Kagan: "counterweight to the intellectual heft of Chief Justice John Roberts."

[babylonsister]

What Obama sees in Kagan

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 10, 2010; 6:29 AM


It's Kagan!

Why is President Obama choosing his solicitor general, Elena Kagan, as his second nominee to the U.S Supreme Court? By all accounts, Obama wants someone who can serve as a counterweight to the intellectual heft of Chief Justice John Roberts. Regardless of how strong a liberal Kagan would prove to be, as a former dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan practically defines legal gravitas.

She's also a female, which adds to the court's gender diversity. She's young, at 50, which means she could be on the court for a quarter century. And she's never been a judge, which gives her a quality that Obama is known to have been seeking: someone to bring a different sensibility to a court that's currently dominated by judges.

That particular lack of experience also means she does not have a long record of controversial rulings that could provide fodder for the presidents political opponents.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051000826.html

[saltpoint]

1. There's much to celebrate in Kagan.

I think this is a smart nomination.

[NJmaverick]

29. agreed

[Democat]

2. Roberts does what he is told by his corporate masters!

No brains are needed for what Roberts has been doing on the Supreme Court.

A 5th grader could predict almost 100% of the rulings the Roberts has made based on his political affiliation.

Roberts is not a judge, but a paid for politician.

[hlthe2b]

3. John Roberts and "intellectual heft?"

Give me a break. He's a bot for the Federalist Society and like Limbots, can freely spew the talking points--regardless of any functioning brain activity.

[saltpoint]

4. I disagree. Roberts is ideologically appalling but he is a very smart

guy.

The point on 'intellectual heft' is a convincing one, IMO, as one of several strong arguments that could be made for the Kagan nomination.

[hlthe2b]

7. Intellectual heft implies the ability to build one's constructs

within the law, rather than trying to bend the law to fit ones ideology. I don't think he is stupid, but intellectually lazy. He decides based on his predetermined ideology. That is not intellectual heft.

[WeDidIt]

9. The "heft" is demonstrated in his ability to convince Kennedy. n/t

[hlthe2b]

10. Oh please... how hard is THAT?

[WeDidIt]

14. Actually, pretty damned difficult

which is sad since O'Connor left the court. O'Connor was the member of the court that got Kennedy to move to the left on abortion issues. Had a strong abortion case come before the court recently, it's very likely Kennedy would have moved to the right. The key to getting Kennedy to move to the right is to make sure Scalia doesn't say shit to him, then argue the case. Scalia and Kennedy have constantly bumped heads and Scalia does more to drive Kennedy Left than any other member of the court.

The goal is to have Sotamayor and Kagan argue a more left bent to Kennedy and get him to move left.

The key to all close decisions on this court is Kennedy, and currently Roberts gets Kennedy to move right.

[hlthe2b]

20. O'Connor was conservative in nearly all but women's issues.

While I agree that Kennedy was more willing to vote with the progressives during the Rehnquist years, I think that speaks to the undesirable aspects of Scalia + Thomas + Rehnquist, now buffered by the seemingly more respectable Roberts + Alito.

[saltpoint]

13. Again, we disagree. Roberts is a smart man. His tenure on the Court

is just a few years but he is young and likely to endure over a generation.

It would be my best guess that no construct he advances would be anything other than a bending of law to fit his conservative ideology. I don't even believe he would have taken the assignment had that not been the case.

If he is lazy I can't say, apart from feeling that with Sotomayor and (Kagan), he cannot afford to be AS lazy, as his intellectual range is now more readily challenged. Same goes for Scalia. There's going to be three smart women on the Court in October, barring unforeseen obstruction of Kagan's confirmation process.

[hlthe2b]

17. You seem to ignore the social dynamics...

and the not unlikely role of gender politics. I firmly believe (given his decisions on women's issues) that Kennedy likes to agree with like-minded men. While he might have had pause when that meant Rehnquist and the toadies, Scalia and Thomas, the more seemingly respectable and (seemingly) less extreme Roberts and to some degree, Alito, have simply made it more comfortable for Kennedy. Good ole boy politics.

Whether a strong intellectual personality like Kagan might break through that, who can say. I suspect Obama thinks that she can for whatever reason.

I never said Roberts was not smart-- but ideology driven to the degree that I can't credit him with any degree of intellectual heft. To have the latter, requires one to put aside your ideology now and then. He has proven incapable or unwilling to do so even when the strict letter or the law (and precedents) should have required it.

[saltpoint]

19. The paradox is that Roberts' ideologically appalling position requires

challenge, no matter his personal temperament.

I love the personal dynamics of the Court, actually. It's a slow-motion thrill-seeker's paradise.

If any judicial appointment at any level is as incapable or unwilling to set aside ideology it may be because there was no one or no thing in place to challenge his refusal to do so.

Hence, Obama's pick of two strong women nominees for the High Court.

I don't think the nomination hinged on Kennedy's temperament, but on the strengths Obama sees in Kagan and before her, Sotomayor.

[hlthe2b]

22. I can only hope that is the case...

I certainly do not believe Obama to be unintelligent, though prone to the detrimental influences of some "pragmatists" in his admin. On this, I would hope that Obama tuned out the background chatter and decided sans influence/interference.

[saltpoint]

26. Good point. I'd love to have seen the transcript in the meetings which

resulted in his final choice. I love Judge Wood, and actually several other folks on his presumed short list would have been impressive.

Obama is chipping away at that zone of 5-4 climate voting on the High Court, IMO. If Obama wins a second term, he will have appointed a boatload of Supreme Court Justices.

