President Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the nation’s 112th justice, choosing his own chief advocate before the Supreme Court to join it in ruling on cases critical to his view of the country’s future, Democrats close to the White House said Sunday.
After a monthlong search, Mr. Obama informed Ms. Kagan and his advisers on Sunday of his choice to succeed the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. He plans to announce the nomination at 10 a.m. Monday in the East Room of the White House with Ms. Kagan by his side, said the Democrats, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the decision before it was formally made public.
In settling on Ms. Kagan, the president chose a well-regarded 50-year-old lawyer who served as a staff member in all three branches of government and was the first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School. If confirmed, she would be the youngest member and the third woman on the current court, but the first justice in nearly four decades without any prior judicial experience.
That lack of time on the bench may both help and hurt her confirmation prospects, allowing critics to question whether she is truly qualified while denying them a lengthy judicial paper trail filled with ammunition for attacks….
This is an obvious choice. She is anti-military and pro-gay. She has no judicial experience and therefore no written opinions to be studied. She is not married. She happens to be the former Dean of the president’s law school. All members of the court will have studied at Yale or Harvard. None are Protestants. And there are worse candidates out there.
#1, so you would prefer someone who:
Favors American domination, believes that some citizens are second class, has spent an entire career as a lawyer/judge, has been married three times, was a low level faculty member at a small community college, was not able to get into the finest law school in the US (if not the world), is an atheist?
#2 No, I would not. This is President Obama’s choice and he gets what he wants. Also, she favors a strong executive branch. No one knows how she will be as a justice. By the way, two of the worst lawyers I know are graduates of the Harvard Law School.
Personaly I would perfer someone who is loyal to the US Constitution and the intent of the framers, being willing to set aside an agenda where it conflicted with that. She is not that person. She is being chosen to be a leftest and she rule in accordance with that worldview.
One wonders if any of the mainstream media will ask the president about her sexuality (a well known non-secret at Harvard) or whether any senator will ask at the confirmation hearings.
Is it relevant? Of course it is with several cases that are wending their way to the SCOTUS. Interestingly, Ms Kagan has come out strongly against a [url=http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/05/supreme-irony-kagan-nomination-ends-gay.html ]”federal right to gay marriage.”[/url] Because of this, many liberals are up in arms against her nomination.
#2: Everyone believes some citizens are second class. It’s just a matter of who does the believing, and who is selected to be second class. As for being able to get into “the finest law school in the world,” that is a matter of opinion. The private universities, and indeed many public ones, select candidates based on qualifications other than legal merit. Ask those universities whether their use of “diversity” policies relegates well-qualified members of “over-represented” groups to second-class status (which it certainly does), and watch them deny it.
#5: I have seen some commentary suggesting that Ms. Kagan does not actually oppose a federal right to gay marriage. Apparently, in the context of having to support a ban on gay marriage as part of her official duties, she edited the case to make it weaker; that is, she did not present the best possible case. However, at least she did argue the case (unlike, say, Brown in California, who argued against his own state in the Prop 8 trial). I have not looked at the original documents, so I do not know if the commentary is correct. We will hear more.
Apparently she is a non-celibate lesbian with a partner. I did not know that.
“Anti-gay” = “believes that some citizens are second class . . . ”
Who knew that Mark Johnson was for expanding the definition of marriage to include those minority sexual orientations like the polyamorous, the adult-consensual-siblings, and those with orientations towards the life-challenged?
It’s great that he believes in treating *all* minority sexual orientations the same with regards to the expansion of the meaning of marriage so that all citizens are first class!
Heh.
No. 4- how do we know that she is not “loyal to the Constitution” ? The criticism I am hearing is that, as she is from the academy, and not a jurist, we have little information on her constitutional positions.
Sarah – is this “Mark Johnson” fella the commenter in No. 2, above? What did he say about polyamory etc.? I can’t find that in his comment.
Because she was chosen by Obama in order to advance his agenda, her record at Harvard, and she is a non celibate homosexual who can be expected to advance that agenda.
RE: “I can’t find that in his comment.”
I know — but he believes that some minority sexual orientations who don’t get expanded definitions of marriage “are second class” so I just knew that he would want to have integrity and consistency and want to treat ALL minority sexual orientations as “first class citizens”.
I’m generous that way. I always want to think the best of people and I sure wouldn’t want to think that Mark Johnson was an inconsistent person who is prejudiced against some less popular minority sexual orientations.
No.10: Is there information available suggesting that non-celibate homosexuals are less loyal to the Constitution than celibate homosexuals (or celibate heterosexuals, or non-celibate heterosexuals)? This is the first I’ve heard of that. Do we know that President Obama chose this nominee because of her disloyalty to the Constitution? That would seem surprising, and I doubt that we have strong evidence of that. What was her record of disloyalty to the Constitution at Harvard?
