Penny Arcade Forums› Debate and/or Discourse
As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Confirmation hearing for Elena Kagan

MKRMKR Registered User regular
edited July 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
Coverage starts on cspan3 at 12:15 ET.

You can watch it here: http://cspan.org/Special/Supreme-Court-Kagan-Senate-Confirmation-Hearing.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
Elena Kagan (pronounced /ˈkeɪɡən/; born April 28, 1960)[1] is the Solicitor General of the United States and a pending nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kagan was born and raised in New York City. After attending Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard Law School, she completed federal Court of Appeals and Supreme Court clerkships. She began her career as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, leaving to serve as an Associate White House Counsel and later policy adviser under President Bill Clinton. After a nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which expired without action, she became a professor at Harvard Law School and was later named its Dean.

She was appointed Solicitor General by President Barack Obama on January 26, 2009. On May 10, 2010, Obama nominated Kagan to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy from the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens at the end of the Supreme Court's 2009–2010 term.[3][4]

MKR on
«13456

Posts

  • Options
    lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Unless she goes out of her way to voice her opinion, this will probably be a bit boring by contemporary nomination hearings. From what I've read of her, she seems to have very little meat for the partisans to try and gain headway with, and I doubt the progressives will get too feisty, maybe a jab or two.

    I find the predictions here convincing. Spoilered for full text.
    Garrett Epps wrote:

    Why Kagan Shouldn't Be Cautious

    Jun 27 2010, 10:00 PM ET

    It's a lawyer's nightmare: the day of trial dawns, and you have, well, nothing. The witnesses are diffident; the documents are innocuous; worst of all, you don't have a "theory of the case," an overarching story that would make jurors understand why the defendant ended up with the bag of meth, or why the plaintiff shouldn't have been in the crosswalk when the beer truck rolled through. The gavel is about to go down, and you are trapped in the old no-pants-in-church dream.

    I never thought I would feel sorry for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but I feel his pain. In the seven weeks since President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, the conservative movement has not developed a meaningful critique of her nomination--not even one as weak as the "wise-Latina-empathetic-racist" case they argued against Sonia Sotomayor a year ago.

    Kagan is an elusive target. That's partly because of what she has: superb intellect and near-flawless legal credentials. Earlier this month, I signed a group letter from legal academics favoring her confirmation because she is "exceptionally well qualified to take her place on the Court as an Associate Justice." The letter was carefully composed, however, not to praise Kagan for what she does not have: positions on substantive issues or commitment to progressive causes.

    Kagan has many admirers but few diehard supporters. This makes life more, not less, difficult for Sessions and his fellow Republicans. It's hard to attack Kagan's resume, because it's stellar; it's harder to portray her as "outside the mainstream," because she's so carefully centrist. So far her record discloses nary a "wise Latina" moment. Hardest of all is to tar her by association, since her patrons are solid establishment figures. (That hasn't stopped Sessions from suggesting that there's something shady about American icons like Abner Mikva and Thurgood Marshall.) Their approbation--and the fact that Republicans themselves refused to allow hearings on her nomination to the Court in 1999--draw the sting of the "no judicial experience" trope. Blocked from the bench, she didn't go to Disney World. She became Dean of Harvard Law School.

    This has led to what might be generously called flailing. Republicans have attacked Kagan's opposition to "don't ask don't tell;" that critique might be more cogent if the Congress and the military weren't jettisoning the policy. Former Judge Robert Bork complains that she once said nice things about an Israeli Supreme Court Justice. Pat Buchanan helpfully points out that she is Jewish. Other conservatives suggest that she is part of "the concerted and ominous campaign under way to bring Shariah to America."

    So far, this adds up to less than zero--like the defense lawyer who argues that (1) the defendant was never at the crime scene; (2) the money was already gone when he got there; and (3) the money was still there when he left.

    What we might call the emerging "least-lame" strategy is to paint Kagan as subservient to her partisan patrons. That seems likely to be the major line of attack when the hearings begin Monday. It probably offers Sessions & Co. the greatest chance of salvaging some political advantage while avoiding looking silly. But it's not a winning strategy, because Kagan worked for Clinton, not Obama. She can't credibly be painted as a crony. There is no equivalent of Harriet Miers's gushy notes to Bush. (I may lack imagination, but I am trying to imagine Elena Kagan saying her boss was "the greatest.")

    At this point, it's all but obligatory to bemoan the stultifying prospect of a hollow confirmation hearing. And, to be sure, the odds favor one. Above all, lawyers are trained never to ask questions they don't know the answer to, and never to give answers they haven't rehearsed. These hearings are likely to run true to form.

    Sessions and his troops can cut their losses by portraying Kagan as an agent of the dictator-Obama-socialist-health-care-bank-bailout-gun-seizure-international-law-no-more-french-fries agenda. They won't lay a glove on Kagan, but they will feed red meat to the base and afford cover for their caucus to vote against Kagan on the floor.

