It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS Forum

[BlueCivic]

NBC news reports

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36967616/ns ... eme_court/

[ozarkhack]

That's too bad.

EDIT: To add main reason why.

[Learning Hand]

They could've picked a better picture.

Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists

[Pearalegal]

Not a fan of the fact she doesn't have any record on the bench. 40 years since thats happened, according to various articles I've read over the past few weeks. Plus, as a big ol' liberal, I really wanted Diane Wood. Didn't want Obama go so center again. Oh well.

[RPK34]

Not a fan of the fact she doesn't have any record on the bench. 40 years since thats happened, according to various articles I've read over the past few weeks. Plus, as a big ol' liberal, I really wanted Diane Wood. Didn't want Obama go so center again. Oh well.

Center? Why do you think she's center? Not saying you're wrong, just seems to be a lack of evidence pointing one way or another.

[acdisagod]

Not a fan of the fact she doesn't have any record on the bench. 40 years since thats happened, according to various articles I've read over the past few weeks. Plus, as a big ol' liberal, I really wanted Diane Wood. Didn't want Obama go so center again. Oh well.

Center? Why do you think she's center? Not saying you're wrong, just seems to be a lack of evidence pointing one way or another.

Seriously, I'm just hoping she doesn't pull a Stevens and start batting for the other team.

[tommytahoe]

Not a fan of the fact she doesn't have any record on the bench. 40 years since thats happened, according to various articles I've read over the past few weeks. Plus, as a big ol' liberal, I really wanted Diane Wood. Didn't want Obama go so center again. Oh well.

Center? Why do you think she's center? Not saying you're wrong, just seems to be a lack of evidence pointing one way or another.

Yes, while nobody can with certainty predict her voting behavior, it's fair to say that going in she is moderate-liberal in perspective. I don't think her lack of work on the bench is a negative. She clearly has the intellect, the experience (as faculty, as Dean, and as SG) that show she knows the law and the issues. She's known as a strong personality and a conciliatory personality, and should bring a fresh outlook.
I think it's a good pick. It's good he picked a woman now as well. When Ginsburg retires a few years from now, the President won't feel the huge pressure to ensure that Sotomayor is not the only woman on the bench. He will have flexibility then, by picking a woman now.

[darknightbegins]

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.

[Pearalegal]

Not a fan of the fact she doesn't have any record on the bench. 40 years since thats happened, according to various articles I've read over the past few weeks. Plus, as a big ol' liberal, I really wanted Diane Wood. Didn't want Obama go so center again. Oh well.

Center? Why do you think she's center? Not saying you're wrong, just seems to be a lack of evidence pointing one way or another.

Yes, while nobody can with certainty predict her voting behavior, it's fair to say that going in she is moderate-liberal in perspective. I don't think her lack of work on the bench is a negative. She clearly has the intellect, the experience (as faculty, as Dean, and as SG) that show she knows the law and the issues. She's known as a strong personality and a conciliatory personality, and should bring a fresh outlook.
I think it's a good pick. It's good he picked a woman now as well. When Ginsburg retires a few years from now, the President won't feel the huge pressure to ensure that Sotomayor is not the only woman on the bench. He will have flexibility then, by picking a woman now.

I suppose I just meant that while not really upset about Kagan, I just wish there was an actual record I could read about.

I know at Harvard she came out pretty strongly against "don't ask, don't tell," and is an obvious Dem. It just seems like the abortion line has to be toed, and I wish it hadn't been.

[A'nold]

Not to get too political here, but I actually think politics should never be considered. I wish there was some way to ONLY get moderates in there.

[Pearalegal]

Not to get too political here, but I actually think politics should never be considered. I wish there was some way to ONLY get moderates in there.

I would totally, 100% agree with this if it could be extended to the legislative and executive branches first.

[darknightbegins]

Why those branches first? Those branches can have turn over. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. I think it is more important that those Justices be as impartial as possible than any other branch.

[Pearalegal]

Why those branches first? Those branches can have turn over. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. I think it is more important that those Justices be as impartial as possible than any other branch.

Yeah, but they are elected and debated on by extremely political branches, so they must come 3rd.

[A'nold]

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.

[tommytahoe]

The Sup. Ct. nominations will always be political ones. The judges unavoidably bring to the table different understandings of the Constitution, as well as myriad ways to interpret the reach of executive power, statutory interpretation, the exact definition and breadth of the 14th amendment, and so on. Choosing more moderate justices doesn't erase the intensely divided outlooks of the justices.
They just have divided understandings. You may have nine justices who profess neutrality and COMPLETE impartiality ("calling strikes" and all that nonsense), but they ALL have a partial outlook. Why else do we get 5 - 4 on so many hot-button issues? They all believe their interpretation is right. It's not like 5 have it right, and the other 4 are just pushing an agenda.

[Tautology]

Thought people might be interested in this article on Kagan's career.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/9750- ... ena-kagan/

[darknightbegins]

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.

If I was the family of that ex-wife I might put a contract on the guy. It is a terrible thing to say but sweet Christ.

[A'nold]

The Sup. Ct. nominations will always be political ones. The judges unavoidably bring to the table different understandings of the Constitution, as well as myriad ways to interpret the reach of executive power, statutory interpretation, the exact definition and breadth of the 14th amendment, and so on. Choosing more moderate justices doesn't erase the intensely divided outlooks of the justices.
They just have divided understandings. You may have nine justices who profess neutrality and COMPLETE impartiality ("calling strikes" and all that nonsense), but they ALL have a partial outlook. Why else do we get 5 - 4 on so many hot-button issues? They all believe their interpretation is right. It's not like 5 have it right, and the other 4 are just pushing an agenda.

Eh. I think there are truly neutral judges out there. I would be one.

[Pearalegal]

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.

Completely agree. Was just trying to point out the idealistic aspect and lack of applicability of such a statement in our current system. I think every thinking person would agree with you.

However, every person (including judges) should be allowed and expected to have their own perspectives and prejudices to make decisions. Its unavoidable and if we tried to take that away from the justices, we'd have to have a league of legal textbooks as our highest courts.

More realistically, I'd like to see an attempt at bi-partisan elections. I suppose it'd all boil down to the same thing, but I'm not a fan of the constitution giving all that election power to the prez.

[Drake014]

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.

[creamedcats]

Massive disappointment at no Montana justice.

[tommytahoe]

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.

Completely agree. Was just trying to point out the idealistic aspect and lack of applicability of such a statement in our current system. I think every thinking person would agree with you.

However, every person (including judges) should be allowed and expected to have their own perspectives and prejudices to make decisions. Its unavoidable and if we tried to take that away from the justices, we'd have to have a league of legal textbooks as our highest courts.

More realistically, I'd like to see an attempt at bi-partisan elections. I suppose it'd all boil down to the same thing, but I'm not a fan of the constitution giving all that election power to the prez.

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

[A'nold]

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.

Completely agree. Was just trying to point out the idealistic aspect and lack of applicability of such a statement in our current system. I think every thinking person would agree with you.

However, every person (including judges) should be allowed and expected to have their own perspectives and prejudices to make decisions. Its unavoidable and if we tried to take that away from the justices, we'd have to have a league of legal textbooks as our highest courts.

More realistically, I'd like to see an attempt at bi-partisan elections. I suppose it'd all boil down to the same thing, but I'm not a fan of the constitution giving all that election power to the prez.

Oh yeah, it's completely unrealistic. I just like the way Obama seems to try to unite instead of purposely alienate.

[Tautology]

There is no such thing as neutrality; it is a myth perpetuated by those who cannot tell the difference between it and moderation.

[A'nold]

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.