"9750 Words on Elena Kagan" without partisan hyperbole slant one way or the other.....

[FrenchieCat]

That means if you want to read something substansive to either bolster your negative/positive/neutral opinion, and need material to either bash or support or stay on the fence about General Elena Kagan, those sides pretty much can. As well, she appears to be, like now Justice Sotomayor was, someone in where most anyone can rationally express doubt and anxiety except for it isn't really based on any facts truly material unless twisted.

First, a few words about Judge Woods, who is the other front runner.....
and one many Liberals would prefer be nominated, because to many,
she's been a judge and is more of a known quantity, and sometimes folks need that
to feel comfortable.

Judge Wood is not remotely a fire-brand liberal. Few lawyers known for their service in the antitrust division are. But because she has at least a record of decisions on hot-button issues like abortion, there would be a genuine fight over her confirmation. Committed conservatives will oppose any realistic candidate (just as committed liberals were going to oppose anyone whom President Bush nominated), but a nominee with a paper trail will put in play the moderate Senators whom the Administration absolutely needs for the rest of its domestic agenda.
snip
To the extent there is a tie-breaker with respect to Judge Wood in particular, it is her age. In actuarial and historical terms, she’s far from old. But in an era in which Presidents seemingly put teenagers on courts of appeals to position them for the Court, fifty is the new sixty.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/on-october-4-2010-elena-kagan-will-ask-her-first-question-as-a-supreme-court-justice/

An in-depth piece, that if you want to really know more about Ms. Kagan, without the smears and without the rosy PR push, this is probably one of the best piece to read, because it is long, varied, and examines that about her which is not known, as well as what is.

If you simply don't feel like doing much more than adopting the opinions of others, without actually doing much reading, than this piece is not for you. However, if you are mining for "ammunition", you may find it here. Whatever one's agenda or lack thereof, I would say this should be recommended reading, no matter that it doesn't paint Ms. Kagan in any particular manner, as that is not the agenda of this blog, from all that I can tell, but of course, I may be offbase, cause hey, these days, who isn't just a little bit?

9750 Words on Elena Kagan

Below, we discuss the most significant aspects of Elena Kagan’s experience and writings as they relate to the Supreme Court. We also consider various criticisms that have been raised against Kagan, including with respect to her views on the military (supposedly too liberal) and executive power (supposedly too conservative), as well as the prospect that she will be required to recuse from a substantial number of cases early in her tenure on the Court. We separately discuss the specific votes she likely will receive for and against her confirmation. Each separate section below is identified by its author(s).

READ WAY MORE....... http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/9750-words-on-elena-kagan/#more-19827

[countingbluecars]

1. Very informative.

Thank you.

[Jennicut]

2. This part is interesting to me:

The point is easily illustrated by a similar exchange with Dawn Johnsen, whom liberals celebrate as an ideal nominee, but who withdrew from consideration to head the Office of Legal Counsel after having been blocked. Johnsen notably had been exceptionally critical of the Bush Administration’s policies in the war on terror. In written questions subsequent to her confirmation hearing, Senator Hatch asked Johnsen whether she agreed with Kagan’s answer that Kagan agreed with Holder. She responded: “Yes, I do agree with Dean Kagan’s statement that under traditional military law, enemy combatants may be detained for the duration of the conflict. That is what the Supreme Court said as well in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). . . . As indicated above, I do not believe that release or criminal prosecution are the only possible dispositions for detainees.” No one believes that Johnsen was embracing the Bush Administration’s policies, and no one should think that was true of Kagan either.http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/9750-words-on-elena-kagan/#more-19827

Is there anything else on Kagan's views regarding this? If this is it, it is not a really all that clear where she stands.
Thanks, Frenchie. I learned a lot about Kagan from this. Not totally convinced she is the best nominee but there were many positive things I did not know about her before.

[AtomicKitten]

3. but I read on the DU today that she's another Scalia

!!!ELEVENS!!!