    Kagan, for her part, is certainly being told to distance herself from her 1995 article arguing that Court nominees should express more direct views on the meaning of the Constitution, the proper work of a judge, and the role of the Supreme Court. Float like a butterfly, she is being told, but on no account sting like a bee. If she follows that advice, she will bore the nation, but handily win nomination.

    Lawyers know, however, that a client always has the right to testify, regardless of counsel's advice. And once on the stand, the client may say whatever she chooses. Perhaps the most likable things about this nominee are the self-confidence (perhaps even the cheek) that has won the trust and admiration of figures like Mikva, Bill Clinton, and Obama, and the personal sill that has made her effective with colleagues across the political spectrum.

    Forget "empathy." How about "audacity?" Kagan might dare to discuss the topics faced by this court and by the country. Not specific cases, but themes: What is the role of the states in the federal union? How much deference do the courts owe to Congress? Is there something improper in the courts' consideration of international law? How powerful should the executive be in times of armed conflict?

    We live in a moment when the attention of ordinary citizens is riveted on the Constitution. Yet what many of them call "the Constitution" bears little resemblance to the one that lawyers and scholars are familiar with. It's a worrisome dissonance.

    When Kagan raises her right hand, she will be addressing the largest audience she will ever have. They don't know anything about her; they don't know much more about the Court, and they seem not to know much about the Constitution. She can try to explain something about all three.

    It would be a risky move indeed; but if she succeeded, she would win more than the guarded respect she now commands.

    lazegamer on
    I would download a car.
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    When Kagan raises her right hand, she will be addressing the largest audience she will ever have. They don't know anything about her; they don't know much more about the Court, and they seem not to know much about the Constitution. She can try to explain something about all three.

    It would be a risky move indeed; but if she succeeded, she would win more than the guarded respect she now commands    .

    Why bother?

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    When Kagan raises her right hand, she will be addressing the largest audience she will ever have. They don't know anything about her; they don't know much more about the Court, and they seem not to know much about the Constitution. She can try to explain something about all three.

    It would be a risky move indeed; but if she succeeded, she would win more than the guarded respect she now commands    .

    Why bother?
    Why should she care about their respect. What are they going to do when she is on the Supreme Court? Fire her? :P She will outlast nearly all of them while they ineffectively bitch about any of her majority opinions that she writes.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    She needs a miracle to seem even somehow acceptable replacement for Stevens, unfortunately.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Wasn't she the lady who everybody was like "OH MY GAWDDDD SHE PLAYS SOFTBALL THEREFORE LESBIAN!?!?"

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    She needs a miracle to seem even somehow acceptable replacement for Stevens, unfortunately.
    I feel this way too.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Jeff Sessions, while sometimes not entirely retarded, is really pushing me to look at him like he's constantly retarded. If I hear him say "activist judges" one more time I'm gonna mute it until he's gone off. I can't wait for him to bring up the activist supreme court judges who today took away states rights. Wait. He's not gonna do that is he?

    Ooop, and there is "elite intellectuals." Good job, Jeff. Go ahead and admit to being a fucking moron.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • Options
    MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    iTunesIsEvil wrote: »
    Jeff Sessions, while sometimes not entirely retarded, is really pushing me to look at him like he's constantly retarded. If I hear him say "activist judges" one more time I'm gonna mute it until he's gone off. I can't wait for him to bring up the activist supreme court judges who today took away states rights. Wait. He's not gonna do that is he?

    Ooop, and there is "elite intellectuals." Good job, Jeff. Go ahead and admit to being a fucking moron.

    Dude did you see Kagan's face during that?

    I have never seen a more disgusted face.

    Edit: Wait I think that might just be her normal face.

    Melkster on
  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Melkster wrote: »
    iTunesIsEvil wrote: »
    Jeff Sessions, while sometimes not entirely retarded, is really pushing me to look at him like he's constantly retarded. If I hear him say "activist judges" one more time I'm gonna mute it until he's gone off. I can't wait for him to bring up the activist supreme court judges who today took away states rights. Wait. He's not gonna do that is he?

    Ooop, and there is "elite intellectuals." Good job, Jeff. Go ahead and admit to being a fucking moron.

    Dude did you see Kagan's face during that?

    I have never seen a more disgusted face.
    I know! I'd have been scared if I were him. She looked like she was about to pull a "listen here, asshole." :lol:

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    surrealitycheck wrote: »
    Wasn't she the lady who everybody was like "OH MY GAWDDDD SHE PLAYS SOFTBALL THEREFORE LESBIAN!?!?"

