Latest Supreme Court Nominee

Users who are viewing this thread

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
http://www.scotusblog.com/
This morning, President Obama officially announced his nomination of Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. The Associated Press, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, USA Today, the BLT, and JURIST all have coverage of President Obama and General Kagan’s comments, which were made at 10 a.m. in the East Room of the White House. (SCOTUSblog live-blogged the announcement, and video is available via C-SPAN.)

Following the President’s announcement, many commentators have weighed in on General Kagan’s credentials and on the likelihood that she will be confirmed by the Senate. Nina Totenberg, reporting for NPR, covers General Kagan’s record, noting her relative lack of a “paper trail” as well as her outspoken opposition to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy during her tenure at Harvard Law School. At Concurring Opinions, Brandon Bartels discusses the possibility of strong Republican opposition to Kagan as a candidate, while at the Associated Press, Jesse Holland and Julie Hirschfeld Davis argue that the Solicitor General will easily be confirmed this summer, as does Kenneth Jost at Jost on Justice.
It should be pretty easy to get her political views and her opinions on how a AC Justice should conduct herself, since she was dean of Harvard Law School. Surely she's got tons published.
 
  • 9
    Replies
  • 296
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
Not impressed with what I've heard, but I'm withholding judgment until I have time to look into it.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
I was going to say that I would be surprised if anything they came up with surprises me, but then I noticed that that should go without saying, so I won't say it. :)
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Gotta love Rachel Maddow- last night on MSNBC she profiled three prominent Republicans who have issues with Obama's nominee and have voiced opposition. The issues- lack of judicial experience and being a part of Obama's team (she works for the Administration). However she dug up videos of these same Republicans not having a problem with the exact same issues and in fact endorsing Harriet Myers, W's nominee for SC. The true nature of politics. :)
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
The lack of judicial experience is a plus in my book. We don't need another life long judge who are probably set in their ways getting the appointment.
She has all the legal expertise as far as I'm concerned. If she is knowledgeable enough to argue cases before the supreme court, then she knows the law well enough to be a justice. IMO

I would still like to know more about her... I haven't heard enough to know if I like her or not. :dunno
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Gotta love Rachel Maddow- last night on MSNBC she profiled three prominent Republicans who have issues with Obama's nominee and have voiced opposition. The issues- lack of judicial experience and being a part of Obama's team (she works for the Administration). However she dug up videos of these same Republicans not having a problem with the exact same issues and in fact endorsing Harriet Myers, W's nominee for SC. The true nature of politics. :)
I'd be tempted to send her a check if she showed a few Dems with the same hypocrisy; you can bet there's plenty to choose from. You know who the only news anchor I've ever seen show the hypocrisy of both sides? John Stewart.

The lack of judicial experience is a plus in my book. We don't need another life long judge who are probably set in their ways getting the appointment.
She has all the legal expertise as far as I'm concerned. If she is knowledgeable enough to argue cases before the supreme court, then she knows the law well enough to be a justice. IMO

I would still like to know more about her... I haven't heard enough to know if I like her or not. :dunno
I'm guessing that she would ignore the stated intent of the writers - the spirit in which it was written - and apply her own intent instead. Otherwise I don't think Obama would have chosen her. Other than that, I agree with you. I don't really know, I can only guess. She has to be well versed in the Constitution and constitutional law or she wouldn't have held the positions she's had. But she is an academic, and that's a plus for SC in my book. I think I'd love a philosopher even better, someone who's greatest passion is chasing an argument until all logic is exhausted, rather than applying a self-important opinion of what's best for America. That's not their job.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
I'd be tempted to send her a check if she showed a few Dems with the same hypocrisy; you can bet there's plenty to choose from. You know who the only news anchor I've ever seen show the hypocrisy of both sides? John Stewart.

I agree hypocrites on both sides. :)
 
78,875Threads
2,185,390Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top