Obama to nominate Elena Kagan to Supreme Court

Making it the first time in history that three women have sat on the highest court:

At 50 years old, Kagan would be the youngest justice on the court, one of many factors working in her favor.

Yet Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years.

As the Harvard Law School dean, Kagan openly railed against the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gay service members. She called it discriminatory and barred military recruiters over the matter until the move threatened to cost the university federal money.


Another first - No Protestants

This will also mark the first time in American history that not a single protestant will be on the Supreme Court. Jews and Catholics only.

I guess god wants it this way

And praise be. I'd be happier if they were all Wiccan.

Another Obama stab in the back for the left

So why is an NC homersexual that wants to see DADT repealed upset that Obama nominated Kagan to the Supreme Court?

Because she will take the court to the right.

Come on, lefties! There's room under the Obama bus for all of us!

Glenn Greenwald has done the homework on this one and it's widely been linked, as I'm sure most of this audience knows.

But even from the clip above we see just how far Kagan would fight for DADT repeal -- only until it would have cost Harvard federal money. It's not like Harvard had the largest endowment of any private school in the US or anything.

Is this really what we wanted?

It's not what I wanted, and I'm willing to continue to vote for change.


I've said this before,

and I'll say it again: Don't let your anger cause you to throw support towards those you wouldn't normally support. And that advice goes doubly for Glenn Greenwald, who (in this article) links to the New Republic, Adler of Volokh, Ward of the Daily Caller, and even neocon Bill Kristol, all in an attempt to back up his opposition to Elena Kagan.

When you have to fish in those tainted ponds for sustenance, your qualifications as a fish specialist should be called into question.

Of compromises, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution

It's interesting to read this take on the Republican's inevitable opposition to the Kagan nomination.

Of course, the Republicans would have -- and will -- oppose anyone Obama nominates. Why not nominate a real liberal? Because Obama just doesn't want to replace Stevens with a real liberal.

The real lesson on compromise from the linked article above quoting Thurgood Marshall:

These omissions [in the Constitution] were intentional. The record of the Framers' debates on the slave question is especially clear: The Southern States acceded to the demands of the New England States for giving Congress broad power to regulate commerce, in exchange for the right to continue the slave trade. The economic interests of the regions coalesced: New Englanders engaged in the "carrying trade" would profit from transporting slaves from Africa as well as goods produced in America by slave labor. The perpetuation of slavery ensured the primary source of wealth in the Southern States.

Despite this clear understanding of the role slavery would play in the new republic, use of the words "slaves" and "slavery" was carefully avoided in the original document. Political representation in the lower House of Congress was to be based on the population of "free Persons" in each State, plus threefifths of all "other Persons." Moral principles against slavery, for those who had them, were compromised, with no explanation of the conflicting principles for which the American Revolutionary War had ostensibly been fought: the selfevident truths "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Emphasis mine.

To rephrase: Moral principles that all men are created equal were compromised in the name of commerce and government.


I'm ready to meet you halfway

on this, and I'll start by admitting I'm a little non-plussed by her lack of bench time (Harriet Myers?) and her embroidered Goldman socks.

In return, and since we're friends (don't look at me like that, it's true), I'm going to ask a couple of questions that (due to my heterosexualness) may be inappropriate, but I think you know by now that I really do care what happens to you folks, so, you know, please indulge me like you would a question-filled toddler.

Is she or isn't she? If she is, does her fondness for the closet fill you with contempt? How much of that is coloring your opinion of her? In this day and age of openness, does refusing to come out indicate some deep character flaw that should mark the person as untrustworthy?

No need to couch, I know we're friends.

I'm often this blunt in person too.

I have no personal knowledge whether Kagan is a lesbian or not -- unlike my knowledge of other notable closet cases.

It's also true that there are plenty of closet cases, on the federal bench and otherwise qualified, that I would have been much happier with than Kagan.

My disdain for the Obama administration's absurd need to "in" their own Senate-confirmed Solicitor General a few weeks ago was a truly maddening time. However, that is not the reason this nomination is disappointing.

And a lack of bench time isn't a non-starter for me.

She's replacing Stevens, and it's likely (though nothing is certain) that she'll take the court to the right on a host of issues dear to my heart.

The one batch of issues where she and I likely most agree are LGBT issues, but that's not enough. She's going to be on the Supreme Court.

I mean, I don't want Larry Craig or Uncle Festzer on the Supreme Court.

It really is as simple as that.


You may be right

I have to say, losing Justice Stevens is depressing as hell. His opinions are solid, persuasive and instructive, and I've rarely caught myself "skimming" his stuff like I do the other Supremes.