Slashdot Mirror
Senate Confirms Elena Kagan's Appointment To SCOTUS
eldavojohn writes "As expected, by a vote of 63 to 37 Elena Kagan has been appointed as the 112th member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Kagan, only 50 years old, has no judicial experience. The Washington Post explains: 'Other justices have corporate law backgrounds or a long record of arguing before the court. Kagan worked briefly for a law firm and argued her first case before an appellate court 11 months ago. It happened to be before the Supreme Court, the first of six cases she argued as the nation's first female solicitor general.' Her fair use views and free speech views have made her a focus of Slashdot recently."
I found it hilarious how pissed people were that she gave textbook answers during her hearings while simultaneously complaining that she would judge based on her opinions.
Aren't textbook answers the opposite of opinions?
PS: An activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling that you disagree with.
Living With a Nerd
Other justices have corporate law backgrounds...
That explains a lot.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
spiffmastercow said "...I don't know a single democrat who wants to ban guns." So Daly in Chicago is not a Democrat?
How many companies did Dubya manage into the ground? How did his super-duper governing skillz help him in his 8 years?
What did would-be President McCain govern? What did would-be President McCain manage to do besides crashing 3 planes before even getting to Vietnam?
Waiting for her to hear a few cases so we can see what she really thinks.
The problem is that nowadays presidents aim to nominate people with as little documentation of what they really think as they can get away with. Then we go through Senate confirmation hearings which are largely a chance for the membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee to play for the cameras while the potential justice avoids answering any questions.
I am officially gone from
HINT
There were more nominees in the primaries that would have been better, not to mention many third-party candidates that would have been better than either.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Sorry, this story is "Stuff that Matters". You wanted this story.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
and the Constitution almost never is,
What are you talking about? The Constitution of the US is -very- clear if you don't try to view it in tinted glasses of various political affiliations. The founders didn't just write a constitution and nothing else, they all wrote lots of books, lots of papers. If there was one document that was written in the 1700s that is the clearest, it would have to be the constitution. What is so unclear about the constitution?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The polarization of the confirmation process for Justices has made having either a substantial body of legal scholarship, substantive judicial experience, or substantive trial advocacy experience weaknesses in confirmation proceedings, since the processes is almost completely one of opponents of the nomination seeking choice tidbits -- often out of context -- that make good political soundbites to embarrass anyone who would vote to confirm.
This has been increasingly true over time, independently of which party is doing the appointing and which side is inclined to oppose the nomination, so the results in terms of who gets appointed are fairly predictable.
If you want better (by the standards suggested in the parent post) judicial nominees, you need to get better Senators first. And since the behavior of Senators is driven essentially by what works in producing reactions in the electorate to bring pressure to bear on other Senators, you need a better electorate to get that.
Don't suppose you've noticed, but while lawyers are disproportionately represented in Congress, it isn't a prerequisite. Non-lawyers are at least partially responsible for our laws.
For the record, my opinions on this are solely confined to the Supreme Court. Lower courts need experienced judges and lawyers because they are constrained by Supreme Court precedent as well as the laws as written, and it takes training and study to deal with the multiple layers of ambiguity involved.
The whole point of the Supreme Court is that it takes the tough cases, the ones without a clear answer. In those sorts of cases, legal training isn't a prerequisite. Having people trained how to think, rather than solely how to parse legalese is a good thing. A liberal arts student from, for example, St. Johns with a history of non-profit work, or of managing a business, or a successful career as a psychologist would add some diversity of views. The fact of the matter is that lawyers are indoctrinated with a specific world view in modern law schools (a fairly corporatist world view), and having people who don't have these built in assumptions about how the world works on the Court provides more diversity than any number of minorities, women, etc., if the minorities and women were indoctrinated into the law school mindset.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Oh yeah, I'm sure the republicans would have voted against health benefits for 911 rescue workers if Bush were still in office. The dems are cowardly little pussies, but the republicans are spiteful, self-centered assholes who sell out the country to make a quick buck for themselves.
