CNN Breaking News — President Obama says Elena Kagan “embodies excellence,” nominates her for Supreme Court.
16 thoughts on “Twitter: CNN Breaking News …”
David K.
Assuming the nomination holds it would be a historic first for this country. It will be the first Supreme Court without a single Protestant on the bench. Kagan would join fellow Jews Breyer and Ginsburg. The remaining six justices? All Catholic. I’m pretty sure there is a Dan Brown novel in all this…
Brendan Loy
There’s also a joke in it. “Six Catholics, three Jews, and no Protestants walk into a bar Supreme Court…”
kcatnd
Where’s the CNN Breaking News update for Gordon Brown stepping down?
The more I think about it, the more I’m with AML. I was quite concerned with Miers – lack of experience, paper trail, etc. Kagan strikes me as a younger Miers.
Now, Miers might have been a very effective justice. So might Kagan. But there is no evidence on either of them. Now as I think I’ll be in disagreement with Kagan more then Miers, I’m more then happy to let somebody who might not be the most qualified into the Court.
Sandy Underpants
Isn’t it just silly though, to give a person with no judicial experience a position as a justice on the supreme court? That seems absolutely batshit. It’s like putting Joe the Plumber on the national ballot. I’m sure he’s a great guy and all, but it’s not really an entry-level position. Does Kagan even have the software to produce proper legal forms?!??
I’m not against the idea of putting qualified lawyers with no judicial experience on a federal bench at any level. Famously, CJ Earl Warren was governor of California before being nominated to SCOTUS, and I am susceptible to the idea that our judicial branch is weakened by not having lawyers from more diverse walks of life (how about a top trial attorney, or a top corporate litigator?).
I was open to the Miers nomination, and I am open to the Kagan nomination, but both nominees left behind an extremely tiny trail on which to judge their potential performance as a justice of the SCOTUS. If that was enough for conservatives to revolt and demand an Alito instead, one wonders why the left wouldn’t similarly demand a more reliable liberal nominee. OTOH, paucity of evidence one way or the other notwithstanding, what circumstantial evidence we do have suggests Kagan will ultimately be a reliable liberal, whereas nothing about Miers suggested she would necessarily be a reliable conservative, an anti-Souter.
Alasdair
So what I am reading here says that Kagan would definitely be an Obama-esque Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court …
On second thought, I’m thinking that Kagan may be good experience wise. After all, she is very experienced in the law – she’s argued cases, and taught the law for years. The one drawback is that she has little paper trail.
kcatnd
I’m also fine with a lack of judicial experience (Rehnquist wasn’t a judge before his nomination). That alone shouldn’t have excluded Harriet Miers from consideration, nor should it exclude Kagan. I see some distinction between the two, however.
“what circumstantial evidence we do have suggests Kagan will ultimately be a reliable liberal, whereas nothing about Miers suggested she would necessarily be a reliable conservative, an anti-Souter.”
Miers was very personally close and loyal to Bush. There’s no question about this. That alone suggests that she would be reliably conservative or at least hold very similar positions. I’m not trying to paint broad strokes here, but I think that’s obvious to anyone. And that doesn’t necessarily disqualify her from consideration either, but taken together with her lack of academic and intellectual credentials, she made a very poor nominee and was rightly rejected by all sides. Too transparently crony-ish perhaps?
Kagan worked with Democratic administrations, but has also shown a willingness to work with and support conservatives throughout her academic and professional career. I have no doubt that she and Obama see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues, but I would expect her to break with him more readily than Miers would with Bush. These are surface-level readings on my part, though, so I’m interested to hear what others think.
gahrie
Miers was very personally close and loyal to Bush. There’s no question about this. That alone suggests that she would be reliably conservative or at least hold very similar positions
1) Her closeness to Pres. Bush was part of the problem. Real conservatives don’t consider pres. Bush to be all that conservative.
2) Republican presidents have to be much more careful with their picks. There are many cases of Republicans appointing Justices who move left when they get on the Court. I am unaware of a single Democratically appointed Justice who moved to the right after reaching the Court.
kcatnd, you’re stretching. Kagan is every bit the example of insulated cronyism that Miers was. You could also very easily argue that Miers fell upward with far more real-world legal experience than Kagan ever accumulated.
And as gahrie points out, closeness to a U.S. president hardly constitutes an acceptable litmus test for judges. Dwight Eisenhower tabbed Earl Warren, and look how tremendously that backfired on him.
Nobody is arguing that Kagan is a perfect clone of Miers, merely that they are both examples of a similar type — stealth nominees who seem to be chosen more for their lack of a paper trail than their actual qualifications.
gahrie…I immediately thought of Byron White…a Democratic (Kennedy) appointment who became a big disappointment to the liberals.
From an ideological standpoint, I suspect that the liberals have more to lose from this nomination than the conservatives. Just as I felt that the conservatives had the most to lose from a Miers appointment.
Sandy Underpants
“There are many cases of Republicans appointing Justices who move left when they get on the Court. I am unaware of a single Democratically appointed Justice who moved to the right after reaching the Court.”
My observation is that people generally get smarter with age, not stupider. With the exception of Dennis Miller, I can’t think of a single intellectual who became a Republican after being an outspoken liberal. Maybe that’s what too much money and isolation will devolve you to.
CNN Breaking News — President Obama says Elena Kagan “embodies excellence,” nominates her for Supreme Court.
