Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > SGOTUS Elana Kagan Nominated for SCOTUS

SGOTUS Elana Kagan Nominated for SCOTUS
Thread Tools
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2010, 11:35 AM
 
Pres. Obama has nominated current Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the next Associate Justice of the SCOTUS. The last nominee without prior bench experience was Chief Justice William Rehnquist. How does this nomination compare to that of Harriet Miers, who also did not have any prior bench experience. Both are crony nominations. Unlike Miers, Kagan has made some position statements on various subjects over the years. As Solicitor General, these may not be of import, but as a possible Associate Justice, they are.
45/47
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2010, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Pres. Obama has nominated current Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the next Associate Justice of the SCOTUS. The last nominee without prior bench experience was Chief Justice William Rehnquist. How does this nomination compare to that of Harriet Miers, who also did not have any prior bench experience. Both are crony nominations. Unlike Miers, Kagan has made some position statements on various subjects over the years. As Solicitor General, these may not be of import, but as a possible Associate Justice, they are.
I think you are correct when you say both the nominations of Harriet Miers and Elena Kagan are due to cronyism. I think in both instances (Miers then and Kagan now) the lack of judicial experience is a detriment to the nominee and this lack of judicial experience would inhibit their service on the SCOTUS. I think Elena Kagan should NOT have gotten the initial nomination and I think Elena Kagan should NOT get her nomination approved by the Senate.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2010, 05:10 PM
 
Meh. Institutionally, there is a significant difference in degree of "cronyism" between a White House Counsel and Solicitor General of the United States, the latter being the person who represents the Government of the United States (all of it) before SCOTUS, and the former being the legal adviser to the Office of the President.

However, if the debate turns on cronyism then both sides will have enough black eyes to go around, so I don't think that's going to be an issue. Remember also that major concerns about Miers stemmed not only from the appearance of cronyism, but also because of her reported poor performance and command of constitutional law in one-on-one meetings with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I doubt Kagan will face that problem.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2010, 06:17 PM
 
Adds some gender and sexual orientation diversity to the bench... I don't think she'll be terribly effective as a liberal voice, but there will be less resistance to the next Republican nominating a white guy.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2010, 01:15 PM
 
Anyone else listening to Rush this morning? The fact that she thinks Cass Sunstein is the greatest legal mind of our generation is all I need to know about her and her political view of the law.



Btw, if you were listening to Rush this morning you also heard that clip he played from Sunstein explaining his concept of enforcing anti-bias laws against the Internet. In 2001 he said he wanted to force sites with conservative or liberal biases to put links or pop-ups to articles from the opposition. He said he would prefer it be voluntary but he was realistic that getting it done would require the force of law. He apparently has absolutely no regard for the 1st Amendment. It's truly frightening that this man is an adviser to the president and holds the sorts of views he does, but then again this president himself freaks me out. When I find the clip or a transcript I'll post a separate thread about it.

Btw, mduell, is your primary concern about the Court or any court whether it has gender or sexual orientation diversity? If so, I have to say that's a really shallow way of approaching the subject that doesn't befit your intellect in other areas. I don't care about gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or any similar categorization when it comes to nominees to lifetime court appointments. I care about judicial philosophy, Constitutional philosophy, character, judicial temperament and the like. Diversity in terms of minority representation is a fine aspiration, and if it can be achieved that's great, but I believe the president should be color blind, gender blind, etc. when it comes to picking the best person for such a pivotal position - a choice that has the strong potential to impact our rights and liberties for decades to come (if not longer).
( Last edited by Big Mac; May 18, 2010 at 01:40 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2010, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Anyone else listening to Rush this morning?
No, just you and a few million nitwits...btw, if you're against her, not only WILL she be confirmed, it WILL be a great thing! Your track record is impeccable! Thanks for the support!
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2010, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Anyone else listening to Rush this morning? The fact that she thinks Cass Sunstein is the greatest legal mind of our generation is all I need to know about her and her political view of the law.



Btw, if you were listening to Rush this morning you also heard that clip he played from Sunstein explaining his concept of enforcing anti-bias laws against the Internet. In 2001 he said he wanted to force sites with conservative or liberal biases to put links or pop-ups to articles from the opposition. He said he would prefer it be voluntary but he was realistic that getting it done would require the force of law. He apparently has absolutely no regard for the 1st Amendment. It's truly frightening that this man is an adviser to the president and holds the sorts of views he does, but then again this president himself freaks me out. When I find the clip or a transcript I'll post a separate thread about it.

