Elena Kagan Nomination Scorecard

[mainejeff]

The CONK whining is at a fever pitch..........

[GSUAlumniEagle]

Well that's a remarkably dumb way of looking at things.

As a Solicitor General, her job wasn't to write opinions. It wasn't even in her discretion in which way she should argue a case. Her job was simply to defend laws on behalf of the federal government. It wasn't even as if she got to choose which laws she thought were Constitutional and which ones were not. It's a very real possibility that she argued a few of those cases with the belief that the other side had a better case.

A SG's win percentage isn't nearly as useful as looking into an Appellate level justice's overturn percentage -- but even that note isn't exactly foolproof.

There are valid reasons to be opposed to Kagan's nomination. I'm not a huge fan myself. But arguing her win percentage as SG is just downright silly. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that it's becoming a GOP talking point.

Speaking of being "remarkably dumb"...

Her job as a lawyer, not only as Solicitor General, is to argue her client's case to the best of her ability. Her personal "beliefs" or feelings are not only unimportant, but irrelevant. If your "beliefs" argument has any merit, it even further highlights the fact that she is wholeheartedly unqualified.

Well that's a fairly poorly done attempt at trying to circle around the argument. You attempted to argue that a .600 winning percentage as Solicitor General meant that somehow Kagan was a substandard legal mind. That simply isn't the case and I was simply pointing out the flawed thinking in your logic.

I'm sure if we looked up the records of all the Solicitors General out there that we'd find quite a few of them lost just as many cases as they won in front of the SCOTUS. There's a reason the SCOTUS course load is kept low -- it's meant for the most difficult of cases.

The hypocrisy of all of these hearings is just absurd. Let's just admit that it's a purely political process with no respect to what the confirmation ability of the Senate was meant to accomplish. And it's all Ted Kennedy's fault.

[Col Hogan]

Is there any reason to believe that Ms. Kagan will be any more honest than Justice Sotomayor was during her nomination hearing...

On July 14th, 2009, during her nomination hearing, Judge Sotomayor was asked the following question by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, a democrat...

LEAHY: Good. Let me (ph) talk to you about another decision that's been talked about, District of Columbia v. Heller. In that one, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees to Americans the right to keep and bear arms, and that it's an individual right.

LEAHY: I've owned firearms since my early teen years. I suspect a large majority of Vermonters do. I enjoy target shooting on a very regular basis at our home in Vermont. So I watched that decision rather carefully and found it interesting. Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?

SOTOMAYOR: Yes, sir.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... cript.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She said YES...that she accepts the Supreme Court Ruling on DC's onerous gun law which established the Second Amendment as AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT...

Yet, less than one year later...her true colors come out...when she joined in the dissenting opinion that says:

"I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?tit ... of_Chicago" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


SHE LIED...BOLD-FACED LIED...and I expect nothing more or less from Elena Kagan...

[AshevilleApp]

So then, you'd be OK with Russell Pearce (AZ state senator) being elected President because Obama's lack of experience set the precedent?

Two wrongs do NOT make a right, even in your 4th grade-mentality world.

So you think Rehnquist had no business being an associate justice, let alone chief justice, right??

I also like the fact that you use a STATE senator to make that analogy, when Obama was in fact a US senator.

To add a little clarity to the judicial experience argument, we've had 40 Supreme Court Justices that had no prior experience as a sitting judge. That accounts for about 36% of previous appointees.

[OL FU]

So you think Rehnquist had no business being an associate justice, let alone chief justice, right??

I also like the fact that you use a STATE senator to make that analogy, when Obama was in fact a US senator.

To add a little clarity to the judicial experience argument, we've had 40 Supreme Court Justices that had no prior experience as a sitting judge. That accounts for about 40% of previous appointees.

If it wasn't for having to sit around all day long looking at old people I would take the job

[Baldy]

Speaking of being "remarkably dumb"...

Her job as a lawyer, not only as Solicitor General, is to argue her client's case to the best of her ability. Her personal "beliefs" or feelings are not only unimportant, but irrelevant. If your "beliefs" argument has any merit, it even further highlights the fact that she is wholeheartedly unqualified.

Well that's a fairly poorly done attempt at trying to circle around the argument. You attempted to argue that a .600 winning percentage as Solicitor General meant that somehow Kagan was a substandard legal mind. That simply isn't the case and I was simply pointing out the flawed thinking in your logic.

Nice assumption, albeit incorrect. However, not very surprising.

Never claimed Kagan's "legal mind" was substandard. Just showed that she lacks skill, and her losing the Citizen's United case just validates my point.

I'm sure if we looked up the records of all the Solicitors General out there that we'd find quite a few of them lost just as many cases as they won in front of the SCOTUS. There's a reason the SCOTUS course load is kept low -- it's meant for the most difficult of cases.

The Solicitor General is pretty much given generous latitude to hand pick the cases they want to try, and very often it's writ of certiorari is granted by the SCOTUS. The Solicitor General has a very close working relationship with the Court. There is a reason the SG is considered the "10th justice".
The Court's cases aren't picked because they are the "most difficult". It picks the cases based on Constitutional issues.

[AshevilleApp]

To add a little clarity to the judicial experience argument, we've had 40 Supreme Court Justices that had no prior experience as a sitting judge. That accounts for about 40% of previous appointees.

If it wasn't for having to sit around all day long looking at old people I would take the job

And you'd probably be as well qualified as some others who have had the post.

[JoltinJoe]

[youtube][/youtube]

Actually I like that she said that it was a dumb law and courts shouldn't strike down laws simply because the laws are "dumb." What she was trying to say that the best remedy for a dumb law is not to pass it; or have the legislature overrule it. In saying this, she was invoking Justice Black's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut and in fact suggesting a restricted role of the judiciary in assessing the constitutionality of legislative action.

Other than that, I wouldn't put too much stock in this question and answer. A gotcha question like this, with the expectation that the nominee will have a thoroughly thought-out answer, is unfair. If I had been asked this question, I would have been at a loss to begin to analyze it without careful consideration of existing commerce clause case law, the limitations on this power outlined in US v. Lopez, etc.

The premise of the question is that congress's authority under the commerce clause has been read too expansively. In general, I can agree with that, but in order to address this issue meaningfully, you would need to have a fair discussion with the person raising the issue. Because the question I would ask someone who asked me this is whether they disagreed with the federal enforcement of the Civil Rights Act through the use of the commerce clause power -- for the purposes of defining the boundaries of our "discussion." As a person being interrogated by a Senator plainly looking for a sound bite,, Kagan did not have this option.

In any event, I suspect that Senator Cogan's real intent was to suggest that congress did not (or should not) have authority under the commerce clause to pass national health care. if that is the intent, then let's discuss what's really on the table.

[Ivytalk]

Upon her appointment, she'll eclipse Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg as the hottest woman on the Supreme Court.

[mainejeff]

Upon her appointment, she'll eclipse Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg as the hottest woman on the Supreme Court.

Why can't we do like the South and just put all hotties in positions of power.......who cares about their qualifications?