Actually, its clear only when you try to do that, because then the tint you choose to use resolves all the inherent ambiguities and conflicts for you -- in the favor of whatever ideological tint you've selected.
Yes, and in some of those books and papers, some of them write about how they were deliberately vague in writing some provisions of the Constitution, in order to let some aspects be resolved by experience because of the inability to come to a consensus on resolution on some points. Because, believe it or not, the political elites of the United States were no more united and homogenous in their ideology of government in the late 18th Century than they are in the early 21st; they were more able to work together, perhaps, but largely because they were more keenly aware of the potential consequences if they failed to do so.
Amazing how fast that one dropped out of the right wing lexicon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive
That proves nothing. Sports teams trade away good players all the time. Sometimes they do it because they are rebuilding and need younger players even if they are less experienced. Other times they do it because they can't afford to keep them and would rather get something in a trade than let them go to free agency. Occasionally they even do it to finance a Broadway play, though that one might not have been the best idea in the world.... ;)
Point is, you can't say GWB was an idiot just because he traded Sammy Sosa.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
More like highly-regarded medical scientist being made Surgeon General.
It's far better to have a procedurally unpracticed constitutional scholar for once than the sequence of long-time political hacks we got from the other side.
Oh yeah, I'm sure the republicans would have voted against health benefits for 911 rescue workers if Bush were still in office.
Do you think the Democrats would have voted to confirm a SCOTUS nominee who had previously argued in favor of banning books if GWB had appointed her?
The vast majority of both major parties place duty to party ahead of duty to the Constitution. More's the pity.....
That's a little disingenuous. The case was about corporations funding libelous material under the guise of a "concerned citizens" group. I'd argue that republicans are the only ones with party loyalty though.. The democrats are more interested in maintaining their own seats, rather than maintaining party power. When they finally have the power, they're too afraid to actually do anything because it might be used against them in a campaign. But they both suck donkey balls, for a certainty.
You and I can't afford to publish a 500-page book just to astroturf a statement of endorsement and advertise it well beyond the reasonable costs to promote such a book to its reasonable audience. We can afford to get our endorsement out to a few people on an open forum here.
That's not about "banning books". It's about banning the political fraud of hiding behind the 1st Amendment to use money to dominate speech. It's about making democracy, not plutocracy, the political system we live under. Which was the point of the Revolutionary War.
Got the city to build a new stadium
So he had practice ripping off the public to line his pockets.
George Washington on Political Parties - I agree..
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
No history of scholarship, unless you count being a fucking law professor and dean of the Harvard law school.
She has only four major articles in her career, was a law professor for a total of only 8 years, and "dean" is a political/administrative position, not a scholarly one.
But why would we count that? We don't like her politics.
I don't know her politics. Very few people seem to, which is one of the problems.
I have spoken to homosexuals who have openly stated that they want it to be called "marriage". Nothing less will do.
They probably have the "Separate but equal" fiasco stuck in their mind where people who were supposed to be treated equally, were not.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Are you kidding? Don't even try to portray Harriet Miers as a fair analogue. She was White House Counsel, marred by repeated criticisms of her legal competence. Elena Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law School, Solicitor General, and clerked for Thurgood Marshall, among others. That is *not* a fair comparison.
There maybe faults with Kagan but "no judicial experience" is kind of disengenious. She has a pretty extensive record being a clerk for a couple of judges including for Marshall. She has an extensive record in academia including Harvard Law. She has some record being Solicitor General. Kagan appears to have spent a lot of time in and around the Supreme Court of the United States. While never being a judge at state or federal levels that isn't a requirement for the job where Kagan appears to be familiar with constituional law and qualified to comment on constitutional questions.
Harriet Miers on the other hand is by profession a personal attorney with a corporate law background and doesn't appear to have any more of a constitutional background than being an advisor to the President. Worse still being a direct council to Bush means there could and would be direct conflicts of interest and previliage in some instances.
There are legitamate complaints about Kagan but she is heads and shoulders above qualifications on constitional law, history, and even procedures than Miers.
