The last time President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court came before the U.S. Senate, it was in March 2009 as a nominee for the job of solicitor general. Elena Kagan, former dean of Harvard Law School, was confirmed by a vote of 61-31. No Democrats voted against her, though some party stalwarts were absent.
As a nominee for solicitor general, Kagan got votes from seven Senate Republicans:
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Richard Lugar of Indiana.
Kagan needs at least two of their votes again. She starts on the road to 60 votes with a base of 58, by SCOTUSblog's calculations. That's all of the Democrats -- minus Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who was still a Republican then and voted against Kagan last year-- and the two independents who caucus with them, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
As the Kagan's nomination goes forward, I highly recommend starting with the eminently readable "9750 Words on Elena Kagan." Seriously. Start there. If you haven't got time, stamina or attention, just pick any 500-word section, and then come back later for another one.
Leave a Comment:
i'll ask the obvious: rachel's view on the kagen nomination. i was hoping for (longshot) elizabeth warren, so i don't know alot about kagen. (but they don't make you dean at harvard law school unless you are pretty bright!!)
have a GREAT day!
mark
I love elizabeth warren however she just doesn't seem tough enough. Not trying to be sexist or anything but I don't think she would survive the confirmation hearings.
I too was hoping for Elizabeth Warren or Brooksley Born. I was very impressed with The friend of Kagan's, who spoke about her on Rachel's show tonight, his name is Lawrence Lessig. I was very impressed with what he said abou
Greenwald makes a case against Kagan:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan
Watch as the Republicans focus on the Solomon Amendment in regards to Kagan. Wouldn't it be nice to see Thomas or Scalia go rather than Stevens?
Justice Stevens' Citizens United Dissent was fantastic. The entire piece is a great read.
"Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law." -Justice Stevens
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
He will be missed.
This is not the first time the RRR (Rehnquist/Reagan/Roberts) Court has gone behyond the question presented to define the law in its own image.
About a week ago Lawrence Lessig wrote "A Case for Kagan", published by The Huffington Post. As one of her colleagues for over twenty years, he had a lot of interesting, positive things to say about her.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-case-for-kagan_b_551511.html
Kagan supporting indefinite detention without trial is a bit disturbing.
OH. MY. GOD.
"Richard Posner is the most important legal thinker of our time." Elena Kagan, Richard Posner, the Judge, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1121, 1121 (2007).
That speaks volumes, in and of itself. Posner admits that our judges are not judges per se, but Platonic Guardians -- unelected and unaccountable. Richard Posner, How Judges Think 144 (Harv. Press 2008). Do you really want to be ruled by the fascist denizens of Harvard and Yale and Dumbo, the Wall Street Water-Boy?
We're still in Afghanistan. Iraq. Gitmo is still open for business. Torture is okay, but whistle-blowing is not. And now, we get another Eastern elitist on the Court. How's that change thingy working out for you?
As Michael Moore put it, "Dude, Where's My Country?"
Harvard Law's Case for Kagan:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/spotlight/alumni-pursuits/related/kagan_op-eds.html
Her being a 'AAAAH-vard elitist is the strongest argument for keeping her off the Court. When you go to 'AAAAH-vard, an attitude is installed -- by a proctologist. She won't have any concept of what real people are going through.
Are there only two law schools capable of producing Supreme Court justices?
Five words BY Elena Kagan, which should seal the deal: "I LOVE the Federalist Society." http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/10-0
Rachel will pimp her because Kagan's gay. But a progressive? With the make-up of the Court what it is, can we take that chance?
Rachel will "pimp" her because she is gay? What a derogatory and narrow-minded statement. I doubt Rachel is fond of Kagan supporting indefinite detentions without a trial.
We'll see if that makes a difference (I am hoping against hope that it does), though I'm not holding my breath. While the Republicans would question Moses, this one looks more like Moses Malone.
Fwiw, the sexual entendre was inadvertent; "pimping" is promoting, and we have devolved into a nation obsessed with identity politics. If this woman thinks that Richard Posner is a great legal philosopher, we are in grave difficulty.
I read about 9526 words of that (skimming the chart) and it's a well written article with lots of interesting details. There are several areas where I can see I disagree w. Ms. Kagan including monies to religious organizations and a still obscured view of her executive powers stand. I am still in wait and see mode.
