View Full Version : Obama to nominate Elena Kagan to SCOTUS
wesgemm08
05/09/10, 08:06 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/09/elena-kagan-supreme-court_n_569499.html
...weak choice Mr. President.
caveBEAR
05/09/10, 08:10 PM
...weak choice Mr. President.
Who would you have preferred?
Jake Gyllenhaal
05/09/10, 08:10 PM
Haven't read too much into her.. why is she a weak choice?
Don't know if it's a weak choice, but I do think he was trying to avoid a fight on this.
saysmydoctor
05/09/10, 08:51 PM
Spineless pick.
I would have preferred Wood.
Jake Gyllenhaal
05/09/10, 09:39 PM
I'm an Obama freak.
No, you are not.
mymusicismylife
05/10/10, 07:25 AM
Yet Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. All of the three other finalists she beat out for the job are federal appeals court judges, and all nine of the current justices served on the federal bench before being elevated.
I would think judicial experience would be a necessity for a Supreme Court Justice.
cantnokdahustle
05/10/10, 07:38 AM
Liu was a pipe-dream, but he was my pipe-dream.
Seriously weak, Mr. President.
wesgemm08
05/10/10, 07:49 AM
At least this nomination gives Joe Sestak some arsenal in his primary election against Specter.
Jason Tate
05/10/10, 08:53 AM
Don't know if it's a weak choice, but I do think he was trying to avoid a fight on this.
Agreed.
Which I don't see as a bad thing right now.
But I don't know how she could be considered "weak" -- she's got a helluva impressive resume. And from reading over her views, appears in line with where I would want a Justice replacing Stevens to be (minus some civil liberties stuff - where I am far far far left).
God damner
05/10/10, 09:14 AM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say theres probably a lot of information, we are not in on when it comes to Obama's strategy for America. I think he and his team are sharp, and things aren't as impulsive as CNN might have you believe. The choice works.
caveBEAR
05/10/10, 09:20 AM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say theres probably a lot of information, we are not in on when it comes to Obama's strategy for America. I think he and his team are sharp, and things aren't as impulsive as CNN might have you believe. The choice works.
Phew. Good thing you were here to clear all that up.
loveisdead
05/10/10, 09:40 AM
I would think judicial experience would be a necessity for a Supreme Court Justice.
To this day, none remains the most common law school for supreme court justices. This is a nonissue.
i'm fine with this choice. and i can't wait to read all the posts on my local newspaper's site about "omg she's not married she's probably a lesbian we're all going to die or have to marry gay people"
God damner
05/10/10, 12:04 PM
Phew. Good thing you were here to clear all that up.
Least I could do for all the enlightened people on this website. :p
Theseventhson
05/10/10, 02:16 PM
:yawn:
Indoor Living
05/10/10, 02:24 PM
i'm fine with this choice. and i can't wait to read all the posts on my local newspaper's site about "omg she's not married she's probably a lesbian we're all going to die or have to marry gay people"
:lol:
caveBEAR
05/10/10, 02:33 PM
Least I could do for all the enlightened people on this website. :p
Water. Is it wet? Enlighten me.
saysmydoctor
05/10/10, 02:53 PM
Agreed.
Which I don't see as a bad thing right now.
But I don't know how she could be considered "weak" -- she's got a helluva impressive resume. And from reading over her views, appears in line with where I would want a Justice replacing Stevens to be (minus some civil liberties stuff - where I am far far far left).
I find her views on executive powers to be a bit troubling, I don't know if that's what you are getting at or not.
While I disagree with the overall tone of this article (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-will-be-the-most-unqualified-justice-in-history/), I feel it does raise on troubling point:
Kagan’s record as Solicitor General is shaky, at best (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/15/kagan_as_solictor_general); she wrote a weak amicus brief in Mohawk Industries, was unfocused on her oral argument of Citizens United, stepped in deep manure during the oral argument in Holder v. HLP when she said the material support criminal charge should be applied to attorneys representing disadvantaged clients, and no less than the Supreme Court themselves, in an 8-1 decision in US v. Stevens, basically declared her briefing and argument in said case to be laughably ill conceived, wrongheaded and misguided. Kagan herself admits she is so inexperienced she is like a deer in headlights (http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/04/kagan-drops-few-clues-in-tribute-to-kennedy.html) before the Supreme Court. This is the woman who is going to be the great liberal persuader? Please; what a patently absurd contention.
That being said, though, I think she would make a better judge than a solicitor general--guess I just liked the other options more so. Her resume is definitely impressive, anybody trying to downplay that is silly.
Aperi Oculos
05/10/10, 04:12 PM
Agreed.
Which I don't see as a bad thing right now.
But I don't know how she could be considered "weak" -- she's got a helluva impressive resume. And from reading over her views, appears in line with where I would want a Justice replacing Stevens to be (minus some civil liberties stuff - where I am far far far left).
Many people will blindly bash her and call her a "weak" choice just because they are afraid that she might have a relationship with a female rather than a male. At least all of the people I have talked to today have only made remarks about her questionable sexual orientation.
Jake Gyllenhaal
05/10/10, 04:14 PM
I find it interesting that if she is appointed, there will be no sitting Protestants on the Supreme Court... 6 Catholics and 3 Jews.
caveBEAR
05/10/10, 04:21 PM
Article (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/10/us/politics/20100505-kagan-opinions.html) on Kagan's stances.