Assuming the nomination holds it would be a historic first for this country. It will be the first Supreme Court without a single Protestant on the bench. Kagan would join fellow Jews Breyer and Ginsburg. The remaining six justices? All Catholic. I’m pretty sure there is a Dan Brown novel in all this…
There’s also a joke in it. “Six Catholics, three Jews, and no Protestants walk into a
barSupreme Court…”Where’s the CNN Breaking News update for Gordon Brown stepping down?
I’m waiting for the howls from left-wing conspiratorialists about the undue influence of Jews on all branches of government….
I wonder if the left will give Obama as much of a pass on the Kagan pick as conservatives did with Bush and Harriet Miers.
Why do you think Kagan and Miers are comparable? Because neither were judges?
Why do you think they are not comparable?
The more I think about it, the more I’m with AML. I was quite concerned with Miers – lack of experience, paper trail, etc. Kagan strikes me as a younger Miers.
Now, Miers might have been a very effective justice. So might Kagan. But there is no evidence on either of them. Now as I think I’ll be in disagreement with Kagan more then Miers, I’m more then happy to let somebody who might not be the most qualified into the Court.
Isn’t it just silly though, to give a person with no judicial experience a position as a justice on the supreme court? That seems absolutely batshit. It’s like putting Joe the Plumber on the national ballot. I’m sure he’s a great guy and all, but it’s not really an entry-level position. Does Kagan even have the software to produce proper legal forms?!??
I’m not against the idea of putting qualified lawyers with no judicial experience on a federal bench at any level. Famously, CJ Earl Warren was governor of California before being nominated to SCOTUS, and I am susceptible to the idea that our judicial branch is weakened by not having lawyers from more diverse walks of life (how about a top trial attorney, or a top corporate litigator?).
I was open to the Miers nomination, and I am open to the Kagan nomination, but both nominees left behind an extremely tiny trail on which to judge their potential performance as a justice of the SCOTUS. If that was enough for conservatives to revolt and demand an Alito instead, one wonders why the left wouldn’t similarly demand a more reliable liberal nominee. OTOH, paucity of evidence one way or the other notwithstanding, what circumstantial evidence we do have suggests Kagan will ultimately be a reliable liberal, whereas nothing about Miers suggested she would necessarily be a reliable conservative, an anti-Souter.
So what I am reading here says that Kagan would definitely be an Obama-esque Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court …
On second thought, I’m thinking that Kagan may be good experience wise. After all, she is very experienced in the law – she’s argued cases, and taught the law for years. The one drawback is that she has little paper trail.
I’m also fine with a lack of judicial experience (Rehnquist wasn’t a judge before his nomination). That alone shouldn’t have excluded Harriet Miers from consideration, nor should it exclude Kagan. I see some distinction between the two, however.
“what circumstantial evidence we do have suggests Kagan will ultimately be a reliable liberal, whereas nothing about Miers suggested she would necessarily be a reliable conservative, an anti-Souter.”
Miers was very personally close and loyal to Bush. There’s no question about this. That alone suggests that she would be reliably conservative or at least hold very similar positions. I’m not trying to paint broad strokes here, but I think that’s obvious to anyone. And that doesn’t necessarily disqualify her from consideration either, but taken together with her lack of academic and intellectual credentials, she made a very poor nominee and was rightly rejected by all sides. Too transparently crony-ish perhaps?
Kagan worked with Democratic administrations, but has also shown a willingness to work with and support conservatives throughout her academic and professional career. I have no doubt that she and Obama see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues, but I would expect her to break with him more readily than Miers would with Bush. These are surface-level readings on my part, though, so I’m interested to hear what others think.
Miers was very personally close and loyal to Bush. There’s no question about this. That alone suggests that she would be reliably conservative or at least hold very similar positions
1) Her closeness to Pres. Bush was part of the problem. Real conservatives don’t consider pres. Bush to be all that conservative.
2) Republican presidents have to be much more careful with their picks. There are many cases of Republicans appointing Justices who move left when they get on the Court. I am unaware of a single Democratically appointed Justice who moved to the right after reaching the Court.
kcatnd, you’re stretching. Kagan is every bit the example of insulated cronyism that Miers was. You could also very easily argue that Miers fell upward with far more real-world legal experience than Kagan ever accumulated.
And as gahrie points out, closeness to a U.S. president hardly constitutes an acceptable litmus test for judges. Dwight Eisenhower tabbed Earl Warren, and look how tremendously that backfired on him.
Nobody is arguing that Kagan is a perfect clone of Miers, merely that they are both examples of a similar type — stealth nominees who seem to be chosen more for their lack of a paper trail than their actual qualifications.
gahrie…I immediately thought of Byron White…a Democratic (Kennedy) appointment who became a big disappointment to the liberals.
From an ideological standpoint, I suspect that the liberals have more to lose from this nomination than the conservatives. Just as I felt that the conservatives had the most to lose from a Miers appointment.
“There are many cases of Republicans appointing Justices who move left when they get on the Court. I am unaware of a single Democratically appointed Justice who moved to the right after reaching the Court.”
My observation is that people generally get smarter with age, not stupider. With the exception of Dennis Miller, I can’t think of a single intellectual who became a Republican after being an outspoken liberal. Maybe that’s what too much money and isolation will devolve you to.