Sun 27 Jun, 2010 11:20 am
The hearing begins on June 28th and will consume three days. Barring something dramatic happening she will be confirmed to replace the now retired justice John Paul Stevens.
Democrats will praise her and rail against the conservative bent of the current court under chief justice John Roberts.
Republicans will question her lack of judicial experience and rail against the left's agenda for the future of the country.
It will probably be less about Kagan and more about scoring points ahead of the November election. I see long introductory statements from both Republican and Democrat Senators.
Well, what else is there to say? I guess the World Cup will be over so we'll need something else to watch as sport.
Kagan, long before she was under consideration for an appointment to the Supreme Court, dismissed the hearing process as "vacuity and farce."
*Kagan has never been a judge. She has rarely appeared in a court arguing a case.
Her lack of judicial experience will make her, to some, unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
*She worked in the Clinton White House. At least one Senator describes her as being "a political operative."
*Kagan has expressed admiration for the Isreali Chief Justice Aharon Barak. I am not sure what that is all about.
*As the Dean of the Harvard Law School she supported denying the military access to campus recruiting because the military had a policy of not hiring homosexuals.
A two-fer on this one: anti-military and pro-gay.
*And, while this will never come up in the hearing, there is this: is Elena Kagan a lesbian.
Her views on judicial philosophy will be discussed, of course, in the abstract. Abortion and gun rights could also come up.
The Supreme Court in particular and things relating to law in general are not my long suits. Any observations from others would be appreciated.
On the pro-gay and anti-military positions, I think the theory is that the military discriminates against gays, and it is not Harvard's policy to permit recruiting by employers that discriminate. I don't know if the argument works, but it isn''t new.
Hi, Roger. I have an uncanny ability to start threads that attract very little interest.
You are correct, I think, about Harvard's position regarding on-campus recruiting. At Harvard and at other institutions, employers who had a stated policy of not hiring homosexuals could not recruit on campus. The military had such a policy.
Anti-military? Pro-gay rights?
Kagan found herself/got herself in the middle of that.
Re: her admiration for Israeli Chief Justice Aharon Barak:
Antonin Scalia also admires him. Kagan, in turn, has good things to say about Scalia.
Her real hero is Thurgood Marshall.
Duly noted Pom. I knew that regarding Scalia. I am not up to speed on who Aharon Barak is and why admiring him might be an issue.
Duly noted, Revel. Your clarification is correct.
Each of the 19 Senators had 10 minutes to make opening statements today and Kagan made hers. No fireworks.
Questioning begins tomorrow.
I observe that everyone, and I mean everyone has access to military recuiters.
I would preferred Obama nominate a liberal, so it goes.
Like Sally Struthers, perhaps? Legal background is optional, you know.
no, I said liberal, not dingbat.(those aren't synonymous)
I'll see if I can find you a more current thesaurus.
why? are they composed and printed in texas now?