Wide stance?
http://www.foxnews.com/images/306258/1_62_craig_larry_frontmug.jpg
katyara
05/10/10, 04:52 PM
How can someone be against DADT and also be willing to defend DOMA?
vodyanoj
05/10/10, 04:59 PM
i'm fine with this choice. and i can't wait to read all the posts on my local newspaper's site about "omg she's not married she's probably a lesbian we're all going to die or have to marry gay people"
The wacky right-wing bloggers have already picked this up and are running with it. Or, rather, waddling.
Jake Gyllenhaal
05/10/10, 05:06 PM
The wacky right-wing bloggers have already picked this up and are running with it. Or, rather, waddling.
Rush criticized her for saying she identifies with the average American despite living amongst the liberal elites in Manhattan, Chicago, Harvard, and Washington without being married and having no children.
vodyanoj
05/10/10, 05:23 PM
Rush criticized her for saying she identifies with the average American despite living amongst the liberal elites in Manhattan, Chicago, Harvard, and Washington without being married and having no children.
Wintery Knight (check him out! utterly hilarious), singles out her "pro-abortion" stance ans well as her purported lesbian partner. Of course, nothing of substance there. He questions her credentials, but provides no specifics. All in all, entertaining, or would be if these people weren't for real..
loveisdead
05/10/10, 05:36 PM
Wintery Knight (check him out! utterly hilarious), singles out her "pro-abortion" stance ans well as her purported lesbian partner. Of course, nothing of substance there. He questions her credentials, but provides no specifics. All in all, entertaining, or would be if these people weren't for real..
it's too true.
wesgemm08
05/10/10, 06:09 PM
Many people will blindly bash her and call her a "weak" choice just because they are afraid that she might have a relationship with a female rather than a male. At least all of the people I have talked to today have only made remarks about her questionable sexual orientation.
Many people will blindly make assumptions about why someone would call her a "weak" choice.
I don't think she is a weak choice because of her sexual orientation or her incredible resume. I think she is weak choice because she is to the right of Justice Stevens. She has ties, albeit very small, to Goldman Sachs and Lawrence Summers. She is for indefinite imprisonment of "terrorists" without a set trial date or reason for imprisonment during wartime. Many of her opinions seem to side with Corporations. She is also for expanding the power of the president/executive branch. None of that has to do with her sexual orientation. Diane Wood would have been the better choice.
caveBEAR
05/10/10, 06:12 PM
Heh heh...'Wood'...
Aperi Oculos
05/10/10, 07:28 PM
Many people will blindly make assumptions about why someone would call her a "weak" choice.
I don't think she is a weak choice because of her sexual orientation or her incredible resume. I think she is weak choice because she is to the right of Justice Stevens. She has ties, albeit very small, to Goldman Sachs and Lawrence Summers. She is for indefinite imprisonment of "terrorists" without a set trial date or reason for imprisonment during wartime. Many of her opinions seem to side with Corporations. She is also for expanding the power of the president/executive branch. None of that has to do with her sexual orientation. Diane Wood would have been the better choice.
Touché salesman
I am just sick of the focus of "Is Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Really a Lesbian??!!" Your points make sense about her being a weaker choice.
The indefinite imprisonment of "terrorists" that you mentioned is interesting since Obama issued a statement going against that very view in the infancy of his presidency, specifically about Gitmo.
(http://gawker.com/5535425/is-supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan-really-a-lesbian)
loveisdead
05/10/10, 07:37 PM
Many people will blindly make assumptions about why someone would call her a "weak" choice.
I don't think she is a weak choice because of her sexual orientation or her incredible resume. I think she is weak choice because she is to the right of Justice Stevens. She has ties, albeit very small, to Goldman Sachs and Lawrence Summers. She is for indefinite imprisonment of "terrorists" without a set trial date or reason for imprisonment during wartime. Many of her opinions seem to side with Corporations. She is also for expanding the power of the president/executive branch. None of that has to do with her sexual orientation. Diane Wood would have been the better choice.
:appl:
thursday727
05/11/10, 10:48 PM
I don't think she is a weak choice because of her sexual orientation or her incredible resume. I think she is weak choice because she is to the right of Justice Stevens. She has ties, albeit very small, to Goldman Sachs and Lawrence Summers. She is for indefinite imprisonment of "terrorists" without a set trial date or reason for imprisonment during wartime. Many of her opinions seem to side with Corporations. She is also for expanding the power of the president/executive branch. None of that has to do with her sexual orientation. Diane Wood would have been the better choice.
fully agreed .plus i'm worried about her positions on the first amendment.
Could be worse , at least it wasn't Cass Sunstein.
open mind
05/11/10, 11:39 PM
i don't know much about diane wood or elena kagan, i just knew in my gut something was wrong when i saw republicans complimenting obama's choice during an election year.
saysmydoctor
05/13/10, 04:24 PM
Many people will blindly make assumptions about why someone would call her a "weak" choice.
I don't think she is a weak choice because of her sexual orientation or her incredible resume. I think she is weak choice because she is to the right of Justice Stevens. She has ties, albeit very small, to Goldman Sachs and Lawrence Summers. She is for indefinite imprisonment of "terrorists" without a set trial date or reason for imprisonment during wartime. Many of her opinions seem to side with Corporations. She is also for expanding the power of the president/executive branch. None of that has to do with her sexual orientation. Diane Wood would have been the better choice.
This.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.