Come meet Elena Kagan

http://letustalk.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/elena-kagan.jpg

Ugh.

stay classy, Alfred

I'm talking about her paper trail, or lack thereof. I like the blouse.

i dunno, i think she's got a pretty big paper trail, if you know what i mean.

I am INCENSED by HOW LITTLE I KNOW about this woman! OBAMA must think we are FOOLS!

She was a creature of Manhattan’s liberal, intellectual Upper West Side — a smart, witty girl who was bold enough at 13 to challenge her family’s rabbi over her bat mitzvah, cocky (or perhaps prescient) enough at 17 to pose for her high school yearbook in a judge’s robe with a gavel and a quotation from Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court justice, underneath.

She was the razor-sharp newspaper editor and history major at Princeton who examined American socialism, and the Supreme Court clerk for a legal giant, Thurgood Marshall, who nicknamed her “Shorty.” She was the reformed teenage smoker who confessed to the occasional cigar as she fought Big Tobacco for the Clinton administration, and the literature lover who reread Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” every year.

I have spent at least 20 minutes Googling this person. I also critically and skeptically read a couple of articles by people. Apparently she's friends with Martha Minow - ALSO the Dean of Harvard Law School! Does Kagan associate with no one besides hoity toity eggheads like herself??

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzwhogivesafuckwhatisherjurisprudencelike

xpost

Also - how can Harvard Law School have TWO deans?? Isn't that somewhat DECADENT????????

it was for a reality show, tracer. my two deans.

Yet as a young writer for The Princetonian, the student newspaper at Princeton, Ms. Kagan offered clear insight into her worldview. She had spent the summer of 1980 working to elect a liberal Democrat, Liz Holtzman, to the Senate. On Election Night, she drowned her sorrow in vodka and tonic as Ronald Reagan took the White House and Ms. Holtzman lost to “an ultraconservative machine politician,” she wrote, named Alfonse D’Amato.

“Where I grew up — on Manhattan’s Upper West Side — nobody ever admitted to voting for Republicans,” Ms. Kagan wrote, in a kind of Democrat’s lament. She described the Manhattan of her childhood, where those who won office were “real Democrats — not the closet Republicans that one sees so often these days but men and women committed to liberal principles and motivated by the ideal of an affirmative and compassionate government.”

It was perhaps the last time Ms. Kagan wrote so openly of her own political beliefs. Last year, at her confirmation hearing to become solicitor general, senators focused less on her politics, but on whether she was too much in the ivory tower, with too little lawyerly experience to argue cases before the nation’s highest court. That question will almost certainly come up again, given that Ms. Kagan has never been a judge.

and the literature lover who reread Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” every year.

denied, next

Frankly we need to hold these politicians' FEET to the FIRE! Not good enough to MEEKLY OBEY. Who is Kagan??? WHAT HAS SHE EVER DONE. How do we know she is not ROBOT sent to DESTROY?? Kagan should be required to OPEN UP her CLOSED and PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE.

Our favorite agitator is agitated.

The New York Times this morning reports that "Mr. Obama effectively framed the choice so that he could seemingly take the middle road by picking Ms. Kagan, who correctly or not was viewed as ideologically between Judge Wood on the left and Judge Garland in the center." That's consummate Barack Obama. The Right appoints people like John Roberts and Sam Alito, with long and clear records of what they believe because they're eager to publicly defend their judicial philosophy and have the Court reflect their values. Beltway Democrats do the opposite: the last thing they want is to defend what progressives have always claimed is their worldview, either because they fear the debate or because they don't really believe those things, so the path that enables them to avoid confrontation of ideas is always the most attractive, even if it risks moving the Court to the Right.

Sotomayor was hardly middle of the road and nobody expects her to be anything but reliably liberal. The Left appointed Ginsburg in the same manner. Does anyone think that Kagan is going to be conservative at all?

I think Greenwald fears that she will be considerably to the right of Stevens on issues of exec power.

I can't get over the fact that she's never even been a judge before.

a lot of past supreme court justices weren't judges before they were appointed

guilty as charged ;_;

It's been forty years since that has happened, and law has changed considerably.

I need to start reading some reasons why this woman is qualified for a lifetime appointment.

viewed as ideologically between Judge Wood on the left and Judge Garland in the center.
i read this as Judy Garland and started to like her a little more
oh well

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/where-we-go-from-here/

tbh i feel like that's the least of my problems with her, and a few people i'd be happy with are academics (e.g., kathleen sullivan)
dunno how law has changed so that it would be unreasonable to appoint a non-judge

It's not unreasonable to appoint a non judge. It just seems counter intuitive.

