It's Elena Kagan for SCOTUS Forum

[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.

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.

I agree with everything you said.

[Tautology]

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

Gotta try harder to keep up!

[voice of reason]

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.


....

Let's not make this about Hezbollah.

[darknightbegins]

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?

Guess its all about who you know.

[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.

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.

Everybody knew it? I didn't.

And you look stupid in those sunglasses. Take'em off.

[Tautology]

Guess its all about who you know.

Is that what that suggests?

[beef wellington]

If progressives had half a spine they'd demand her nomination be withdrawn like conservatives did for Harriet Miers. I mean, this is what Obama's supporters got him elected for, so he could move the Court to the right? Yet I have no doubt that there will be minimal opposition from the left. What a joke.

[flcath]

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?

This.

Given the focus of scholarly output in LS hiring/promotion, this should serve as extra motive to get a SCOTUS clerkship.

[Fark-o-vision]

If progressives had half a spine they'd demand her nomination be withdrawn like conservatives did for Harriet Miers. I mean, this is what Obama's supporters got him elected for, so he could move the Court to the right? Yet I have no doubt that there will be minimal opposition from the left. What a joke.

Yes, that is exactly what we got him elected for. It was a nefarious plot to confuse you.

[Tautology]

If progressives had half a spine they'd demand her nomination be withdrawn like conservatives did for Harriet Miers. I mean, this is what Obama's supporters got him elected for, so he could move the Court to the right? Yet I have no doubt that there will be minimal opposition from the left. What a joke.

Yes, that is exactly what we got him elected for. It was a nefarious plot to confuse you.

I know when I voted for him I was thinking "I hope this guy gets elected because someone needs to move this Court to the right!"

[beef wellington]

If progressives had half a spine they'd demand her nomination be withdrawn like conservatives did for Harriet Miers. I mean, this is what Obama's supporters got him elected for, so he could move the Court to the right? Yet I have no doubt that there will be minimal opposition from the left. What a joke.

Yes, that is exactly what we got him elected for. It was a nefarious plot to confuse you.

I'm not confused at all. It turns out the left is even more given to blind fealty and cults of personality than the right in this country. Not confusing, just sad.

[Tautology]

If progressives had half a spine they'd demand her nomination be withdrawn like conservatives did for Harriet Miers. I mean, this is what Obama's supporters got him elected for, so he could move the Court to the right? Yet I have no doubt that there will be minimal opposition from the left. What a joke.

Yes, that is exactly what we got him elected for. It was a nefarious plot to confuse you.

I'm not confused at all. It turns out the left is even more given to blind fealty and cults of personality than the right in this country. Not confusing, just sad.

Your comparison to Harriet Miers is absurd, as is your conclusion based on that premise alone.

[beef wellington]

If progressives had half a spine they'd demand her nomination be withdrawn like conservatives did for Harriet Miers. I mean, this is what Obama's supporters got him elected for, so he could move the Court to the right? Yet I have no doubt that there will be minimal opposition from the left. What a joke.

Yes, that is exactly what we got him elected for. It was a nefarious plot to confuse you.

I'm not confused at all. It turns out the left is even more given to blind fealty and cults of personality than the right in this country. Not confusing, just sad.

Your comparison to Harriet Miers is absurd, as is your conclusion based on that premise alone.

Obviously I wasn't comparing them as jurists. But the left has just as much reason to be upset about this nomination as the right had to be upset about Miers.

[Fark-o-vision]

If progressives had half a spine they'd demand her nomination be withdrawn like conservatives did for Harriet Miers. I mean, this is what Obama's supporters got him elected for, so he could move the Court to the right? Yet I have no doubt that there will be minimal opposition from the left. What a joke.

Yes, that is exactly what we got him elected for. It was a nefarious plot to confuse you.

I'm not confused at all. It turns out the left is even more given to blind fealty and cults of personality than the right in this country. Not confusing, just sad.

Don't be said. Obama doesn't like it when we're sad. Why would you want to hurt glorious leader like that?

[darknightbegins]

Guess its all about who you know.

Is that what that suggests?

Yes. It is usually all about who you know to get on the Supreme Court to begin with, regardless of who the Prez or party is.

[Tautology]

Obviously I wasn't comparing them as jurists. But the left has just as much reason to be upset about this nomination as the right had to be upset about Miers.

I really disagree, Miers had no credentials qualifying her for an S.C. nomination, she was just Bush's friend and got it. Everyone, the right and the left, thought it was a terrible decision. With Kagan, you're unhappy about her presumed ideology, but her credentials are excellent unless you think you have to be an appellate judge to get the S.C. nomination.

I'd like to know what views Kagan holds that you think the left should so fervently disagree with (I've read little on her, and nothing by her, so far). I would completely understand the position that she should not be confirmed because we know too little about her views, but that does not seem to be what you are arguing.

[Tautology]

Guess its all about who you know.

Is that what that suggests?

Yes. It is usually all about who you know to get on the Supreme Court to begin with, regardless of who the Prez or party is.

How does this comment even make sense in light of the conversation we were having about how she came to teach at Chicago? It's also absurdly absolute, there is much more to getting onto the Supreme Court than knowing the right people.

[beef wellington]

Obviously I wasn't comparing them as jurists. But the left has just as much reason to be upset about this nomination as the right had to be upset about Miers.

I really disagree, Miers had no credentials qualifying her for an S.C. nomination, she was just Bush's friend and got it. Everyone, the right and the left, thought it was a terrible decision. With Kagan, you're unhappy about her presumed ideology, but her credentials are excellent unless you think you have to be an appellate judge to get the S.C. nomination.

