Kagan seems like a good SCOTUS choice to me

[TayTay]

I looged into DU yesterday and was a little surprised to see so many posts against Elena Kagan. I think she's a fine choice. (Though I would dearly like to see the next SCOTUS pick NOT be an Ivy Leaguer or someone from the East Coast.)

Any thoughts on this?

[Mass]

1. It seems the core of the disagreement is that, as Obama's sollicitor general, she

expressed support for a strong executive and in particular refusing constitutional protections for people accused of being terrorist.

Now, I have no clue whether it was her personal opinion or if she was acting in lieu of president Obama.

The other claim is that she has not written a lot of academic works, and that she will bring the court to the right, overstating who Stevens is and forgetting that, when nominated, he was thought to be a conservative.


Part of the nervousness can be best summarize by this post by Jeffrey Toobin, who says he is a friend of Kagan, ans still posts this. I suspect that most of all, it is the fact that people know little about her positions that worries most, particularly in perspective of Stevens nomination.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/05/elena-kagans-nomination.html

...
All of this may be interesting, but it’s largely beside the point for a Supreme Court Justice. The justices are not really managers of people, certainly not in comparison to the dean of a major law school. Judgment, values, and politics are what matters on the Court. And here I am somewhat at a loss. Clearly, she’s a Democrat. She was a highly regarded member of the White House staff during the Clinton years, but her own views were and are something of a mystery. She has written relatively little, and nothing of great consequence.


As it happens, this weekend I was finishing “The Bridge,” the new biography of Obama by David Remnick, our boss here at the magazine. Since Kagan’s nomination was imminent, I was struck by certain similarities between the President and his nominee. They are both intelligent, of course, but they also share an ability to navigate among factions without offending anyone. Remnick’s Obama is very… careful. He takes no outlandish stands or unnecessary risks. He is an exquisite curator of his own career. All of this is true of Kagan as well.
But on the Court, Kagan will have to do something she’s not done before. Show her hand. Develop a clear ideology. Make tough votes. I have little doubt she’s up to the job, but am less clear on how she’ll do it.

[Inuca]

4. I am curious

How on Earth do you become the dean of TH harvard Law School if you have "written relatively little, and nothing of great consequence."?

[beachmom]

2. Glenn Greenwald has made a compelling case against her.

I listened to Bloggingheads -- it was him and David Frum. And all the stuff that Mass says above is what Glenn says. Basically, she doesn't have a long record like, say, Alito, to guarantee that she is a liberal who will fight for our principles and values. So although there is much to praise her, I am worried that she is not a sure thing. Bush installed Sure Things on his watch. I don't feel like Obama is.

[TayTay]

3. Media Matters has a debunking page up on her

That seems pretty good. She seems to be a good, moderate choice. I think that's what Obama promised. I am always worried about abuse of power legislation. I hate the whole "unitary executive" thing and will be anxious to hear if she says anything on that.

BUT, on the whole, I think she's a pretty good nominee.

Media Matters on Kagan:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201005100001

[karynnj]

5. In that respect she reminds me of Roberts, of whom very little was known

He, like her, had very little paper trail and he refused to answer anything that could come before the court - which of course, is nearly every controversial issue. The fact is that a conservative could have said the same thing about Roberts not being a sure thing - but he was.

I still think the Democrats blew it big time when they didn't stop Alito. There was ample reason to do so. But, what can you do when it took Chuck Schumer only 4 plus years to realize that he should have "led" a filibuster.

That she volunteered for Liz Holtzman gives me some confidence as she really is a liberal - NYC style. (She likely would have been Senator, if Javits would not have run as an independent after losing the Republican nomination. They split the liberal vote.)

[ProSense]

7. Exactly.

"That she volunteered for Liz Holtzman gives me some confidence as she really is a liberal - NYC style."

[sandnsea]

11. Not really, it's mostly crap

Diane Wood is moderately liberal? Really?? That is nuts right there.

Then there's his unitary executive assertions, which were rebutted in the very article he referenced. Kagan specifically discussed domestic policy and the need for a President to move that policy lest the agencies become monoliths or take over policy altogether. She never meant for her views to apply to foreign policy and said so in her article.

He mischaracterized her testimony on terrorism. She never said the entire world was a battlefield and anybody can be detained indefinitely. She answered a specific hypothetical regarding an individual funding al qaeda and a transparent process to identify their involvement and designation as a combatant.

Half his argument is rambling about her not being liberal enough and not having a record. Well if she doesn't have a record, how does he know she's not liberal enough.

Thus far, after researching every argument against her, on my own, they've all proven to be complete crap.

Why do people read what all these idiots say anyway? They all distort the facts to please some whacked out group of people who want to pretend to be the keepers of truth, justice and the American Way, or something.

[beachmom]

12. Thanks for the info. No doubt, Glenn has been wrong about things

in the past. But I will continue to read him to get his perspective. Just as a check on the CW perpetuated from DC.

BTW, Glenn & Lessig will be doing a Bloggingheads episode this week. That is an hour with the two talking to one another and should be really interesting.

[ProSense]

6. A lot of good information and insight about Kagan

Lawrence Lessig

Jack Balkin

Steve Benen

Eliot Spitzer (video)


I posted JK's statement in GDP, and I trust his judgement on court nominees.

[MH1]

8. I find Lessig's endorsement reassuring

I definitely trust him on this.

Thanks for posting!

[beachmom]

9. I still think we should read both sides:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/11/lessig

This from the above article linking to SCOTUSblog, hardly biased:

Are there risks for the left in a Kagan nomination? God yes. The last nominee about whose views we knew so little was David Souter. In fact, it seems entirely possible that Elena Kagan does not really have a fixed and uniform view of how to judge and to interpret the Constitution.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/on-october-4-2010-elena-kagan-will-ask-her-first-question-as-a-supreme-court-justice/

I hope it works out. But remember, Lessig is a professor at Harvard, and Kagan was the Dean of Harvard. Those are personal connections that can cloud one's judgment.

[beachmom]

10. And here is a good rebuttal to Glenn:

http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/05/kagan-is-not-harriet-miers.html

[JI7]

13. but Obama knows Kagan personally unlike Bush and Souter

he is friends. there is no way they would not have discussed issues and obama wouldn't know where she stood.

i also trust Spitzer on this.