The thing with Kagan is that she is neither a judge nor are there any indications that she's much of a great legal thinker in an academic sense (disclosure: I was at HLS while she was teaching there but before her deanship, did not take any of her classes.) She was well-liked as a teacher -- in certain circles, being well-connected and reasonably likable passes for good networking and consensus-building. The Supreme Court is not one of these circles.

It's been forty years since that has happened, and law has changed considerably.

How has jurisprudence changed in forty years so that one should look more carefully at nominees without bench experience? I've opposed her nomination from the start, but Kagan's never being a judge is the least of my worries (in fact, it may be one of her pluses).

could be that appointing only judges is what "changed" things and made it look like that experience is necessary

obama's said that he would look for someone with "real-world experience." but the kind of real-world experience kagan has hardly matches the spirit of his statements (that's not necessarily a criticism of her, btw).

The thing with Kagan is that she is neither a judge nor are there any indications that she's much of a great legal thinker in an academic sense (disclosure: I was at HLS while she was teaching there but before her deanship, did not take any of her classes.) She was well-liked as a teacher -- in certain circles, being well-connected and reasonably likable passes for good networking and consensus-building. The Supreme Court is not one of these circles.

This interests me; a friend who did take her class and interacted with her a lot both in class and outside of class is super psyched about her appointment and has zero concerns about her academic heft.

Rumor has it that consensus-builder is like the last possible thing she is, unless by "consensus" you mean "her opinion".

ha!

From Paul Campos' TNR article:

Recently, I asked a law professor—a former student of Kagan's and a political conservative—what she thought of Kagan's prospective nomination. After expressing warm admiration for Kagan's teaching abilities (and gratitude for the letters of recommendation Kagan wrote for her) the professor opined that, as a justice, Kagan probably “wouldn’t be political.” When I pressed her on what she meant by that, she explained that she believed that, if put on the Supreme Court, Kagan "would be a centrist." (Given the professor's own political inclinations, she clearly meant this as praise). Yet, when I asked about how she had made that judgment, the professor acknowledged that it was based on just a "gut feeling."

On the flip side, liberal law professor Walter Dellinger recently claimed in Slate that Kagan’s views on presidential power are “fundamentally progressive.” Yet the sum total of Dellinger’s evidence consists of the “Presidential Administration” article and a 2007 commencement speech in which Kagan criticized John Yoo’s torture memos. Given the uncontroversial nature of the Harvard Law Review article and the fact that the torture memos have been repudiated by the Bush administration’s own lawyers, this is pretty thin evidence for Kagan’s supposedly “progressive” inclinations.

The contrasting assumptions about Kagan's views continue to bump up against each other in media coverage of her pending nomination because we lack definitive evidence of what she really believes. Perhaps her views will become clearer during her confirmation process in the Senate, and perhaps, if confirmed, she will make an excellent justice.

But, for a president to appoint someone to a lifetime position, wouldn’t it be preferable to know what she believes on the biggest issues of the day—and how she arrived at those conclusions? If Obama does nominate Kagan, as he likely will, he will be taking a very big risk.

been wondering what does it mean temperament-wise to have a SC nominee who has been a teacher for so long?

She made the school friendlier to students, with free coffee and a volleyball court

When the Washington Post has to point to this, you know you're talking about a person with a thin record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051001033_3.html?hpid=topnews

been wondering what does it mean temperament-wise to have a SC nominee who has been a teacher for so long?

In the case of Felix Frankfurter, it made conferences hell on earth; he was given to lecturing his colleagues like they were first-year law students.

here we go

and a volleyball court

And the White House is still denying she's gay?

we can't criticize our own? that's what we do.
being in a room full of teachers is absolutely unbearable.

Obama speaking now (I guess we'll spend the next two months getting reminded of Thurgood Marshall's nickname for her)

It's even less surprising that Obama would not want to choose someone like Diane Wood. If you were Barack Obama, would you want someone on the Supreme Court who has bravely insisted on the need for Constitutional limits on executive authority, resolutely condemned the use of Terrorism fear-mongering for greater government power, explicitly argued against military commissions and indefinite detention, repeatedly applied the progressive approach to interpreting the Constitution on a wide array of issues, insisted upon the need for robust transparency and checks and balances, and demonstrated a willingness to defy institutional orthodoxies even when doing so is unpopular? Of course you wouldn't. Why would you want someone on the Court who has expressed serious Constitutional and legal doubts about your core policies? Do you think that an administration that just yesterday announced it wants legislation to dilute Miranda rights in the name of Scary Terrorists -- and has seized the power to assassinate American citizens with no due process -- wants someone like Diane Wood on the Supreme Court?