    Plays softball + unmarried + short hair = totally a lesbian

    KalTorak on
    Twitter
  • Options
    Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    surrealitycheck wrote: »
    Wasn't she the lady who everybody was like "OH MY GAWDDDD SHE PLAYS SOFTBALL THEREFORE LESBIAN!?!?"

    Plays softball + unmarried + short hair = totally a lesbian

    Also she doesn't cross her legs so she's clearly a tranny.

    Saint Madness on
  • Options
    MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Saint Madness wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    surrealitycheck wrote: »
    Wasn't she the lady who everybody was like "OH MY GAWDDDD SHE PLAYS SOFTBALL THEREFORE LESBIAN!?!?"

    Plays softball + unmarried + short hair = totally a lesbian

    Also she doesn't cross her legs so she's clearly a tranny.

    Gosh, she's just butch 'kay?

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Saint Madness wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    surrealitycheck wrote: »
    Wasn't she the lady who everybody was like "OH MY GAWDDDD SHE PLAYS SOFTBALL THEREFORE LESBIAN!?!?"

    Plays softball + unmarried + short hair = totally a lesbian

    Also she doesn't cross her legs so she's clearly a tranny.

    I'm going to need to see your Certificate of Not Being a Tranny before I allow this to continue.

    KalTorak on
    Twitter
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Hearings will be boring, confirmation will eventually happen, as this has a high enough personality quotient to actually get coverage. As opposed to a) lower profile positions or b) legislation which is scary because the media would have to learn about it to make any sense.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    Hearings will be boring, confirmation will eventually happen, as this has a high enough personality quotient to actually get coverage. As opposed to a) lower profile positions or b) legislation which is scary because the media would have to learn about it to make any sense.
    You think she will be confirmed then? You sound pretty confident. :P

    I can see it going two ways for a few different reasons. I can see her not being confirmed because she's actually stood up for things she believes in (thinking specifically of Harvard v Military Recruits), because she's female and conservatives will worry about a balance of power being lost or modified on the court. Then I can see her being confirmed in a calculated political move for November where R's can throw up pictures of her in ads and bemoan LIEBRULACTIVISTJUDGE to motivate their base to get to the polls.

    Sidenote:
    Also, I'm really pissy about the court's decision this morning, and I'm frustrated that the people that constantly moan about States' Rights are going to shut their traps and won't have a thing to say because States' Rights isn't what they really care about, but no one's going to talk about that. Plus, this isn't the place to discuss it.

    [ed] Did Grassley just address her as "General Kagen?" That's not right, is it? I know she's the Solicitor General, but that still doesn't sound quite right.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Eventually in this case is probably whenever West Virginia gets around to replacing Byrd.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    Eventually in this case is probably whenever West Virginia gets around to replacing Byrd.
    The headless voices on the radio this morning made it sound like the WV governor will probably do that "pretty quickly." I dunno if that's Senate-Quick or Indycar-Quick or somewhere in between. :wink:

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    He's got to find someone Democratic enough to replace Byrd but not wanting to stick around in 2012 (he wants the seat). I imagine that takes some time.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    iTunesIsEvil wrote: »
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    Eventually in this case is probably whenever West Virginia gets around to replacing Byrd.
    The headless voices on the radio this morning made it sound like the WV governor will probably do that "pretty quickly." I dunno if that's Senate-Quick or Indycar-Quick or somewhere in between. :wink:

    I've heard some rumblings that he might try some realpolitik to prolong claiming the seat is vacant. If he can somehow wait until after July 3rd to officially claim the seat vacant, his appointment will last until 2012. Otherwise, there will be a special election in November.

    lazegamer on
    I would download a car.
  • Options
    lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    On topic, I hate all the blowhards who use this as an opportunity to praise or criticize past decisions by the court, including the recent decisions. The opening statements portion of these proceedings are all about political grandstanding and completely worthless.

    lazegamer on
    I would download a car.
  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    On topic, I hate all the blowhards who use this as an opportunity to praise or criticize past decisions by the court, including the recent decisions. The opening statements portion of these proceedings are all about political grandstanding and completely worthless.
    Indeedily. Some people clearly need footage for their ads this fall.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    On topic, I hate all the blowhards who use this as an opportunity to praise or criticize past decisions by the court, including the recent decisions. The opening statements portion of these proceedings are all about political grandstanding and completely worthless.

    From what I've seen of these hearings, the entire thing could be described as political grandstanding and completely worthless ;)

    I forsee her being confirmed though. There's really not enough hard reason to object.

    kildy on
  • Options
    JustinSane07JustinSane07 Really, stupid? Brockton__BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    I don't like her as a choice for the Supreme Court. I know she has law school education and is a professor, but from what I've read she has 0 experience actually sitting behind the bench. Something about that is just...no thanks.

