Thread: Is Elena Kagan a good choice for the Supreme Court

President Obama will name Kagan to the Bench

President Barack Obama will announce Monday that he has selected Solicitor General Elena Kagan as his second nominee to the Supreme Court, according to an administration official.



If confirmed, the former Harvard Law School dean would be the first justice to join the court without prior judicial experience since William Rehnquist nearly four decades ago.



Kagan would be the third woman on the nine-member court and only the fourth woman among 112 justices ever to serve, following Obama’s choice of Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year. She would replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring after 35 years.



At 50, Kagan is among the youngest of the potential nominees who were widely thought to have been seriously considered by Obama for the high court slot.



Kagan has a lengthy pedigree as a Democratic attorney. She served for several years as the deputy director of domestic policy under President Bill Clinton and earlier as an attorney in the White House counsel’s office. She made history by serving for six years as the first female dean of Harvard Law, where Obama had attended years earlier.



Yet Obama’s choice of Kagan, who currently serves as the government’s top lawyer before the high court, signals a desire to dodge a major showdown with Republicans, and she drew praise from GOP legal luminaries such as Ted Olson and Ken Starr when Obama named her as solicitor general last year.



But there could still be a substantial culture war dust-up over her actions at Harvard to exclude military recruiters because of the ban on gays in the armed services. Conservatives have indicated that one line of argument against Kagan is that her tireless efforts against the military recruiters shows Kagan is more activist and advocate than fair-minded judge.



White House aides also have signaled that Obama believes Kagan could provide a forceful, effective counterweight to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, and perhaps even be the bridge to bring Justice Anthony Kennedy onto the liberal side in narrow 5-4 decisions.

Of course Kagan is more activist and advocate than fair-minded judge. In a Democracy, no one wants a fair minded judge. In a culture where we fight over "interpretation" of a black and white Constitution, everyone wants someone who "interprets" the Constitution their way. That is why Kagan is the best choice for the Democrats who want to secure yet another liberal voice on The Court.

[quote name='Burning Giraffe' date='10 May 2010 - 04:10 AM' timestamp='1273482658' post='149425']

President Obama will name Kagan to the Bench







Of course Kagan is more activist and advocate than fair-minded judge. In a Democracy, no one wants a fair minded judge. In a culture where we fight over "interpretation" of a black and white Constitution, everyone wants someone who "interprets" the Constitution their way. That is why Kagan is the best choice for the Democrats who want to secure yet another liberal voice on The Court.

[/quote]





Where did you get the idea that the Constitution is black and white?

[quote name='Lysander Spooner' date='10 May 2010 - 05:23 AM' timestamp='1273483388' post='149428']

Where did you get the idea that the Constitution is black and white?[/quote]



From actually reading it. It is surprisingly specific. Listening to Democrats, you'd think the whole thing was written in gibberish, requiring the most erudite minds to figure out what it really means.

[quote name='Burning Giraffe' date='10 May 2010 - 04:25 AM' timestamp='1273483500' post='149429']

From actually reading it. It is surprisingly specific. Listening to Democrats, you'd think the whole thing was written in gibberish, requiring the most erudite minds to figure out what it really means.

[/quote]



I must say that is a rather naive viewpoint. If the Constitution were crystal clear we wouldn't need a Supreme Court. The Court earns its living deciding cases in which rights come into conflict (or equivalently, powers come into conflict with themselves or with rights).



The question at issue (regarding Kagan) is mostly a matter of style. An activist judge is eomeone who makes up his/her mind, then looks for a constitutional rationale to justify the decision.

[quote name='kmiller1610' date='10 May 2010 - 05:30 AM' timestamp='1273483847' post='149432']

They don't care what it means. General Welfare becomes Special Rights for our Voting Blocks.

[/quote]



That's why they need to "interpret it". To make it mean whatever the hell they want it to mean. Of course, Republicans are historically just as bad at interpreting the Constitution. We are fighting two undeclared wars in the Near East and Persia, and regardless of how we feel about the wars themselves, we all should have a problem with the fact that these wars aren't Constitutional, in the strictest sense.

[quote name='Burning Giraffe' date='10 May 2010 - 05:34 AM' timestamp='1273484044' post='149436']

we all should have a problem with the fact that these wars aren't Constitutional, in the strictest sense.

[/quote]



If Congress has a problem with it I'm sure they'll pull the plug on the funding.



Right?

[quote name='Lysander Spooner' date='10 May 2010 - 05:32 AM' timestamp='1273483978' post='149435']

I must say that is a rather naive viewpoint. If the Constitution were crystal clear we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.[/quote]



That is a very poor use of logic Lysander. First, the need for a Supreme Court is not and never was defined by the founders as a requirement for interpreting the Constitution that they had just written. The purpose of the Supreme Court was to create a highest authority to govern the States and the Legislature. The Supreme Court was put in place to protect The Constitution from the Legislature and from the Executive - seeing as how the powers of each were a threat to the liberties of American citizens, our founders wanted to have one branch of government that was loyal to the protection of our system of government. Since FDR, this hasn't been the case.



[quote name='Lysander Spooner' date='10 May 2010 - 05:32 AM' timestamp='1273483978' post='149435']

The Court earns its living deciding cases in which rights come into conflict (or equivalently, powers come into conflict with themselves or with rights).



The question at issue (regarding Kagan) is mostly a matter of style. An activist judge is eomeone who makes up his/her mind, then looks for a constitutional rationale to justify the decision.

[/quote]



That seems to be what most people in this country want, regardless of party. They want activist judges to help them with their political agendas. That's a big mistake and an awful risk in my mind, but whatever, we've done stupider things I suppose.

[quote name='nonsqtr' date='10 May 2010 - 05:38 AM' timestamp='1273484297' post='149437']

If Congress has a problem with it I'm sure they'll pull the plug on the funding.



Right?

[/quote]



What? And admit that they hate our troops? Kidding. The way this stuff is supposed to work isn't even tried anymore. I don't understand why this hasn't been taken before the Supreme Court and why the legislature hasn't been forced to declare war properly.