|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 30, 2010 23:45:56 GMT -5
Elena Kagan interviewed on Friday. According to sources, a decision is expected toward the end of next week or at the beginning of the following week.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 4, 2010 18:44:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 7, 2010 14:33:50 GMT -5
Reports this morning suggested an imminent announcement of a Kagan pick. Gibbs did not walk these rumors back today.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 7, 2010 15:25:05 GMT -5
If true:
Roberts: Harvard Law School Ginsberg: Harvard Law School Scalia: Harvard Law School Breyer: Harvard Law School Kennedy: Harvard Law School Kagan: Harvard Law School Alito: Yale Law School Sotomayor: Yale Law School Thomas: Yale Law School
Apparently, one doesn't need much courtroom experience to become a Supreme Court nominee, just a degree from one of these fine institutions.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 7, 2010 15:46:02 GMT -5
I share that belief to an extent - can't hurt to have some law school diversity. SCOTUSblog, fwiw, has dumped some water on the rumor subject to the qualification that she appears to be the frontrunner. We probably won't hear anything until next week, suggesting that Obama will take the weekend to evaluate. www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/is-the-nomination-a-done-deal/#more-19815
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 7, 2010 18:10:42 GMT -5
If true: Roberts: Harvard Law School Ginsberg: Harvard Law School Scalia: Harvard Law School Breyer: Harvard Law School Kennedy: Harvard Law School Kagan: Harvard Law School Alito: Yale Law School Sotomayor: Yale Law School Thomas: Yale Law School Apparently, one doesn't need much courtroom experience to become a Supreme Court nominee, just a degree from one of these fine institutions. It's an abomination that the Court, as well as almost all recent Presidents have some association with Harvard or Yale. Can't the Republicans or Democrats find anyone else qualified to be either without the Harvard/Yale pedigree and training?
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on May 8, 2010 8:45:50 GMT -5
Well that list is not correct. Ginsburg graduated from Columbia (although she did attend HLS). And Yale is not looking too sharp on that list. Those Harvard justices seem to be the "better" ones, although admittedly it might be a bit early to judge Alito and it's definitely too early to judge Sotomayor. Plus, as a dog-lover myself, Alito may have won me over as the sole dissenter in that recent dog fighting video case.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,696
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 8, 2010 13:54:38 GMT -5
The Law School thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that there's only one career route to the court anymore.
Aren't many of the greatest members of the history of the court people who were not just lawyers and judges in their career? As much as you can push educational, racial or gender diversity, how about some life experience diversity?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 9, 2010 18:29:26 GMT -5
Kagan would not be coming from the appellate bench, which is diversity in some sense, but she does not bring anything from the point of view of law school diversity. If she is the nominee, and I expect her to be so, I think we'll see a lukewarm reception. Progressives don't like her much, and I don't think Republicans will be too eager to support the nomination at an early stage. More of a wait and see if she trips up in her preconfirmation meetings and statements. More from ScotusBlog: www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/where-we-go-from-here/#more-19874
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 9, 2010 22:05:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 9, 2010 23:33:02 GMT -5
Thanks, Saxa. I think the confirmation hearings may actually be interesting for this nomination given Kagan's record at Harvard. The thinking behind the nomination is interesting to the extent press reports are indicative.
There seems to be a "herding cattle" talking point out there about her consensus-building ability due to her work as Dean. I can buy that at face value but not as applied to the current Court, unfortunately.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 10, 2010 6:41:02 GMT -5
Thanks, Saxa. I think the confirmation hearings may actually be interesting for this nomination given Kagan's record at Harvard. The thinking behind the nomination is interesting to the extent press reports are indicative. There seems to be a "herding cattle" talking point out there about her consensus-building ability due to her work as Dean. I can buy that at face value but not as applied to the current Court, unfortunately. Bear in mind Ambassador, she really only has to herd one... Kennedy. I agree the ideological divide is far too severe to think she, or anyone, could ever heard Thomas, Scalia, Roberts or Alito. I also think it's a positive to have a third woman on the court. We are long past the days when one, token woman can be seen as reasonable or representative.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on May 10, 2010 7:13:58 GMT -5
www.slate.com/id/2253302/ has a good op-ed on her. I find Kagan's nomination fascinating. Her aggressiveness on national security seems to augur poorly for the left wing of the Democratic Party. That, combined with Holder's attempts to rewrite Miranda, seems to indicate that everyone who voted for Obama based on the idea that the federal government was getting too intrusive should be doing a large Wilhelm scream right about now.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 10, 2010 9:23:13 GMT -5
The real bonus is, if she's ever not feeling well, Frank Luntz can sit in for her!
Ba-ZING!
;D
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'll leave this debate to you legal wonks. I don't have too strong of an opinion one way or the other.
Though I will say I don't think it's right to criticize the military for DADT. It's not a military decision. DADT was created by civilian leadership (granted with military input). If anyone shouldn't be allowed on Harvard's campus, it's Bill Clinton.
I don't think that'll end up being too big of an issue though. The Solomon aspects of it maybe will.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 10, 2010 10:00:22 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 10, 2010 10:06:30 GMT -5
John Roberts is a conservative fire-breather?
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on May 10, 2010 11:44:20 GMT -5
www.slate.com/id/2253302/ has a good op-ed on her. I find Kagan's nomination fascinating. Her aggressiveness on national security seems to augur poorly for the left wing of the Democratic Party. That, combined with Holder's attempts to rewrite Miranda, seems to indicate that everyone who voted for Obama based on the idea that the federal government was getting too intrusive should be doing a large Wilhelm scream right about now. Exactly. She was not who I wanted appointed. I don't think she'll have too much trouble getting confirmed, but I will not be very disappointed if she slips up during the hearings. That being said, getting a high profile confirmation like this slapped down could be a serious blow to Obama's political power and as a general supporter of Obama policy I don't want to see that. Hmmm, do I root against her b/c I don't want her as a justice or do I root for her knowing Obama will be in a stronger political position and better able to enact other policies I like.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 10, 2010 11:48:28 GMT -5
Some of the early conservative responses are to be expected, including that of Ed Whelan. Some on the right would be more likely to support Orly Taitz for Supreme Court than a mainstream candidate.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 10, 2010 12:29:09 GMT -5
Some of the early conservative responses are to be expected, including that of Ed Whelan. Some on the right would be more likely to support Orly Taitz for Supreme Court than a mainstream candidate. What did Ed Whelan write that was out of line, or indicative of your conclusion? I read his column this morning and it was perfectly fair, even if you don't agree with it. Maybe you mean his short little follow up blog post that has Media Matters all in a tizzy. I thought that was kind of stupid, but it's not much more than a Tweet.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,696
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 10, 2010 14:26:38 GMT -5
John Roberts is a conservative fire-breather? He worked as a carny for several years before going into law. It was part of the act.
|
|