Obama to name Kagan for high court

[preCRT]

Didn't realize until I'd read it, but the court is about to become NYC-centric, all that's missing is Staten Island:

Finally, Kagan grew up on Manhattan's West Side and is an alumna of Hunter College High School. She would become the fourth member of the Supreme Court - after Antonin Scalia (Queens), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Brooklyn) and Sonia Sotomayor (the Bronx) - who was raised in New York City.

 

[werepossum]

Didn't realize until I'd read it, but the court is about to become NYC-centric, all that's missing is Staten Island:

Weird, like the Catholic thing.

I didn't get anything weird searching for "Chhattanooga, TN", Lemon. Yahoo automatically corrected it, and even using the "Show only" button brought only some sites with the same typo. What engine are you using? And well I know Obama isn't going to appoint a Scalia, but I had assumed he would at least appoint a judge - although as I said, I can see with an extremist activist that a record is the last thing he would want. Appointing someone to a lifetime post, especially one with such power, shouldn't be something one does based solely on ideology. Bush too went that route with that idiot Myers woman, and conservatives rightly lambasted him for it. But considering the opposing viewpoints held by the right and the left as to the proper role of the judiciary (upholding the law versus creating a more fair society through activism) I don't expect anything like that from the progressives. I was a bit surprised to hear that the progressives are going to actually showcase that viewpoint though; usually there is at least great lip service paid to justice being blind.

 

[Pulsar]

You really know nothing abiout this except the BS "Obama did it so it must be bad..." from faux.

So you want someone that "has spent time dealing with the real world - trying cases, defending cases". How about someone whos job it is to conduct all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court, and to supervise the handling of litigation in the federal appellate courts.. That would be called the Solicitor General, which she does now.

And again Marshall and Rehnquist were both never judges before the SC. Maybe you should go back and learn a little about US history you would see the SC was never supposed to be a stepping stone from lowwer courts to rise to.

I am glad that you seem to know more about my own thoughts than I do, or what news sources I may pay attention to.

Fortunately for me, I know a little more about me than you do.

'Cons'
1. First - Her mother was a teacher. Her father was an attorney. Her two brothers are teachers. Not surprisingly, she turned out to be a teacher, professor, and attorney. She has spent her whole life essentially living off other people's productivity.

2. Her support of providing government money to faith based organizations.

3. Her support of limiting free speech in several different cases.

4. Her arguments against abortions.

5. Her numerous connections with friends of Obama.

'Pros'
1. Her stance on gays and lesbians

2. Her stance on battlefield and terrorist courts. (also partially a con in that she is not as pro-civil-liberties as the outgoing justice).

3. Her standpoint on gun rights.

4. Her practice of following the letter of the law, even when she may disagree with it.

You seem to have read a lot of things in to my post that I never said. I never suggested stepping stones or anything else - I simply presented my idea of what I would want to see in that position. Perhaps you meant to respond to someone else's argument, or erroneously assumed I was arguing someone else's position.

Perhaps YOU should stop making assumptions about other posters.

 

[Lemon law]

At the end of the day, only the sitting POTUS can nominate someone for a vacancy on SCOTUS, depending on our narrow non senator status viewpoints the Obama pick was good or bad, but now that question is punted to only 100 people in the USA who hold the title of US Senator.

And if I can be so bold, I will make some predictions.

1. Kagan is likely to receive a yes Vote from rating agencies like the American bar association.

2. Kagan is then almost certain to receive a majority endorsement from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Assuming that happens her nomination would thus not be doomed because a negative vote in that committee would kill her nomination at that stage.

3. Then after a affirmative Judiciary committee vote, the Kagan final hurdle would be to receive 50 votes in the Senate. And since few if any democrats are likely to vote against her, the GOP would need all 41 of their senators to filibuster, which is something I doubt. Even if some Senators express some feel good reservations about Kagan, its unlikely to translate into all that many nay votes..

 

[woolfe9999]

This.

The only qualification to be Dean of the Harvard Law School is a law degree and an appeal to the lefties at Harvard.

Are you sure that those are the only qualifications? Kagan graduated Princeton Summa Cum Laude, got a Masters from Oxford, and graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School. I thought academic excellence was considered in hiring for Harvard Law School. Maybe it's just a coincidence in this case...

- wolf

 

[sciwizam]

Flashback: Obama raised concerns about Miers' lack of judicial experience

Harriet Miers has had a distinguished career as a lawyer, but since her experience does not include serving as a judge, we have yet to know her views on many of the critical constitutional issues facing our country today. In the coming weeks, we'll need as much information and forthright testimony [emphasis added]. from Ms. Miers as possible so that the U.S. Senate can make an educated and informed decision on her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Combined with Kagan's own opinion that the confirmation hearing have become "a vapid and hollow charade', it'll be interesting to see how actually she responds. Though, I won't be holding my breath.