I think the final mix in that scenario is very agreeable in and of itself, but especially compared with the picks of a MItt Romney or Mike Huckabee or any of the other even-worse Puke presidential aspirants. Argued as a trans-generational consensus building, Obama's strategy may prove to be very effective.

Right now I'm not seeing any Republican coalescence around any obvious 'leader' who might defeat Obama in 2012. It's still early, yes, but Obama's political position is enviable. A second term puts him in one of the most influential presidencies we've ever had, particularly regarding judicial appointments. So far he's favored strong, intelligent, and tough women of relatively young age.

[supernova]

5. Took the post right out of my keyboard

:thumbsup:

[WeDidIt]

8. Underestimate the intellectual prowess of Roberts at your own peril

He gets Kennedy on his side a lot more often than not. The key to altering the road the court is going down is to convince Kennedy to take a more liberal stance.

[hlthe2b]

11. Being able to bully Kennedy is hardly my defintion of intellectual

prowess/heft. It is the "good ole boy" coercive phenomenon and RETHUGS are masters of that.

[WeDidIt]

16. Kennedy will NOT be bullied.

Scalia tried that shit with him early on and it drove Kennedy to the left.

Bullying Kennedy doesn't work.

[hlthe2b]

18. ideological coercion

is simply a velvet glove form of bullying. I think that explains Robert's success.

[WeDidIt]

21. Wrong again

It's called making a convincing argument. Roberts is damned good at making a convincing argument that appeals to Kennedy.

There's no coercion involved. No bullying, just making his case.

Now, with Kagan and Sotamayor, we have an opportunity to convince Kennedy to move to the left.

[hlthe2b]

23. Wrong again...

Just repeating your rude retort. End of discussion (though I was enjoying it earlier before you decided to turn against thoughtful discourse)

[WeDidIt]

25. You're the one who injected hyperbole

Calling it "ideological coercion" was pure hyperbolic rhetoric with no substance.

[hlthe2b]

27. Your hyperbole bothers me not at all

It is your ad homenem attacks. Do you really not know the difference? Really?

[unblock]

15. "intellectual heft" is a relative concept for right-wingers

remember, lefties need to have two degrees from ivy league institutions and be rhodes scholars to boot and be able to do the friday new york times crossword puzzle in 8 minutes or less to amount to anything, whereas right-wingers are hailed as geniuses if they can complete a 9x9 sudoku puzzle in a week or less.

[Canuckistanian]

24. Agreed

He's a corporate hit man. Nothing more, nothing less.

[glitch]

28. Ludicrous, isn't it?

And disheartening.

[depakid]

6. Roberts has intellectual heft? LOL- yep, it's the Post alright

which means one should pretty well discount anything its writers have to say... unless there's independent confirmation from a credible source.

(As far as I know, it's one of the few papers besides the WSJ where the editorial board ignores or directly contradicts facts dug up by its own reporters!).

[NJmaverick]

12. Once again President Obama shows he is intellectually superior to his critics

He understand far better the workings of the Supreme Court that those that attack him.

[Jennicut]

30. He picked her because she was never a judge. He wanted a non-judge.

All of the court is from the Court of Appeals. Kagan is not. She will be different, for sure. Not entirely sure if that is bad, or good.

[woolldog]

31. She may be 50 years old in chronological age......

but look at her for a minute. She doesn't look healthy. Not going to last a quarter of a century on the court as the article implies.

[babylonsister]

34. You're kidding, right? Now you're diagnosing her health because

you don't like the way she looks? :eyes: Sounds sort of freeperish to me.

[activa8tr]

38. The last Doctor to do that by video images... now...who was that?

Oh yes, a religious rightie from Tenn?

I just LOVE how people diagnose other's health by looks, we could save a lot of $$$ in health care if we just charged people with an extra chin twice as much because they are going to get sick soon.

Speaking of healthy looking, when was the last time a Republican looked naturally healthy, and look how THEY stick around forever!
(And I'm NOT talking about Boehner's tan!)

[woolldog]

41. I'm not diagnosing her health.

I'm stating the obvious. She's morbidly obese and that carries with it significant risk of all kinds of diseases: hypertension, heart disease etc, all of which, the literature shows, will shorten her life span.

Contrast that with someone like Stevens (or Roberts) who's fit and trim and is the longest serving member of the court, I believe.

[Demeter]

32. The Only Counter Weight That Would Work With Roberts

would be cement overshoes.

[Democat]

36. Actually, you just need to pay him more than his current owners!

But, we all know that isn't going to happen.

[Demeter]

42. I don't think Money Would Be That Great An Incentive

I think he believes what he says--long-time parasite on the body politic AND hearty Koolaid drinker.

[kestrel91316]

33. Ok, tell me why I'm supposed to oppose her and why this means Obama

is even more of a failure......

:sarcasm:

[activa8tr]

39. Because she's not Michael Moore, I guess.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. About this 50 thing.

This is a tad off the topic, but I just turned 50 myself, and if I were replacing a 90 year old in a lifetime job, I would really want people to say I might have 40 years coming, not 25.

[Democat]

37. Great point - why do they keep saying 25?

Don't women have a longer lifespan than men?

[activa8tr]

40. I cannot imagine keeping a job that long, 25 years and enjoyment of

a healthy retirement at 75 sounds about right for me.
But, then again, I'm not being nominated to the Supreme Court, and I'm well over 50 already.

When you get to 75, tell us if you still want to work all year at a very important and demanding job.
I sure don't.