Sarah (No. 10) – I saw no reference to minority sexual orientations in comment no. 2 and the only reference I saw to marriage seemed (extrapolating quite a bit from the words on the page) to be critical of divorce. As to the point he didn’t make, but you seem to be in a hurry to make for him in his name (not sure I understand why one would do that), is it not possible that there exist people who believe in equal treatment under the law for all citizens but who do not favor sibling incest (as your comment no. 7 asserts)? If a civil rights leader of the 1960s were to attack “second class citizen” treatment for certain Americans, should I have assumed that he was making a stand for polyamorous unions and sibling incest? I got through that entire period thinking I was reasonably tuned in without ever hearing that dog whistle, I must confess. I guess I’m still struggling, now a day later, with the logic of comment 7, particularly as it professes to be reacting to comment 2.
RE: “As to the point he didn’t make, but you seem to be in a hurry to make for him in his name (not sure I understand why one would do that), is it not possible that there exist people who believe in equal treatment under the law for all citizens but who do not favor sibling incest (as your comment no. 7 asserts)?”
Of course — as the Equal Protection Clause allows all persons to be treated equally under the law. Believe me, if any state did not allow a non-related individual male and individual female above the age of consent to not get married, claiming that it was because one of them was homosexual or black, I would be the first to vigorously protest that.
Happily, that is not happening. Rather, one minority sexual orientation wishes to *expand the legal definition of marriage* such that that sexual orientation will get new laws — to the exclusion of other many other minority sexual orientations. They do this under the claim that they are being treated as “second class citizens” despite the fact that the full equal protection of the law is given to them and any single, above the age of consent, non-related male and female may marry, no matter what their minority sexual orientation.
It is true that one person of a minority sexual orientation may feel passionately and commitedly in love with his shoe, or her dead fiance, but in this country, all of them may marry a single, adult, non-related, opposite gender person.
I would be more than willing to expand the legal definition of civil unions to include ALL minority sexual orientations [other than children — although of course, that will be here in the next 30 years under modified age-of-consent laws]. But not merely one minority sexual orientation.
If we’re going to legally expand the definition of marriage, let’s make sure no one is — by Mark Johnson’s interesting definition — a “second class citizen” under the marriage laws.
As Mr. Johnson didn’t say anything about marriage at all (other than reference to thrice-divorced nominees), I find all of your comments on this thread to be something of a head-scratcher. Perhaps he said something somewhere else that you are taking your lead from. But it’s pretty obscure based on what’s in front of us and seems to have little to do with the original post
RE: “I find all of your comments on this thread to be something of a head-scratcher.”
Yes . . . I can tell . . . you’re completely confused . . . ; > )
Just to recap: Pb pointed out that Kagan was “pro-gay.” Kagan is on the record for supporting the whole progressive gay activist agenda including gay marriage.
Mark Johnson said oh, Pb may prefer someone who “believes that some citizens are second class.”
But NOVA Scout is muddled. Confused. And head scratching . . . as to where on earth I got the pro-gay marriage thingy.
We can all tell . . . by how much NOVA Scout is protesting . . . that he’s completely confused.
Heh.
Oh, I thought we were talking about comment No. 2. from Mr. Johnson. If you follow the thread, you can see why I might have formed that impression. As for Ms. Kagan, she has received criticism from the “left” as not being sufficiently enthusiastic about their causes. Is she, in fact, “on record for supporting the whole progressive gay activist agenda . . . “?
RE: “Oh, I thought we were talking about comment No. 2. from Mr. Johnson. ”
Oh we were. And that you’re so terribly confused by my assertion about Mark Johnson, which I will now repeat.
[blockquote]Who knew that Mark Johnson was for expanding the definition of marriage to include those minority sexual orientations like the polyamorous, the adult-consensual-siblings, and those with orientations towards the life-challenged?
It’s great that he believes in treating *all* minority sexual orientations the same with regards to the expansion of the meaning of marriage so that all citizens are first class![/blockquote]
Yes sir . . . it’s wonderful that Mark Johnson wishes to treat all citizens — of varying minority sexual orientations — in a First Class manner.
I don’t know Mr Johnson, but I suspect his views on subjects are best expressed by him. I continue not to understand why Sarah is so intent on being his spokesman. Is Mr. Johnson someone I should know from some other context?
RE: “I suspect his views on subjects are best expressed by him.”
He did — and I commented on those views.
Your not liking my commenting on those views and pointing out their intrinsic hypocrisy and inconsistency is neither here nor there.
I’ll continue doing that, as I find the time, and as I have done for the past 7 years of commenting here.
And you’ll keep being “confused” . . . ; > )