Osler's Razor

Kagan= terrible choice. No experience, intellectual lightweight, will do Obama's liberal bidding for decades on the court. Weren't there any actual jurists available?
 

One thing I think the Supreme Court vetting process for both parties has lacked: the ability of the potential justice to hook up to the other justices Voltron-style to form a MegaJustice X1000.
 

JT--

Actually, they can do that, from what I understand. That is where 9-0 votes come from.
 

Then the next thing that needs to be vetted for potential candidates is: who or what is their nemesis likely to be? what powers will they have? I just think the American people deserve to know if Zod or Mothra or the Cloverfield Monster is gonna be out to stop MegaJustice X1000.
 

Well, kagan did introduce free coffee and bagels at Harvard. Is that a super- power?
 

Anon 12:08 -- like Harriet Miers?

Kagan clerked for the SCOTUS; she's been dean of what is widely considered one of the finest institutions in the country. She's been solicitor general and served on the legal staff of President Clinton. "Intellectual lightweight isn't even a remotely correct description. She's also not terribly liberal.

But what she does have is a fine legal mind and a restrained judicial temperament... you know, those things you conservatives are supposed to care about.

Kagan's a fair enough choice, I suppose. I'd prefer a non-Harvard/Yale grad, but apparently that little self-reinforcing clique doesn't care about my opinion.

The next justice should come from the bench but not necessarily federal appellate, and outside the traditional "Ivy League" clique.
 

I think Lane has stated my opinion on this topic well.

There is nothing wrong with the Kagan nomination. She is a brilliant person with a wide variety of experience. There is no writen rule that states the new Justice MUST have bench experience and I beleive there is some value to that lack of experience.

The next nominee should be from some place other than the east coast or ivy league law school. There are a lot of great legal minds in this country that get over looked because they lack these credentials.
 

What about Kagan's being a lesbian? Should that come up at the hearings? I'm just askin'....
 

Free coffee? BLS gives us free coffee? Egads! We must be on our way up! Perhaps if Toobin knew that Baylor served free coffee to its students, he would have kept his laughter in reserve!

On a serious note, though, I've had the free Harvard coffee. It's excellent. Can't say that about ours.
 

Anon 7:58
If Kagan is a lesbian that really isn't my business and personally doesn't make a difference to me. I suspect that the gay/lesbian topic will come up during the hearings with regard to her stance on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and military recruiting on college campuses. She does have a written record on that topic so this is a valid avenue for the hearing to pursue. Her own sexual orientation however should not be a focus. Just because a woman is single at age 50 means or implies nothing. If a man is single in his 50's is he gay?

On the other hand, some might argue, if she is, that the court is reflecting a better cross section of our country.
 

I have a three point plan for the nomination of the next Justice:

1) The nominee should be chosen by the Federal Commission of T-Pain.

2) The Senate should carefully question the nominee as to how many cats he or she owns, and the names of each cat.

3) For real diversity, look for a nominee whose head is shaped like a Chicken McNugget.
 

I am concerned only about whether a justice will maintain the turtle fence of separation between church and state.
 

"If a man is single in his 50's is he gay?"

No, he is happy.

As far as Kagan, she seems fine. I mean, I don't like her politics, I think her views on free speech are troubling, and I'm sure I will disagree with the vast majority of her rulings. But she is qualified and capable (I think, still early) and should probably be confirmed.

The question I have is not whether she is a lesbian or not (who cares). The question is why does the White House freak out when anybody hints at the possibility that she might be. They basically accused CBS of engaging in a smear campaign full of lies when they reported she was lesbian. I agree they should come out and say that the story isn't true if it isn't true, but the vehement denials almost make it so they are implicitly saying that calling someone gay is necessarily a bad thing.

Seems to me that if Bush would've annonced Roberts as his nominee and someone had then come out with an article saying that Roberts was a big Toto fan, and then the White House had come out and said, "that is slanderous, and false, and a typical Democratic smear campaign" and I liked Toto, I might be like, "hey man, whats so wrong with Toto??"
 

RRL likes Toto?

That might change my plans for tomorrow night.
 

Wasn't Jeffrey Toobin in Toto?
 

Everything is wrong with Toto.

The only reason I can think of the White House's reaction is that (again) Democratic staffers vastly overestimate the degree to which the public agrees with the wingnut fervor of some Republicans. Sure, the AFA said that they don't think Kagan is qualified because they believe she's a lesbian, but honestly, who expected any better from the AFA?