[FrenchieCat]

4. I think she may be closer to Sotamayor........

Dean of Harvard's Law School is not going to be conservative.....
But certainly, she would not be the pin up gal for the Socialist Worker's party.

Although she wasn't my personal pick, it appears that the fight on this one will be more Culturally based than on the run of the mill normal SCOTUS based arguments.

That Pres. Obama would possibly decide to go to bat for someone who not through any ruling (as she has never been a judge), and not through a paper trail (because she doesn't really have one that is solid one way or the other), but rather based on cultural aspects, may spark more controversy than some might realize. If Prez was to choose her, the fact that he would be selecting a Jewish Pick to replace the last Protestant on the court; possibly enduring a whisper campaign questioning her sexuality (knowing Republicans and based on my understanding that although she may not be out of the closet, her status is no deep secret according to some who know her), and her fight on military recruiters on campus (not a popular position), seems somewhat fascinating.

I find interesting those issues raised about her by the Right, because they are different cultural issues than the same ones that have been heard argued about in reference to a SCOTUS pick.

[treestar]

19. Oh Good God!!!

:rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. I think this president rejects extreme ideology on both sides. Like him, I

think Kagan would probably be a justice who rules on the law, not political ideology. I know it's impossible not bring some of your own politics to the bench, but if the president has confidence in this pick, I'm willing to let him be the judge (so to speak). I mean, isn't that why we elected him?

[FrenchieCat]

6. I see him as quite the tempered progressive who understands that

change requires a persitent pragmatic approach, in this day and age of "everybody has an opinion, even if they have no facts" political climate.

He also appears willing to take the hits on the micro instant scale,
because the long range wide lens view is more important to him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. Agreed. (nt)

[Cha]

15. Excellent ..

That's some of the best nutshelling I've ever seen.

[WeDidIt]

14. I have absolute confidence he knows what he's doing

Elena Kagan is a KNOWN QUANTITY,...

to Barack Obama.

They were colleagues together teaching law at the University of Chicago Law School. Of all the potential candidates, Elena Kagan is more of a know quantity to Barack Obama than all of the others combined.

[mucifer]

17. That could be said of arne duncan, too. yuck!

[WeDidIt]

22. Duncan and Obama were NEVER colleagues anywhere

For one thing, Duncan never studied law.

Kagan and Obama were both Law professors at the University of Chicago Law School at the same time. Kagan was tenured. Obama was not.

[Bigmack]

7. Then there's the Freeper post titled...

"Obama to tap Kagan for Supreme Court"

Jaysus!

[merkins]

9. The Case Against Elena Kagan

Glenn Greenwald writes:

One of the difficulties in assessing Kagan's judicial philosophy and view of the Constitution is that direct evidence is extremely sparse. That's not only because she's never been a judge, but also because (a) her academic career is surprisingly and disturbingly devoid of writings or speeches on most key legal and Constitutional controversies, and (b) she has spent the last year as Obama's Solicitor General, where (like any lawyer) she was obligated to defend the administration's policies regardless of whether she agreed with them. As Goldstein wrote at SCOTUSblog: "it seems entirely possible that Elena Kagan does not really have a fixed and uniform view of how to judge and to interpret the Constitution."

...

Obama is now replacing a Justice who had become the leader of the "liberal" wing of the Supreme Court (accepting the dubious premise that there is even is such a thing as a "liberal" wing). As Scott Lemieux notes, this is the seat which, since 1916, has been held by only three Justices, three of the great progressives Justices in history -- Louis Brandeis, William O. Douglas, and Stevens. Given that, why wouldn't progressives insist on a nominee whom they know will approach legal questions at least as progressively as Stevens did -- or, dare to dream, have a nominee be more progressive than the Justice being replaced, something that hasn't happened literally in decades? Acquiescing to a Kagan nomination would mean accepting someone who could easily move well to the Right of Stevens, thus taking the whole Supreme Court with her.