Obama's people also leaked that Merrick Garland is probably their next nominee, cuz they predict that the waning of his political capital would make a safe-as-houses nominee the likeliest bet.

http://cdn2.ioffer.com/img/item/242/578/67/vibes.jpg

She made the school friendlier to students, with free coffee and a volleyball court

hope kagan will bring these types of left-leaning progressive reforms to the supreme court.

lol

haha the guy on cnn right now - "she has a lot of conservative friends. i have no idea what she thinks about anything though, i guess we'll find that out later"

middle of the road blandness we can believe in

I confess that I know nothing about law. But, from a character standpoint, I find almost every anecdote about her obnoxious. The most offensive:

Ms. Kagan defended her experience during confirmation hearings as solicitor general last year. “I think I bring up some of the communications skills that has made me — I’m just going to say it — a famously excellent teacher.”

She was a creature of Manhattan’s liberal, intellectual Upper West Side — a smart, witty girl who was bold enough at 13 to challenge her family’s rabbi over her bat mitzvah, cocky (or perhaps prescient) enough at 17 to pose for her high school yearbook in a judge’s robe with a gavel and a quotation from Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court justice, underneath.

OH GOD Mara Liasson crowing about what "a great thing politically" it is for Obama that "left wing groups" are "lukewarm" about the nomination.

I look forward to all the code words for 'jew' that will be hurled during this imbroglio

This might be a thing; first time ever, no WASP on the Court.

a few roaches though.

Gaaaaaaaaahd. Trust a DCer commenting on FASHION to get it so wrong, Marni and Louboutin are cited as part of the same notional outfit.

lol @ u

the apocalypse is upon us xpost

alfred who wrote that (it's asking me to sign in to view first page)

IMO tulip shape of most Marni would be great on Michelle Obama, and daria-g should open a business consulting clueless DC women on wardrobe issues.

suddenly I want to pitch a new take on a cop show

Get in the queue behind me and "Schmucks vs. Cakeaters", a trip down memory lane featuring teenaged Jewish nerd overlords taking dowwwwwwwn their preppy, uppity Lutheran rivals.

Their reservations have introduced the first substantive division among liberals in what has otherwise been a low-key partisan debate over Kagan's merits to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. The uncertainty among some on the left is particularly striking, given that she was nominated by the nation's first black president.

uh, u sure? and lol dan perry to thread, respectively

whoops that's from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/26/AR2010062603649.html?hpid=moreheadlines

I can't wait for more articles this week as clueless and intellectually vacant as this.

that marvelous recent "immaterial discouragement=material support" supreme court decision was argued by kagan. you recall that's the one that makes it criminal to tell groups tied to terrorism how to pursue legal means. even the majority decision said her argument was "too extreme and did not take adequate account of the free-speech interests at stake".

Bring'em on.

that marvelous recent "immaterial discouragement=material support" supreme court decision was argued by kagan. you recall that's the one that makes it criminal to tell groups tied to terrorism how to pursue legal means. even the majority decision said her argument was "too extreme and did not take adequate account of the free-speech interests at stake".

― iSleighBellsTellem (zvookster), Sunday, June 27, 2010 6:43 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im not a kagan fan, but come on, shes a lawyer. this is like when people wanted to go after holder for representing chiquita or whatever.

i thought it was worth noting.

Solicitor General's Office are not just lawyers, and you know it, max.

this is this only reason it should be an issue -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_judgment

and im still not convinced. how do you know shes the one deciding what cases to argue? judging a lawyer, no matter what her position, by her clients or cases, is stupid. in this case in particular given the dozens of other reasons to be critical of the kagan nomination.

u seem to be ignoring that she put forward the position that free speech was not an issue there, which the entire supreme court found rong. if she chose that tack purely for its efficacy & it has no bearing on her ideological predilections, then she was incompetent. i think it's interesting.