Btw, mduell, is your primary concern about the Court or any court whether it has gender or sexual orientation diversity? If so, I have to say that's a really shallow way of approaching the subject that doesn't befit your intellect in other areas. I don't care about gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or any similar categorization when it comes to nominees to lifetime court appointments. I care about judicial philosophy, Constitutional philosophy, character, judicial temperament and the like. Diversity in terms of minority representation is a fine aspiration, and if it can be achieved that's great, but I believe the president should be color blind, gender blind, etc. when it comes to picking the best person for such a pivotal position - a choice that has the strong potential to impact our rights and liberties for decades to come (if not longer).
Beck falsely suggests Kagan endorsed government action against conservative speech | Media Matters for America

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2010, 04:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by stumblinmike View Post
No, just you and a few million nitwits...btw, if you're against her, not only WILL she be confirmed, it WILL be a great thing! Your track record is impeccable! Thanks for the support!
You don't have a lot of room to talk, watching Madcow Maddow.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2010, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You don't have a lot of room to talk, watching Madcow Maddow.
LOL! Seriously? Rush graduated from what? He's an alumni of where?
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2010, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Meh. Institutionally, there is a significant difference in degree of "cronyism" between a White House Counsel and Solicitor General of the United States, the latter being the person who represents the Government of the United States (all of it) before SCOTUS, and the former being the legal adviser to the Office of the President.
And yet it's been widely acknowledged that Kagan was supremely underqualified to be SG, and that she has been shown incompetent in front of the court she's nominated to. Embarassingly incompetent. Like "who is this person" incompetent. Cronyism is one thing, affirmative action is something else entirely.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2010, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
And yet it's been widely acknowledged that Kagan was supremely underqualified to be SG, and that she has been shown incompetent in front of the court she's nominated to. Embarassingly incompetent. Like "who is this person" incompetent. Cronyism is one thing, affirmative action is something else entirely.
My point is precisely that, that cronyism to a degree is expected (it is, after all, one of the benefits of winning a political contest) but nominations still have to be qualified. The Senate's job isn't necessarily to judge the nomination based on their relationship with the President, but on their qualifications. So examples supporting your assertion that Kagan has been "widely acknowledged" to be "supremely" underqualified or incompetent either as SG or a SCOTUS justice would be appreciated. By that I mean significant and widely-held concerns that are distinct from the normal partisan hemming-and-hawing over an opposition party President's nominations. Even in the partisan battle, Mitch McConnell certainly didn't seem inclined to express the view that Kagan was "supremely unqualified" in his remarks on Meet the Press this past weekend, saying rather, in effect "let's wait and see." The biggest concern I've heard expressed from the right thus far is that Kagan lacks the judicial paper trail to vet her views prior to their questioning her, which isn't exactly a qualification argument.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; May 18, 2010 at 06:19 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2010, 01:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by stumblinmike View Post
LOL! Seriously? Rush graduated from what? He's an alumni of where?
You don't say? That bad? I'll bet you can get some type of topical cream that can clear that right up. Better hurry before it falls off. Tell Madcow Maddow too, she'll need to get checked out.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2010, 02:37 AM
 
Any predictions on how this thread will end up?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2010, 03:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Any predictions on how this thread will end up?
Carry on, I'm done with him. He isn't worth any more of my time.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2010, 04:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Carry on, I'm done with him. He isn't worth any more of my time.

Not to defend him for the sake of defending him, but I'm not sure where you got all of the Rachael Madcow stuff from, unless you know from past conversation that he's into Maddow? I would hope that you would not generalize that people left of center automatically tune into and/or worship Maddow or Oibermann or the like?

Personally, I've never found it terribly wise to use any of these ratings driven blowhards as a proxy for representing your views. I've honestly never watched an entire episode of any of them, just the odd clip I come across here and there, including the Daily Show. It's actually pretty annoying when I see people getting pigeonholed as some sort of MSM or MSM ideologue devotee, because I know I'm not the only one that really doesn't pay attention to any of the cable news networks or the MSM in general.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2010, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Even in the partisan battle, Mitch McConnell certainly didn't seem inclined to express the view that Kagan was "supremely unqualified" in his remarks on Meet the Press this past weekend, saying rather, in effect "let's wait and see."
I think you're right here. But don't overlook the fact that to speak out about this candidate is to immediately be labeled a bigot and misogynist. Once she's officially out, it will turn to "homophobe" for anyone condemning her nomination, on either side of the aisle. The Right can afford to sit back and let the wheels come off of this one by itself. Or maybe they'll let her get to the bench to let her show how dumb she is through stupid opinions.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2010, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
I think you're right here. But don't overlook the fact that to speak out about this candidate is to immediately be labeled a bigot and misogynist. Once she's officially out, it will turn to "homophobe" for anyone condemning her nomination, on either side of the aisle. The Right can afford to sit back and let the wheels come off of this one by itself. Or maybe they'll let her get to the bench to let her show how dumb she is through stupid opinions.
If her supposed lack of qualification is as "widely acknowledged" as you say, I wouldn't think this would stop the Republican establishment. I think the simpler explanation is that the consensus you describe is simply not there, what with people like Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano saying her "credentials are impeccable," George W. Bush federal judicial nominee Miguel Estrada saying she's a "rigorous lawyer" and "highly capable", and Ken Starr saying that Kagan is "very qualified", among other endorsements. The Republican talking points that I'm picking up, at least, are that she appears qualified but they need the opportunity to explore her views given the military recruiting thing and other topics. If Miers is a textbook case for near-universal balking based on lack of qualification (Specter and Leahy called her answers to their Committee's pre-hearing questionnaire "insulting"), Kagan doesn't even come close at this juncture.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; May 19, 2010 at 01:45 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2010, 08:09 AM
 
Beck was absolutely right. She is a follower and admirer of Sunstein, and he undeniably wants to restrict freedom of speech.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:39 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,