I'd like to know what views Kagan holds that you think the left should so fervently disagree with (I've read little on her, and nothing by her, so far). I would completely understand the position that she should not be confirmed because we know too little about her views, but that does not seem to be what you are arguing.

She's a blank slate, with a few troubling tea leaves, and even her supporters concede that she is to the right of Stevens. Why settle for a nominee that could backfire so horribly when the Democrats have 59 Senate seats?

[Tautology]

She's a blank slate, with a few troubling tea leaves, and even her supporters concede that she is to the right of Stevens. Why settle for a nominee that could backfire so horribly when the Democrats have 59 Senate seats?

They don't have 59 liberal seats, as the Health Care Bill demonstrated. Obama isn't particularly liberal, and many Democratic Senators are less liberal than he is. I think you have unrealistic expectations of what is possible. I'm not thrilled by her, being an unabashed liberal myself, but I don't think the votes are there for someone much more liberal than Kagan. Hell, some people thought Diane Wood might have trouble getting through, and the fight itself uses up political capital.

[beef wellington]

She's a blank slate, with a few troubling tea leaves, and even her supporters concede that she is to the right of Stevens. Why settle for a nominee that could backfire so horribly when the Democrats have 59 Senate seats?

They don't have 59 liberal seats, as the Health Care Bill demonstrated. Obama isn't particularly liberal, and many Democratic Senators are less liberal than he is. I think you have unrealistic expectations of what is possible. I'm not thrilled by her, being an unabashed liberal myself, but I don't think the votes are there for someone much more liberal than Kagan. Hell, some people thought Diane Wood might have trouble getting through, and the fight itself uses up political capital.

So settle then. This is what I'm talking about. The left is willing to eat an endless amount of shit spooned out by Obama and other Democrats, thereby ensuring their continued irrelevance. The right threw a fit and got themselves an unabashed conservative justice, the left will take whatever they're given and like it.

[billyez]

The point is, though, that in the end they got health care passed. There are few things worth fighting for as much as a seat on the Court that interprets the Constitution. It's very odd to me that when the Democrats have a favorable wind to their backs they don't dare place someone on the Court that they know will be in their corner of the ring. You know...thanks to evidence of their beliefs.

I don't buy that Wood would have expended that much political capital. I would have dissed her nomination as much as I'm dissing Kagan's (well, Wood went to UT, so I wouldn't have dissed her as much). The GOP is going to ride her either way. If the Democrats could get health care through (granted, through reconcilation) I thought they'd have enough faith in their ability at this moment to get every vote whipped in line. I'm not talking about Karlan or Koh, I'm talking about Wood here...someone who actually would've fulfilled the desire to break tradition from solely HY. The lesson is that things don't change, it seems...


Now excuse me, I've got to hop on Politico to find out more of Kagan's weaknesses to talk about at the next Tea Party Meeting.

[darknightbegins]

Guess its all about who you know.

Is that what that suggests?

Yes. It is usually all about who you know to get on the Supreme Court to begin with, regardless of who the Prez or party is.

How does this comment even make sense in light of the conversation we were having about how she came to teach at Chicago? It's also absurdly absolute, there is much more to getting onto the Supreme Court than knowing the right people.

It was intended toward the Supreme Court discussion. And what is required to be a Court Justice other than knowing the right people? I think the Constitutional requirements are pretty laid back.

[Tautology]

She's a blank slate, with a few troubling tea leaves, and even her supporters concede that she is to the right of Stevens. Why settle for a nominee that could backfire so horribly when the Democrats have 59 Senate seats?

They don't have 59 liberal seats, as the Health Care Bill demonstrated. Obama isn't particularly liberal, and many Democratic Senators are less liberal than he is. I think you have unrealistic expectations of what is possible. I'm not thrilled by her, being an unabashed liberal myself, but I don't think the votes are there for someone much more liberal than Kagan. Hell, some people thought Diane Wood might have trouble getting through, and the fight itself uses up political capital.

So settle then. This is what I'm talking about. The left is willing to eat an endless amount of shit spooned out by Obama and other Democrats, thereby ensuring their continued irrelevance. The right threw a fit and got themselves an unabashed conservative justice, the left will take whatever they're given and like it.

They won't all like it, but I think you're really overestimating how liberal the Democratic party is. They really aren't that liberal. Please, throw a fit and call your Senator and tell her to as well, but I think characterizing this as the left taking something they don't really want is unfair. The left is a lot more centrist than you are. The liberal Democrats do throw fits, they threw a fit about Health Care and wouldn't have gotten anything passed if they hadn't stopped throwing a temper tantrum and voted for something that wasn't perfect but still better than the status quo. I just don't think a true liberal judge is feasible in the current political climate, and blaming that on the liberal faction of the Democratic party just seems absurd.

[Tautology]

Yes. It is usually all about who you know to get on the Supreme Court to begin with, regardless of who the Prez or party is.

How does this comment even make sense in light of the conversation we were having about how she came to teach at Chicago? It's also absurdly absolute, there is much more to getting onto the Supreme Court than knowing the right people.

It was intended toward the Supreme Court discussion. And what is required to be a Court Justice other than knowing the right people? I think the Constitutional requirements are pretty laid back.

Nothing else is required by statute, but the next time someone who isn't a highly accomplished lawyer or judge you let me know.

[billyez]

Nothing else is required by statute, but the next time someone who isn't a highly accomplished lawyer or judge you let me know.

Okay, Elena Kagan isn't a highly accomplished lawyer or judge.