...

Given the severity of the crisis posed by Bush/Cheney lawlessness, what justifies someone with Kagan's platform -- Dean of Harvard Law School and former Clinton White House lawyer -- remaining utterly silent in the face of that assault? Even if one believes that a Law School Dean should generally be attentive to institution-building, didn't the severity of the legal crisis spawned by Bush and Cheney merit serious opposition from those in a position to voice it? Before any progressive considers supporting her nomination to the Court, shouldn't they be able to point to some evidence, somewhere, that she opposed the core claims used to prop up the Bush/Cheney assault on the Constitution and the rule of law?

...

What makes the prospect of a Kagan nomination so disappointing is that there are so many superior alternatives -- from the moderately liberal and brilliant 7th Circuit Judge Diane Wood and former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears to the genuinely liberal Harold Koh (former Yale Law School Dean and current State Department counselor) and Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan. If progressives aren't willing to fight Obama for the Supreme Court, what are they willing to fight him for?

______________________

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan">Much More in the Article Here

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/08/kagan/index.html">The Latest on Elena Kagan from a Variety of Progressive Voices Here ..don't miss it!

[WeDidIt]

16. Lord High Douchenozzle Greenwald wants to tear down Barack Obama

more than Fox News and Rush Limbaugh combined.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Unlike many DUers, I trust Pres. Obama...

I thought he made a very good choice the last time around (and I remember many DUers were 'concerned' then too.

[treestar]

20. True. There are some DUers who will never be happy anyway.

:hi:

[BootinUp]

11. thanks for the link Frenchie. nt

[Moosepoop]

12. THIS is the kind of information I've been looking for. K&R

Many thanks, FrenchieCat!

[Forkboy]

13. K&R for at least giving some info.

Not crazy about her but I'd vote yes in light of anything better. We could do better, we could do worse, which seems to sum up Obama for me quite well.

[WeDidIt]

18. Kick

:kick:

[jenmito]

21. K&R. Thanks for the informative post! n/t

[cornermouse]

23. Underlying facts about your source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOTUSblog
The blog is funded by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a law firm that focuses on the Supreme Court. The blog's first post occurred October 01, 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akin_Gump_Strauss_Hauer_%26_Feld
Notable people (on staff)
Attorneys
* Vernon Jordan Jr.
* Robert S. Strauss
* Tommy Thompson
* Tom Goldstein
* Patricia Millett
* Paul Mirengoff

Advisors
* Lauch Faircloth
* Vic Fazio
* Bill Paxon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Not-so-funny thing. I see conservatives. Strauss, Thompson, Mirengoff, Faircloth.

[FrenchieCat]

25. I think they are fine. Seem that they stick to the facts, and don't render much opinion.....

Here's an entry from July 2007, in where the "Democratic" short list is discussed,
and what I found about this blog is how indeed prescient the writers happen to be.
Note that Sotomayor was on the shortlist then as the top pick, and Kagen for the 2nd
vacancy. In addition, the writer kept insisting that Souter would be first to go.
This was before Barack Obama even decided to run for President.

Yes, I find the discussion in that 2007 blog quite interesting indeed.
Did I find bias? No much that I could discern at all.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/07/follow-up-to-the-democratic-not-so-short-list/


and here's an analysis on Diane Wood
http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/05/nominee-analysis-judge-diane-wood/



As for Scotusblog.....
Our Policies

Erin Miller | Monday, January 25th, 2010 7:24 pm

Our Guiding Philosophy:

SCOTUSblog aims to comprehensively cover the work of the Supreme Court.

SCOTUSblog is an impartial, journalistic entity. We exist to provide readers with objective information. We always clearly identify the limited commentary we publish.

We also attempt to avoid any appearance of bias or favoritism, including towards the clients of the attorneys who work on the blog. If at all possible, we avoid publishing pieces favoring one side of a case; we will instead have pieces with contrasting views.