    JustinSane07 on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    On topic, I hate all the blowhards who use this as an opportunity to praise or criticize past decisions by the court, including the recent decisions. The opening statements portion of these proceedings are all about political grandstanding and completely worthless.

    You expect things that aren't completely worthless political grandstanding? It's the United States Senate.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    JustinSane07 wrote: »
    I don't like her as a choice for the Supreme Court. I know she has law school education and is a professor, but from what I've read she has 0 experience actually sitting behind the bench. Something about that is just...no thanks.

    Neither did Earl Warren, among others.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    JustinSane07 wrote: »
    I don't like her as a choice for the Supreme Court. I know she has law school education and is a professor, but from what I've read she has 0 experience actually sitting behind the bench. Something about that is just...no thanks.

    Neither did Earl Warren, among others.
    pfft, yeah, and look how that turned out. I... wait. What? :P

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    JustinSane07 wrote: »
    I don't like her as a choice for the Supreme Court. I know she has law school education and is a professor, but from what I've read she has 0 experience actually sitting behind the bench. Something about that is just...no thanks.

    Roughly a third of the supreme court justices ever did not have any prior judicial experience. This came up during the Miers mess. Essentially, it's a modern myth that it's ever even slightly been a big deal.

    kildy on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    JustinSane07 wrote: »
    I don't like her as a choice for the Supreme Court. I know she has law school education and is a professor, but from what I've read she has 0 experience actually sitting behind the bench. Something about that is just...no thanks.
    Having been a judge has never been a requirement for seating justices.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    JustinSane07JustinSane07 Really, stupid? Brockton__BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    Not a requirement, but I'd feel more comfortable with her if she had some judiciary experience.

    JustinSane07 on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    JustinSane07 wrote: »
    Not a requirement, but I'd feel more comfortable with her if she had some judiciary experience.
    Why?

    Qingu on
  • Options
    HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Yeah, judiciary experience is actually not that necessary. I honestly would like to see a justice NOT from Harvard or Yale more than a non-judge, though.

    Hakkekage on
    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Because having a thorough understanding of the laws she would be judging on isn't enough for some people. They need to know whether or not she'll vote the way they want her to, and they can't know that without enough documented judgements.

    MKR on
  • Options
    wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Judiciary experience has hardly made the conservative wing of the court better.

    wwtMask on
    Deebaser, commenting on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote:
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    Yeah, judiciary experience is actually not that necessary. I honestly would like to see a justice NOT from Harvard or Yale more than a non-judge, though.

    This a million times.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    So how many Senators will have to be woken up after this Kerry speech?

    Khavall on
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Khavall wrote: »
    So how many Senators will have to be woken up after this Kerry speech?

    None, they get cranky if you wake them up from nap time.

    kildy on
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    Because having a thorough understanding of the laws she would be judging on isn't enough for some people. They need to know whether or not she'll vote the way they want her to, and they can't know that without enough documented judgements.

    The Supreme court has become all about interpreting said laws, not understanding them. Fuck yeah, you need to have at least some idea at how she'd vote on the issues you deem important and on a scale from Stevens to Scalia she seems from what I've read about middle. Her appointment itself pretty much means the "left" gives up on some ongoing SCOTUS fights.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    Because having a thorough understanding of the laws she would be judging on isn't enough for some people. They need to know whether or not she'll vote the way they want her to, and they can't know that without enough documented judgements.

    The Supreme court has become all about interpreting said laws, not understanding them. Fuck yeah, you need to have at least some idea at how she'd vote on the issues you deem important and on a scale from Stevens to Scalia she seems from what I've read about middle. Her appointment itself pretty much means the "left" gives up on some ongoing SCOTUS fights.

    I would say more that Obama is more respectful of the role of the judiciary than he is interested in filling the seat with partisan types. I hope that our future presidents from the other side of the aisle are as respectful, but I've been accused of being an optimist.

    I don't give Presidents as much credit for the legislation passed while they were in the executive as I do the quality of their appointments to the Supreme Court. It is for his fair minded leadership, as demonstrated by his appointments, that I voted for him.

    lazegamer on
    I would download a car.
  • Options
    CommunistCowCommunistCow Abstract Metal ThingyRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Can we play a drinking game where we take a shot every time she says something along the lines of "I do not engage or comment in hypothetical situations"

    Lazegamer: If obama was respectful of the role of the judiciary he would punch scalia in the nuts and appoint someone about as left as Stevens. Stevens while pretty far left for SCOTUS was still not a raving tree hugging liberal by any means.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    enlightenedbum wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    Yeah, judiciary experience is actually not that necessary. I honestly would like to see a justice NOT from Harvard or Yale more than a non-judge, though.

    This a million times.

    Clarence Fucking Thomas had what, a year and a half on the bench before his nomination?

    Deebaser on
Sign In or Register to comment.
Penny Arcade Forums› Debate and/or Discourse