Still, give a flighty liberal a crazy conservative statement like "gay people are disqualified to serve on the bench" and they assume that it means everyone not one of their close personal friends agrees with that sentiment. Hence, overreaction.
 

I don't really like Toto, I was just using Toto as an example. For comedic relief.

However, I must say, I have rocked out to "Africa" and "Hold the Line" a number of times, and if there is something wrong with that, I don't wanna be right.

But, I can promise you Osler, Toto is not on the agenda for tomorrow night.
 

Excellent. I'll be there, then.

I'm hoping for some Bachman-Turner Overdrive.
 

Just to be clear, that last comment related to RRL's show tomorrow night, not anything related to Elena Kagan.
 

But did she provide the students of Harvard Law with a parking lot that is the envy of law students across the nation?
 

Not even close. We have no parking. I would kill for parking.
 

HLS, you trade me your employability and I'll gladly give you my front-and-center parking at Baylor. Hell, my car was so close I occasionally would visit it between classes and take naps. You like naps, don't you?
 

Toto Blows.

I'm with RLL. She's competent. Approver her and move on.

But it won't work that way. The Kabuki theatre will play out for the next month or so. Sigh....

Obama's next nominee is going to disappoint "The Left" once again, as he will have to get him or her through a GOP Senate, or one with a very small Democratic majority that will be hard to hold together as a bloc.
 

Could RRL get through the Senate once it goes Republican? And how would we feel about his judicial temperament?
 

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. LESBIANS, GAYS, NON-CHRISTIANS, DEMOCRATS, NON-WHITES, AND PEOPLE SHORTER THAN 5'4" ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT. THEIR TERRIBLE VIEWS WOULD DISSOLVE DEMOCRACY.

ALSO, WHY DID WE NAME SUCH AN AWESOME IDEA AFTER SUCH A LAME PARTY? COULDN'T WE HAVE CALLED THE PROCESS OF VOTING AND FREE SPEECH "REPUBLICANISM" OR... EVEN BETTER! "TEA-PARTY PALINISM"!

THEY SHOULD MAKE ME PRESIDENT. BUT THEN THE EVIL LIBERALS WOULD FIX THE ELECTION!


AT LEAST PALIN WOLD VOTE FOR ME.
 

I agree with others . . . Kagan's a fine choice, maybe not the most ideal in terms of judicial experience, but it seems there's not really a job description for a Supreme Court justice. (Except a law degree preferably from Yale or Harvard).

And the gay issue is immaterial . . .even if she comes out about it, I can't see how it matters one bit. It's like saying Scalia can't decided on gun-rights issues because he owns a gun, or will be biased toward the Catholic church (in priest-abuse scandals, if they come to the court) because he's Catholic. Yes, he'll probably lean toward gun rights and perhaps toward the Catholic church, but that's just what you get with people. They all believe something. If Kagan is actually gay (and I haven't heard definitely that she is), it doesn't mean she won't consider both sides of a case, even if she MIGHT lean toward the side of gay people.

Apparently Obama chose her because of her sense of fairness and compromise, as well as for political reasons of course.
 

While i don't care about the gay issue, doesn't it seem a little inconsistent to use gender as one of your major sorting mechanisms for deciding on a nominee, and then claim that it's not fair to try and learn whether they belond to another well-defined, politically important group?

I mean if gender (or race)is important in the selection, why is sexual orientation not in the evaluation?
 

If anybody's still reading . . . I see your point, Anon. 8:41 pm. We could use sexual orientation as another type of diversity, of course. Maybe we should. It's good that we are talking about all these types of diversity: ethnic, racial, religious, gender, geographic, education, professional experience, and sexual orientation. It's going to be hard, though, with just 9 justices, to have all types of diversity represented all the time.

What bothers me is that 1)
no one has ever questioned a male nominee's sexual orientation--even though David Souder was a life-long bachelor, and maybe there have been others; and
2) people are assuming Kagan is gay just because she's 50, never married, and has no kids. She says she isn't gay. As a single 48-year-old (divorced) woman with no kids, I find those assumptions about her deeply offensive and hurtful. I would imagine she finds them hurtful, too. I don't think those assumptions would be made about a male nominee; at least, I haven't heard those assumptions in past cases.