Yea, not everyone has the money and machinery to saturate the market with books and pamphlets dominating free speech and under the guise of witty little titles like "Common Sense" so we need to enact laws in order to restrict this. We can't let this elitist plutocracy use their machines and wealth to spread these dangerous ideas in text that will drown out the voice of us God fearing and King loving common people. God save the King!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It seems to be a popular one. It seems that some people believe it indicates an inborn right amongst all people to posses any weapon (up to and including tanks) that they can afford. Other seem to believe that it implies a right to be armed, but not necessarily a right to any weapon one might chose to own. Still others seem to think it is an abridgeable right, and those guilty of certain types of crimes forfeit it. Others still believe that it implies nothing at all for those who don't happen to be in a "well regulated Militia". I'm not going to go into what I think, but the fact remains that the amendment itself is awful damned vague and a reasonable argument can be made for any of the above. There are other examples, but that's definitely the one that jumps to my mind when people ask about "vague" pieces of the Constitution.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Bush appoints a fairly moderate conservative to the bench with Miers. His opponents, the Dems, figure she's not a terrible ideologue and don't raise too much of a fuss about it. His base, the Republicans, go apopleptic for not appointing a true conservative judge. Bush changes his mind.
Obama appoints a fairly moderate liberal with Kagan. His base, the Dems, argue about it a bit, and several progressives call for a more far left candidate, but they generally go along with her in the end. His opponents, the Republicans, spread rumors of her secret far-left activist plans and hide their displeasure for her liberal political views by accusing her of not having enough "experience." Obama finds no reason to switch Kagan out for someone else.
You want Kagan to lose the nomination? Get Obama's base angry about it, not his opponents, who are going to mostly oppose anyone he nominates anyway.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Most of us "basement dwellers" don't count the head of the CIA or a President of the United States as a parent, nor were we born into very rich families.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Wow, a lot of heated opinions here. Seriously though, you have to look at track records. The party that has a platform of less government and fiscal (and personal) responsibility has been at the helm of the largest government increases and spending excesses in history, as well as trying it's damnedest to legislate personal responsibility right out of existence (abortion decisions, porn, religion, etc), and the party that has the platform of larger government, more social nets and more social control has been the only one in decades to reduce the deficit, and believes that people should have more liberty (abortion decisions, gay marriage, etc).
Huh, maybe they should just swap names and get on with it. As far as I can tell, the party platform is only there to sucker the idiots...
The major reason to be rid of the 17th amendment is prior to its instatement Congress couldn't coerce the states. Now many Federal power grabs are backed by indirect forcing of the states to pass laws. For example, congress has no power to mandate seat belts. But it wants all the states to have such a law on the book and passes a Federal law that removes the federal highway funds of any state that fails to enact a seat belt law.
There are numerous other examples of this. It is bald, naked, coercion, and it is wrong. Repeal the 17th amendment and Congress would lose this power because all the Senators would know that the moment they passed a law telling the state legislators what to do they'd lose their seat.
The whole point of the senate was to have half the power of the Congress subject to the State's approval. State legislators are themselves career politicians - watching what Congress does is their job and livelihood. It isn't ours. We could care less about what Congress does day to day and don't have time to keep tabs on them.
Ironically, since the 17th amendment the roles of the House and Senate have reversed. State legislatures have used gerrymandering to control the House. This control isn't perfect - it certainly hasn't prevented coercion, but it has allowed them to influence the House more than they can the Senate. Senate seats have become competitive in most states where House seats almost never are do to Gerrymandering.
Want to fix the mess? Repeal the 17th amendment. Remove the right of districting from states and place it in the hands of a computer algorithm. Divide states into districts of 10 or less reps and use STB ballots to elect them. Elect the president with Instant Run off ballots. These measures would demolish the power of the parties (they'd persist, but in a highly weakened state). It would be nice to see this solution take effect, but too many people in power would lose power if it was ever enacted so it's nothing more than a pipe dream.