To Bouldergeist.. I am not aware that Kagan has stated that she is gay so you've made two large assumptions in your comment. I take umbrage with the statement that Rachel will support Kagan MERELY because of your opined homosexuality. That is totally unsubstantiated by Rachel's prior behavior and unless you can prove that Rachel has a history of ignoring content for packaging I would suggest you rethink yourself.
Today's show did that for her. Disappointing as hell.
Kagan's sexual identity is of no interest to me - UNLESS it is an issue for her. That said, more important issues for me are: unless SCOTUS is the equivalent of, say, an 'American Idol' type panel, how can a Supreme Court justice have zero-nada-zilch judicial experience on the bench...anywhere... in her resume? Also, I cannot help but have a dose of skepticism based on the fact that she previously garnered the support of several very conservative Repubs. Is our Prez still in search of the the elusive (mythical?) 'bi-partisan consensus' goal in this choice? Some of her views are chilling, to me. This position is too big, too important, esp. in terms of long-term SCOTUS balance, to disregard the opportunity to help restore said balance. Why her? There is a plethora of candidates who are equally/more qualified, more experienced, more progressive AND objective, deep-thinking intellectual giants from which to choose (one of my favs: Elizabeth Warren). FYI to Bigots: Rachel "pimps out" no one; she is more of a pitbull after truth: as fair and balanced as they come.
Opps - forgot to 'Post & Vote'; hey, I'm old and feeble, okay?!
Why is Rachel defending her today, with just a passing glance at her abominable record? I'LL ask the obvious: why is a great liberal so unquestionably supportive of someone with very questionable views?
What would "the obvious" be, exactly? I watched the same interviews as you and I couldn't tell what Rachel's opinion was in regards to Kagan. She addressed the controversial issues surrounding Kagan's career. Your implication is quite clear and I find it to be in bad taste.
By the way, I clicked vote by mistake. I meant to click reply. You can subtract one vote in favor of your drivel.
How is it in bad taste? I assume you think the discussion is taboo? How is the reality of sexual orientation any less relevant than any number of other demographics? Just because Kagan doesn't admit it doesn't mean the issue is not in play.
And to further qualify: I'm emphatically NOT criticizing Kagan on account of her sexual preference: I'm criticizing Rachel's bias in favor of of a questionable candidate for otherwise unaccountable reasons. Which bias was plain to anyone with a set of two eyes: see other posts. In the sense of diversity, it's great we're getting a lesbian on the bench better choices. In the sense of progressive interpretation of the law, however, whether she is gay or not does not matter: she is a poor choice if your concern is justice for all. If we need a gay justice, Sullivan especially, or else Karlan, would've been better choices.
It bothers me that Rachel would allow a personal bias to infect her journalistic duty to be objective and faithful to her larger constituency: liberals who want a champion on the bench, regardless of their gender preference. I'm very disappointed that a great media hero of mine was so partisan and uncritical last night--and intrigued to see that she seems to be backtracking--or at least phrasing her arguments in favor of Kagan better--on tonight's show.
While I admire the attempt to present both sides, I'm disappointed in the coverage of Elena Kagan's coverage on the show tonight. Considering the political climate in the Senate these days, I trust that President Obama nominated the most liberal candidate who could get confirmed. Let's wait for the hearings to decide her worthiness.
Pot calling the kettle - it seems odd to start the show by criticizing the republicans for opposing the nomination immediately, and then present arguments against her by liberals in the same show.
I find it odd that no one cares about what a judge or person says for 20 or 30 years until they are nominated to the Supreme Court. Why is it bad now but not bad when they were on the bench or in college making these statements? If the statements are bad then why were these people still judging or running colleges?
And what gives some two bit lawyer in the Senate the right to question how a judge rules or a law professor teaches? I'd like to read some of the so called Senate lawyer arguments they presented in a court. Maybe we should ask for their papers on jurisprudence.
Bottom line, no one knows what baggage these other nominees had. This was the safest pick the President could make without turning the confirmation hearing into another side show for the GOP. I for one am tired of seeing how this saugage is made. I'm threw with the sausage making for awhile.