The nomination of Kagan - Some thought and my own perspective

[rpannier]

Before everyone goes into a tizzy (or a love fest) over this appointment, I think we should keep a little perspective on the situation

1. The choice of a Supreme Court nominee is a crap-shoot. All one has to do is look at some of the nominations made by past presidents to realize that. Examples:
Bush I - Souter
Ford - Stevens
Kennedy - White
Eisenhower - Warren
Roosevelt - Frankfurter... etc

2. What people believe when they aren't on the US Supreme Court is not necessarily what they believe once they're on.
Example: Justice Black
As a Senator he filibustered an anti-lynching bill. On the Court he voted with the majority in Shelley v Kramer, Brown v Topeka Board of Education and Alexander v Holmes County Board of Education.
Yes, his Civil Rights voting on the Court had its downsides, but his position on issues changed quite a bit

3. Stevens was the guy who would try and cajole Kennedy into voting with him. Stevens used a congenial approach in working on Kennedy. Stevens is gone and Kagan has been credited with making conservatives feel welcome at Harvard.
Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts will never change -- Kennedy is the target.
Scalia is now the Senior justice in terms of time on the bench, which means Scalia gets to pick who writes the decision in the unlikely event he and Roberts have differing views and he's the majority.
If she can persuade Kennedy and it's a 5-4 with Roberts and Scalia in the minority then Kennedy picks who writes it and the decision will be more liberal.

4. The majority of judges who modified their positions once on the Court tended to move toward the left.
Some like Thomas started so fat to the right they couldn't move any further in that direction
Even Scalia voted with the majority that flag burning is free speech something the vast majority of conservatives still have hissy's over today

5. His first nomination was Sotomayor.
She's been pretty damned good.
At this point, until I hear stuff from her that I don't like, I'm going with the President on this one.

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. No crap-shooting here:

>>>>>Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts will never change>>>>>>>

Souter was the last straw for "movement" conservatives. In the last three GOP admins all nominees had to have hard-right credentials to be seriously considered.

Academic distinction and professional gravitas are no longer the gold standard.

It's a political/ideological struggle now. Seems to me dangerously shortsighted to pretend it's not.

[rpannier]

2. It's always going to be one whether you want it to be or not

You can't predict what people will do once they've achieved a real position of power

Some rise to the occasion, some seize the opportunity to feather their own nest, some shirk and are worthless, and the list of possibilities goes on

It's wishful thinking to assume you can predict

[saltpoint]

3. With Reagan, Poppy, and Junior, I agree -- "academic distinction and

professional gravitas are no longer the gold standard," but that comes with the asterisk of Roberts, who is appalling ideologically but no dumbass.

Sotomayor and Kagan have both qualities, so with Obama's picks so far it looks as if those criteria are back in vogue.