With respect to the cases of the firms with relationships with the blog (Akin Gump and Howe & Russell), our roles are uniformly disclosed in any discussion of that case (even when we do not appear on the briefs). If one of the firms works on a case, an attorney from that firm will not write about the case on the blog, except in the rare instance that we cannot find another author. The previous practice of noting new Supreme Court filings by the lawyers who work on the blog and the clinics with which they are affiliated has been eliminated.

The blog never seeks to influence the Court’s decision making. We are aware that the blog is widely read within the Court, however. So we have adopted policies intended to avoid any appearance of impropriety. The decision whether to highlight any petition in a separate post is made exclusively by Lyle Denniston in his own discretion. As noted, we no longer highlight our own briefs, including our own cert. petitions. The Petitions to Watch feature now never comments on our own cases – separately listing them – to avoid any possibility that we would favor them.

Our Staff and Editorial Structure:

The blog is the product of the collective effort of a number of people. Some have principally editorial roles; others are principally involved with content.

Tom Goldstein is the Publisher, with responsibility for blog policies. He spends a lot of time thinking about ways to improve the blog. Tom is a partner at Akin Gump, where he is the Presiding Co-Chair of the firmwide Litigation Management Committee and also Co-Chair of the Supreme Court practice. Tom also is a lecturer at Harvard and Stanford Law Schools.

Amy Howe is the Editor, with responsibility for editing almost all of our posts. Amy is a partner at Howe & Russell (with Kevin Russell, see below) and also a lecturer at Harvard and Stanford.

Erin Miller is the Manager with overall responsibility for implementing the changes to the blog that Tom is constantly suggesting and developing blog content. Erin is employed by the blog.

Anna Christensen and Adam Schlossman are the Assistant Managers and work with Erin, as well as on the daily round-ups and a variety of special projects. Anna is the manager of Howe & Russell. Adam is Tom’s assistant at Akin Gump.

Lyle Denniston is the Reporter. He is the Dean of the Supreme Court press corps. Lyle is employed by the blog.

Adam Chandler (a law school 2L), Jay Willis (bound for law school next year), and Matt Sundquist (an intern for the blog) write the daily round-ups, along with Anna and Adam Schlossman.

David Stras writes the Academic Round-up. David is a Professor at the University of Minnesota School of Law.

Kevin Russell writes about a variety of issues, including civil rights cases. Kevin is the other attorney (with Amy) at Howe & Russell.

Lisa McElroy writes our regular “plain English” posts that summarize and explain our coverage of the Court in language accessible to non-lawyers. She is a Professor at the Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel University.

We occasionally have guest contributors as well.
http://www.scotusblog.com/our-policies/

[cornermouse]

26. Thanks for the joke of the day.

:spray: :rofl:

But just n case you don't get it, the bottom line is that she's a conservative.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cornermouse]

29. Obama's creating a new crop/generation of cynics of government, Frenchie.

And please notice I manage to make my point without vulgarity.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Sometimes one doesn't have to use vulgarity,

to still come off as vulgar.

Spreading undue negativity just because one can in itself is vulgar.

[cornermouse]

31. Hogwash.

[boppers]

24. Nice collection.

Good to see more than punditry.

[Number23]

28. Rec'd. Thanks for this. This place can be so tiresome. Thanks for some actual info

instead of outrage.

[totodeinhere]

32. Lieberman was on Fox News singing Kagan's praises. You can't tell me that there isn't a more...

liberal choice out there.

[FrenchieCat]

34. I was inviting you to review some facts,

not your theory about Lieberman, and why whatever he does, we should simply do the opposite 100% of the time. I'd hope that we were not reactionaries like the Freepers are.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Getting closer........

[Hekate]

35. Very informative! KnR. nt

:kick:

[babylonsister]

36. Kick for those who need to know in a nutshell but are too

preoccupied to research. :D