http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/10/scotus.kagan/index.html?hpt=T2

Good choice, IMO. I actually met her on a few occassions when she was the Dean at Harvard Law School and my fiancee was an archivist there. Very nice lady. Had a great impact on the university.

From what i've read, should be an easy nomination process.

She's been controversial at times, especially in regards to the military and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Many believe her to be a lesbian. No proof of this, and it doesn't matter anyways, but it could ruffle some feathers amongst some groups.

I think she is well qualified, despite the lack of judicial experience. William Rehnquist was the last Supreme Court Justice appointed without any prior experience as a judge. But, the "experience" thing doesn't really matter here, IMO. Heck, i even think Scalia at one point said they need more judges on the court in that situation.

cbus4life wrote: she was the Dean at Harvard Law School

Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

?

I wasn't saying that was the reason why she was a good candidate, was just relating a personal experience when i interacted with her, while she was at Harvard, while she was the dean of the law school.

I know. Not why I said blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. lol

I don't care if she had the exact same ideals as I do, I am extremely leery over the fact that she has never been a judge. Ever.

LJ wrote: I don't care if she had the exact same ideals as I do, I am extremely leery over the fact that she has never been a judge. Ever.

Fair enough.

But, seems like it isn't all that uncommon...

40 of the 111 have had no prior judicial experience...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005100018

SQ_Crazies wrote: I know. Not why I said blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. lol

Haha, gotcha, my bad.

I think she'll be confirmed easily, the DEMs still have the power and the GOP will see her as another Sotomayor. I've never met her nor am I familiar with her work, but being dean of HLS doesn't by itself impress me much, particularly if compared to their current dean.

She'll get confirmed no problem. She will get some tough questions in the hearings, but unless she really screws up, she will get the nod.

A liberal lesbian on the Supreme Court. Is that a first?

And she is Jewish as well!

cbus4life wrote: And she is Jewish as well!

Oh wow...can't wait to see people flip shit about this rather than focusing on the fact that we need to stop allowing lawyers to run our country.

And stop acting like the appointees for Presidents are good ones--almost never even one of the top 100 best candidates probably, they just scratch the back of someone they know.

I Wear Pants wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHA

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

Serously...is this the best we can do?

Shut up, you'd hit it.

Ok what about this

Is it a requirement that liberal leaning "lesbian" women are so ugly? Jesus.

She is tame compared to some of the flamethrowers the liberals wanted him to nominate.

She is replacing the liberal lion on the SC, and according to angry liberals she is not near liberal enough to fill those shoes. So in some ways that fact their upset should be comforting to those who are skeptical.

BHO is following the Bush playbook and nominating someone young though. She is only 50 years old, and will be on the court for a while. Both his nominess were the same age as Roberts and Alito (50-55) so after Ginsburg goes next year it could be a while before we see another change on the court.

Obama will nominate Merrick Garland next year when Ginsburg retires, and he is more conservative than Kagan, which is why he is being saved because Republicans would confirm him (there is a good chance they may control the Senate or be almost dead even then so there is no margin for error).

Baring an unforseen health condition or death, the court will stay in a holding pattern until Kennedy hangs it up down the road, and then World War 15 will break out because that is the first nomination in a while that will actually shift the court potentially from Conservative to Liberal....or stay Conservative depending on who is in office making the pick and doing the confirming.

She's Harriet Miers with a few years at Harvard padding her resume. Color me unimpressed.

Some of her Oral Argument exchanges with Chief Justice Roberts had some zest. I think she looks like a chubby Brendan Frazier personally.

fish82 wrote: She's Harriet Miers with a few years at Harvard padding her resume. Color me unimpressed.

Are you kidding? Harriet Miers was an intellectual lightweight who had a very unimpressive resume by normal 'elite' lawyer standards, let alone a SCOTUS nominee. Kagan's resume is very solid. She isn't my preferred pick, but she's lightyears ahead of HM.

She leans left, but she's not as far left as others could be. She'll be confirmed without too much trouble, as she should be.

fan_from_texas wrote:

fish82 wrote: She's Harriet Miers with a few years at Harvard padding her resume. Color me unimpressed.

Are you kidding? Harriet Miers was an intellectual lightweight who had a very unimpressive resume by normal 'elite' lawyer standards, let alone a SCOTUS nominee. Kagan's resume is very solid. She isn't my preferred pick, but she's lightyears ahead of HM.

She leans left, but she's not as far left as others could be. She'll be confirmed without too much trouble, as she should be.

I'm not saying she's a horrible pick, or that she couldn't be confirmed. I'm on record as saying that unless a nominee is a former ax murderer, that the POTUS should have his picks confirmed without fanfare. I was just kinda commenting on the irony of the pick after all the (justified) fuss about HM.

And I never get tired of the term "intellectual lightweight." :rolleyes: