Bio
Hi - I'm Maria, nice to meet you! I've been a Contributing Editor here at BlogHer.com since 2006. I joined BlogHer as a full-time staff member after...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Recent Comments

Obama Nominates Elena Kagan as Supreme Court Justice

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 4
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Calling her "one of the nation's foremost legal minds," President Obama has nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan as his choice to replace retiring Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens. If confirmed, Kagan will be the youngest justice and the fourth woman to serve on the nation's highest court.

Kagan is the the first woman to serve as Solicitor General of the United States and was previously the first female dean of Harvard Law School. In some ways Kagan would bring diversity to the court, and in other ways she is much like the other justices. Like all of the other justices, she's an Ivy League graduate, but she would be the first justice since William H. Rehnquist and Lewis Powell, both nominated in 1972, to arrive on the high court with no previous judicial experience. Additionally, as she is Jewish, her addition to the bench would mean that all the justices would be either Catholic or Jewish with no Protestants serving for the first time in the history of the court.

In her role as Solicitor General, Kagan argues cases before the Supreme Court. Like Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked, she would likely have to recuse herself on early cases during her tenure because of her involvement.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan Addresses Georgetown Law Center Conference

Her lack of a judicial record does not mean, however, that she will escape scrutiny and criticism, as it has already begun. Writing in the New York Times, Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny report:

With all signs pointing to a Kagan nomination, critics have been pre-emptively attacking her in the days leading up to the president's announcement. Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, writing on The Daily Beast, compared her to Harriet E. Miers, whose nomination by President George W. Bush collapsed amid an uprising among conservatives who considered her unqualified and not demonstrably committed to their judicial philosophy.

M. Edward Whelan III, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, wrote on National Review's Web site that even Ms. Kagan’s nonjudicial experience was inadequate. "Kagan may well have less experience relevant to the work of being a justice than any entering justice in decades," Mr. Whelan wrote.

On the other side of the ideological spectrum, some liberals are unenthusiastic about her nomination because of her perceived support for strong executive power.

Despite its lack of relevance to the job, Kagan's personal life has also been the source of considerable pre-nomination discussion and speculation. Two male bloggers have written about their disappointment that Kagan is not a mother. Additionally she is unmarried and some bloggers have written that she is rumored to be a lesbian though the White House has denied this.

As the White House hopes to have Kagan confirmed by the August Congressional recess so that she can join the court when it starts its new term in October, there will be much more discussion of Kagan's record and views to come.

What do you think? Is Kagan the right person for the job?

Additional Reading

@Karoli is trying to understand liberal opposition to Kagan and is sharing links about Kagan as she finds them.

Linda R. Monk, J.D. at The Huffington Post: Elena Kagan As the Next Earl Warren

Why progressives aren't cheering for Solicitor General Elena Kagan as President Obama's next nominee for the Supreme Court is an enigma, wrapped in a mystery. She's got just the personality, intelligence, and experience to shape the Court for decades, at a time when the legislative agenda of the president is going to face the most hostile justices since FDR's court-packing days. Indeed, Kagan has the potential to become another Earl Warren in her ability to unite the Court in seminal decisions on divisive social issues.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon: The case against Elena Kagan

James Doty at Salon: The liberal case against Kagan is overstated

Walter Dellinger at Slate: Elena Kagan Is a Progressive on Executive Power

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUS Blog: Where We Go From Here

In the event of a Kagan nomination, here is how the nomination process is likely to play out. I divide it into process and substance.

The Washington Post has a timline of Elena Kagan's career

Michael Roston at True/Slant: Elena Kagan sends us on the way to a motherless Supreme Court

Peter Beinart at

  • 4
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
ShoreBookworm 5 pts

You make so many good points!

Can you imagine a world where a candidate is judged solely on their ability to do the job?!? Where irrelevant distractions like their parenthood or sexuality are never even referenced?

I can sort of imagine it, but it certainly is not the world we have today. More's the pity.

Marie

www.nourishourselves.blogspot.com ( http://www.nourishourselves.blogspot.com )

www.theshorebookworm.blogspot.com ( http://www.theshorebookworm.blogspot.com )

bakingbarrister 5 pts

I think a lot of the criticism of Kagan is misleading and/or offensive. There seems to be a lot of focus on the fact that she is unmarried and has no children. Even some women's groups are raising concern over this issue. In the legal world, it is very hard to get to where she is as a woman without dedicating your life to the pursuit of legal knowledge. She chose a career over children (can she even have children?), and I applaud her for that choice. Some may think that feminism requires women to be mothers and work, but it also allows women to have the choice to work instead of being mothers. This is a growing choice amongst my generation, and at the very least, she represents a growing group of women who either don't want children or can't have children for various reasons.

