That new supreme court justice smell!
So, Obama has nominated Elena Kagan to fill the slot. I know nothing of her and a quick google doesn’t really yield much. On guns, I find only the following:
Regarding gun laws, Kagan says she has “no reason to believe that the court’s analysis was faulty” in the 2008 Supreme Court case striking down the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control laws. And she added that her office would likely “continue to defend” against constitutional challenges on various federal regulations concerning firearms.
And maybe decent on property rights:
She said that that she considered the controversial 2005 Supreme Court case, Kelo v. New London, which upheld a broad reach of the Constitution’s Takings Clause “settled” law, but said that she would side with Congress if it sought to curtail that ruling. That Connecticut eminent domain issue fired up the conservative base, which believed that the government trampled on property rights in this case.
Otherwise, no public record on contentious issues?
May 10th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Considering who she’s replacing, she may actually be a net improvement unless you’re from the Huckabee wing of the GOP.
May 10th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Volokh has a writeup on her. Some liberals are accusing her of being a closet libertarian/conservative. It also says she is often open to arguments from either side, and does not dismiss them just because they come from the right.
Probably untrue but at least she would be a neutral to slightly better replacement.
May 10th, 2010 at 11:02 am
The stealth candidate. How can anyone become the dean of Harvard Law with essentially NO published opinions?
I mean, aside from genetics….
May 10th, 2010 at 11:38 am
I guess trying to ban military recruiters from harvard probably put her in a good light with obama.
May 10th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
In addition to a sparse record of public utterances on hot button topics, she really does have a sparse record of legal scholarship. See this article from The Daily Beast:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-01/the-next-harriet-miers/full/
If you do a Google Scholar search on Kagan, you see he is correct. You really must wonder how she even got tenure as the rules for tenure at most top schools is a boatload of articles in top law reviews and journals.
Does this help or hurt us? I don’t know. Would an alternative to her be more likely to screw us on the 2nd Amendment? Possibly.
May 10th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Your google fu is weak. Kagan is widely considered to be middle of the road politically. Plenty of sitting and past justices have had a similar record of legal scholarship. She has much more to recommend her and no it isn’t her genes. I know the wingnuts are looking for something, anything to disqualify her if she is an Obama pick but the reality is he is going to chose someone middle of the road.
May 10th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Middle-of-the-road is such a relative term in American politics these days. I’m assuming that when you say “middle-of-the-road”, you mean it kinda like when Mao accused Khrushchev of being some bourgeoisie-lovin’ softie reformer.
May 10th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
“Does this help or hurt us? I don’t know. Would an alternative to her be more likely to screw us on the 2nd Amendment? Possibly.”
“Kagan is widely considered to be middle of the road politically.”
Folks, she worked for Abner Mikva and Thurgood Marshall (her legal idol), 2 of the biggest judicial socialists/statists and “make it up as you go along” jurists in US history (OK, I’m exaggerating, but you get the point, no?)
So to answer the first question – it is bad for us. Thankfully, she is replacing another “bad for us” choice, and not one who was actually, you know, good for us. Good as in Constitutional.
May 10th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
“She is certainly a fan of Presidential power”
http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/10/she-is-certainly-a-fan-of-presidential-power/
May 10th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
RIGHT; I envoke guilt by association. Remember folks all those promises the FUROR made sounded good too and look where we are now. I dont believe ONE SINGLE WORD that comes from anyone in or having to do with the current addministration. THEY ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY.
May 10th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Tam snarked:
Middle-of-the-road is such a relative term in American politics these days. I’m assuming that when you say “middle-of-the-road”, you mean it kinda like when Mao accused Khrushchev of being some bourgeoisie-lovin’ softie reformer.
____
Exactly. Is she the worst person he could have picked? No. Doesn’t make her someone I want on the Court. “Centrist” in Beltwayese seems to mean “government is right, no matter what it does”.
Personally I predict her sexual orientation will, like Sotomayor’s ethnicity, cause the GOP to hide under their desks and confirm her rather then be branded as homophobic.
Not that it matters. Trading in a lefty judge for a younger model doesn’t really matter to me. Dropping one of the judges that are mostly on my side for Kagan would make me call for a big time filibuster attempt. As it is, I say keep your powder dry, barring any kind of major gaff in her past. Elections have consequences, this is one of the big ones.
May 10th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
The fact the Obunghole likes her is reason enough to distrust her.
May 10th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Kagan’s “answer” concerning gun laws, essentially that the Supreme Court followed proper procedure in the Heller Decision, is a classic evasive tactic. While the answer pleased both sides, she gave no actual answer either way. Instead she changed the subject.
So consider: Kagan is a New Yorker, born 1960, just in time to be exposed to the massive gun control drives from 1968 onward. She was surely aware of the explosive increase in violent crime after GCA ’68, and equally aware of and influenced by the media campaigns to persuade the public that “guns are the problem.”
She interned with and speaks favorably of Abner Mikva, one of the most rabidly anti-gun Congressman and judge ever to sit a Federal bench.
So from timing, from exposure, and from environment she has no reason to look favorably on the Second Amendment. And she gives an evasive answer when asked about it.
Personally, I prefer the devil we know to the devil we do not.
Stranger
May 10th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I would be almost certain that his SCOTUS nominee will support keeping most or all of the personal defense firepower in the hands of government’s hired guns.
She is probably, like much of the ruling elites, ignorant of or doesn’t care that “delegated powers” originate from the greater (citizens) DOWN to the lesser (government officials and agents).
May 10th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Ok, now I remember why I hate lawyers.
May 10th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
“Settled law” is lawyerspeak for “I agree with it so much I don’t want to hear arguments to the contrary.” That she would “side with Congress” if Congress passed a law altering that result does not soften that position. At all. That’s like saying “Sure, I support Congress’s right to ban all firearms if they want to, but I also support their right not to ban firearms if they don’t want to.”
May 10th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Settled law can also mean an area in which the Court has ruled and thus extinguished all ambiguity. Even a bad ruling can accomplish this.
It’s arguable that even shitty decisions are good in that they remove ambiguity from legal proceedings. However, this gain in efficiency is usually offset by the fact that you’re more efficiently shitting on the constitution. But not always. The recent 14 days rule for “ask for lawyer, release and interrogate” isn’t really grounded in the constitution, but it is a very easily rule to follow and for judges to apply.
May 10th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
She’s never judged a single case, ever. Never been a judge.
This is Obama’s Harriet Miers.
May 11th, 2010 at 1:32 am
She hasn’t even argued that many cases.
May 11th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
She’s even stealthier than Souter.
May 11th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
She’s a dweeb. She needs to be opposed, just like our president’s main opponent was. ‘Member her?
May 12th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Republicans defend slavery to attack Kagan
Republicans are suggesting the Founders’ “three-fifths of a person” standard for counting slaves was no defect. As the Hill reported, the RNC, including Michael Steele, objects to Kagan’s citation of a 1987 Marshall speech in a 1993 tribute to her late mentor.
“Does Kagan Still View Constitution ‘As Originally Drafted And Conceived’ As ‘Defective’?” the RNC asked in its research document.
But this shocking defense of slavery is just the latest episode of the Republican Confederacy of white KKKristians.