It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS Forum

[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.

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.

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.

[Drake014]

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.

[romothesavior]

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.

[Drake014]

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]

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?

[romothesavior]

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...

[romothesavior]

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]

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?

[voice of reason]

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

[Pearalegal]

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]

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

By being good at what you do.

[darknightbegins]

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?

[tommytahoe]

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.

[darknightbegins]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Tautology]

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]

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]

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?

[tommytahoe]

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.

[Tautology]

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]

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]

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?

[A'nold]

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.

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.