I've also seen some criticism of the faculty hiring while she was dean of Harvard. Some minority commentators have pointed to the minimal minority hiring during her tenure. Many of these people don't understand the history of law school, or even the current state of law schools in this country. I'd say that diversity became a priority in legal education maybe 15 years ago. And I mean a real priority where schools weren't vying for the token minority but instead were seeking real diversity. There are a lot of underlying issues I won't get into, but statistics show that minority students have a harder time doing well in law school and passing the bar. Add to the fact that diversity of student bodies hasn't made nearly enough progress at top law schools that it needs to (in my class of 240, we had maybe 15 african american students, two latino students, but a lot of LGBT students, all of whom were white).

What does all of this mean? We are still in that lag period--the time between the real growth in diversity initiatives and the time when those first few years of candidates have enough of a solid resume to become professors. So no, she isn't racist and she isn't against diversity. She was a dean at a law school that needs to attract top quality applicants but is facing an applicant pool that still lacks in diversity. Plus, hiring committees have a lot of say.

Then you have some folks in the LGBT wing who commend her stance against military recruiting on campus, but are worried about a statement she made during her previous confirmation hearings. Apparently she said that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. And she's right. There is no constitutional right to marriage at all. States can choose to grant marriages if they so please. However, if they do, they must do so without running afoul of constitutional protections. Whether equal rights protections make it unconstitutional for states to grant marriages to heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples is up for debate in the Supreme Court. Her answer in no way reflects her opinion on the greater issue. Instead it reflects her ability to parse out legal questions and arguments.

And I suppose the biggest concern is her alleged stance on executive power. About 10 years ago, she actually wrote a paper about how dangerous this was, which was a response to some Clinton-era policies about executive power. I think that paper is more telling than her current stance as solicitor general. For all intents and purposes, she represents the Obama administration when she goes to court. As a lawyer, you argue what is in the best interest of your client, which, in her case, is what the administration wants her to try and argue.

So, to recap, she is unmarried, childless, potentially a lesbian, but is also racist, against gay marriage, and in love with executive power. Sounds too good to be true if you're a Republican.

She's qualified, intelligent and diplomatic. She's a good candidate.

S.

Sarcasm, law, and a whole lot of food: The Baking Barrister ( http://bakingbarrister.com )

Maria Niles 5 pts

First, allow me to share the link with everyone to your post Superbright? No Home Ec for You! ( http://nourishourselves.blogspot.com/2010/05/super... )

Second, I am also frustrated by the instantaneous deluge of partisan sniping from all sides and the ridiculous irrelevant nonsensical attacks on her personal life and choices that have no bearing whatsoever on her qualifications. Should we care about examining her qualifications and paying attention to her nomination hearings and deciding if we support her? Yes, absolutely. Still, like this blogger, I'm tired ( http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/05/11/im-tired/ )

I've read dozens of articles and posts about her in the last day and a half and there are a few things that trouble me and many things that still lead me to think that though she wouldn't be my personal first choice, she seems eminently qualified. So, yes to what you say here: "I wish her the best and hope if she is confirmed she will be the best Justice she can be."

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Marie.

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/maria-niles )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer )
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ )

ShoreBookworm 5 pts

I believe her reported fairness and objectivity is a crucial factor in Kagan's nomination.

Her lack of judicial experience is balanced by her years of teaching and her history in the legal academic world, both of which she has received enormous praise for.

I was afraid the whole unmarried/not-a-mother/possibly-a-lesbian thing was going to come up. So offensive. No one publically questioned Souter's marital/parental/sexual status for the simple reason IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Holy cow, in this day and age you would think people would be embarrassed to even bring it up.

As I said in my blog post today, I think it is especially significant that Kagan is reported to be pragmatic and open minded. Partisanship is the lethal logjam in our political system.

I wish her the best and hope if she is confirmed she will be the best Justice she can be.

Marie

www.nourishourselves.blogspot.com ( http://www.nourishourselves.blogspot.com )

www.theshorebookworm.blogspot.com ( http://www.theshorebookworm.blogspot.com )