just undercuts the effectiveness of democracy. There are many, many things I passionately believe, but I recognize that I'm in the minority. If I could be "judge for a day," my life experiences and political passions wouldn't give me the authority to just say, "Hey sorry majority... F*ck you."


I might be wrong about this, and I know can count on TLS to let me know if I am, but isn't the ability to say "hey sorry majority...F*ck you" exactly the reason we gave those bastards lifetime appointments?

User avatar
tommytahoe
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:46 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby tommytahoe » Mon May 10, 2010 12:37 am

darknightbegins wrote:
tommytahoe wrote:

She overhauled and improved the HLS 1L curriculum, brought on board a bunch of high-profile profs of both the right and the left, has extensive crossover knowledge of the law and legislation/policy (with Clinton and Obama Admins), taught for several years at Chicago, clerked for two years for Thurgood Marshall, did NOT write much in law reviews at all, true, but has looked more than capable (by many neutral observers) arguing before the Court in one year as SG.
So, that may not be judge work, or scholarly work, but neither is it for nothing.


The question was how did she get tenure at Chicago. I don't think you have answered that question.


Fair point. Three glasses of chardonnay are talking with me. I have no idea how she got the tenure. Some folks in the papers have wondered the same thing. Def. skipped some vital stages.
Last edited by tommytahoe on Mon May 10, 2010 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tautology
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:40 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Tautology » Mon May 10, 2010 12:38 am

Pearalegal wrote:In no way did we get mad at you...I completely agreed, but because of a lack of real-life examples, there was no way to argue.


Sorry, I meant mad in a way that doesn't actually mean mad. That's my fault for trying to be cute.

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Pearalegal » Mon May 10, 2010 12:39 am

tommytahoe wrote:Fair point. Three glasses of chardonnay are talking with me. I have no idea how she got the tenure. Some folks in the papers have wondered the same thing. Def. skipped some vital stages.


Three glasses of merlot over here.

Fuck you white wine. Red wine is clearly the party of God.


....

Tautology
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:40 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby Tautology » Mon May 10, 2010 12:42 am

tommytahoe wrote:
darknightbegins wrote:
tommytahoe wrote:

She overhauled and improved the HLS 1L curriculum, brought on board a bunch of high-profile profs of both the right and the left, has extensive crossover knowledge of the law and legislation/policy (with Clinton and Obama Admins), taught for several years at Chicago, clerked for two years for Thurgood Marshall, did NOT write much in law reviews at all, true, but has looked more than capable (by many neutral observers) arguing before the Court in one year as SG.
So, that may not be judge work, or scholarly work, but neither is it for nothing.


The question was how did she get tenure at Chicago. I don't think you have answered that question.


Fair point. Three glasses of chardonnay are talking with me. I have no idea how she got the tenure. Some folks in the papers have wondered the same thing. Def. skipped some vital stages.


I'm not sure that she every got tenure at Chicago, just taught there. Maybe graduating from HLS, and clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme court followed by a presumably impressive few years at a top D.C. firm is how she got the teaching gig?

User avatar
A'nold
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS

Postby A'nold » Mon May 10, 2010 12:44 am

Tautology wrote:
Fark-o-vision wrote:I think the idea of "neutrality" in the political realm is a bit of a joke. After all, so much of it is based on culture and culture is heavily influenced by age, or region. Even on issues like Abortion, which lend themselves to the conclusion that one side must be right, we rarely see agreement. We view political issues in dichotomy because thats easy, and it makes communicating in our everyday life a little more convenient, but it doesn't represent reality. After all, very few people are "for" abortion. Suggesting that you'd be neutral only suggests that you believe yourself to be fair based on your own cultural heritage. In this case, though, it's a meaningless term.


I tried to say that earlier but they got mad at me, good luck to you.


Man, you didn't let me drop some kind of sarcastic comment on this guy; it was coming. 8)

Anyway, about the Keeler case: The judges used a textualist approach to interpreting the statute to fit their political desires/fears. The judges were too big of p*ssies to actually come to the right decision. The leg. changed the law w/in the year. Everyone knew they were using a technicality for their own purposes. The most common (and most accepted) way of interpreting statues is the intentionalist approach, where you look at the legislative history and other things surrounding the statute. Technology was non-existent in the 1850's and babies had to be born alive to prove that it would have in fact been born alive to convict someone of its murder. Also, the court talked about notice. Well, sometimes things are inherently known to be evil, like punching a pregnant woman in the stomach in an effort to kill her baby.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anon.y.mousse., Baby Gaga, blackmamba8, brinicolec, cyclawps, reillyg, tsporl, xn3345 and 17 guests