Maybe they can ask her about gun rights, given this:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/live-blog-orders-and-opinions-6-28-10/#more-22194

the entire court disagreeing ≠ ur incompetent. not that i think she's competent but oh please

incompetent on that point, no?

maybe competence isn't the right framing, but it was a hell of a position to put forward and worth being in a thread abt kagan rather than just unmentioned imo

hahaha, this was written by a dude I sang with in college:

http://nationalinquisition.blogspot.com/2010/06/kagan-criticized-for-not-revealing.html

I dunno if anyone's watched the hearings (Iol I listened to three hours or so yesterday), but I surprisingly agree with Dahlia Lithwick: Kagan's been the most charming, relaxed nominee in years.

That matches pretty much everything I've heard about her.

The comments on that article are disgusting (surprise)

also Dahlia went to college with one of my best friends in Boston

Unless SCOTUS moves to televise its hearings, this is the last time most people outside a commencement address or speech to a legal society will hear Kagan, which is a shame: she's a natural.

so bummed Luke Skyyywalker wasn't called to testify at her confirmation hearing

Unless SCOTUS moves to televise its hearings, this is the last time most people outside a commencement address or speech to a legal society will hear Kagan, which is a shame: she's a natural.

― Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 30 June 2010 13:53 (1 week ago)

They could always use oyez.org!

The next year, Kagan, who was working at a Washington, D.C. law firm, wrote a brief that argued the album "does not physically excite anyone who hears it, much less arouse a shameful and morbid sexual response."

nice to see an artist be so pleasant abt a bad review for once

So Kagan got through the panel etc.

NYT just has the banner head. What Repubs voted against her?

All of 'em except Graham.

okay lol at Graham's nonsensical retroactive quid pro quo appeal

also: let's remember who Robert Bork was/is.

i.e. a man who turns into an ogre when a waiter doesn't mix a martini to his liking.

Bork is a careerist who accidentally stumbled into being Nixon's hatchet man during the Saturday Night massacre. This so endeared him to the neocons that he got nominated to the SC, just to stick a thumb in the eye of the liberals. When he got Borked and had to withdraw his position as a conservative icon was secured for all time. Now he thinks he is some tin god. What a jerk.

alfred otm. being a dick to staff excludes you from respectability.

That's not quite correct, aimless – being Nixon's hatchet man has never been cited as a reason to support him in all the literature I've read. It's his "originalism," law review articles, and opinions on the DC circuit court that endeared him. Now he's the right's most aggrieved martyr.

Whatever the literature says or doesn't say, firing Leon Jaworski is the foundation stone of Bork's status. It showed beyond a doubt that he was a team player, and whose team he was on. He was rewarded for it.

You're not wrong, but being a team player by itself didn't endear him to conservatives (he's also pissed them off by saying owning a firearm isn't a fundamental sky, but that's another story).

*fundamental right

I like that Lindsay Graham's attitude toward nominating supremes is like 'fuck it you won the election. u win'

And I hate that the GOP has reduced me to a point where I like anything about Lindsay Graham.

C-SPAN has confirmed that at least 61 Senators intend to vote for cloture, moving forward the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Of these, only Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) says he then intends to oppose Ms. Kagan in the final confirmation vote, which only requires 50 Senators to approve the nomination.

haven't been following, why is nelson opposing?

She's a Communist.

[url=http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/10/kagan-now-recused-from-21-pending-supreme-court-cases/?mod=e2tw]Not exactly a shock, but this is what you get when you nominate a solicitor general[/ur]:

When President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court in May, we and many others reported out that she’d likely have to recuse herself from a handful of cases for the upcoming term.

The reason: she was the Solicitor General for the U.S. So she’d be conflicted on a number of cases, having already served as an advocate on many of them.

But we never dreamed that Kagan would recuse herself from half the cases for the upcoming term. But it seems that’s where we are, at least for now. Kagan this week, in the words of National Law Journal reporter Tony Mauro, “quietly” recused herself from 10 more cases to be argued in the upcoming term. That brings the number of cases from which she’s recused herself to 21. As Mauro points out, that’s more than half of the 40 cases the court has so far agreed to hear.

Whoops. I mean:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/10/kagan-now-recused-from-21-pending-supreme-court-cases/?mod=e2tw

:(

this year will be a massacre

Kagan should have sought the advice of Scalia on recusals, then she'd be able to cast tainted votes without conscience or remorse. Heck, she'd even be encouraged to assume a position of moral superiority to her critics.

Yep