Little-Acorn
05-10-2010, 12:49 AM
Well, maybe not Miers herself, but the left-wing equivalent. Someone who has worked directly for Obama as a lawyer, but who has no judicial experience, and so no paper trail of written opinions by which we can possibly judge how she will rule on the Supreme Court.
Such a lack of a paper trial was probably one of the reasons George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers many years ago. And is equally probable one of the reasons Obama may nominate Elena Kagan. The opposition can't point to anything and say, "See? Look what a terrible decision she made here! And there!" Because there isn't anything to point to.
Bush tried to assure conservatives that Miers wouldn't turn into a Souter and start handing down leftist violations of the constitution as "opinions". But conservatives weren't content to go along with his assurances alone, and demanded "proof". There was no proof to offer, and eventually Miers dropped out.
Will leftists demand "proof" that Kagan isn't a closet conservative? Or will they be willing to take the Obama administration's word?
-----------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court
AP source: Obama chooses Kagan for Supreme Court
by BEN FELLER – 8 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, a person familiar with the president's thinking said Sunday night.
The move positions the court to have three female justices for the first time in history.
The source spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been made public. Obama will announce his choice at 10 a.m. Monday in the East Room of the White House.
Known as sharp and politically savvy, Kagan has led a blazing legal career: first female dean of Harvard Law School, first woman to serve as the top Supreme Court lawyer for any administration, and now first in Obama's mind to succeed legendary liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.
At 50 years old, Kagan would be the youngest justice on the court, one of many factors working in her favor. She has the chance to extend Obama's legacy for a generation.
Kagan must first win Senate confirmation.
A source close to the selection process said a central element in Obama's choice was Kagan's reputation for bringing together people of competing views and earning their respect.
Kagan came to the fore as a candidate who had worked closely with all three branches of government, a legal mind with both a sense of modesty and sense of humor. The source spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss factors that led to Kagan's impending nomination.
Kagan has clerked for Thurgood Marshall, worked for Bill Clinton and earned a stellar reputation as a student, teacher and manager of the elite academic world. Her standing has risen in Obama's eyes as his government's lawyer before the high court over the last year.
Yet Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. All of the three other finalists she beat out for the job are federal appeals court judges, and all nine of the current justices served on the federal bench before being elevated.
Kagan's fate will be up to a Senate dominated by Democrats, who with 59 votes have more than enough to confirm her, even though they are one shy of being to halt any Republican stalling effort.
For the second straight summer, the nation can expected an intense Supreme Court confirmation debate even though, barring a surprise, Kagan is likely to emerge as a justice.
Supreme Court justices wield enormous power over the daily life of Americans. Any one of them can cast the deciding vote on matters of life and death, individual freedoms and government power. Presidents serve four-year terms; justices have tenure for life.
Republicans have shown no signs in advance that they would try to prevent a vote on Kagan, but they are certain to grill her in confirmation hearings over her experience, her thin record of legal writings and her objections to the military's policy about gays.
When she was confirmed as solicitor general in 2009, only seven Republicans backed her.
Such a lack of a paper trial was probably one of the reasons George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers many years ago. And is equally probable one of the reasons Obama may nominate Elena Kagan. The opposition can't point to anything and say, "See? Look what a terrible decision she made here! And there!" Because there isn't anything to point to.
Bush tried to assure conservatives that Miers wouldn't turn into a Souter and start handing down leftist violations of the constitution as "opinions". But conservatives weren't content to go along with his assurances alone, and demanded "proof". There was no proof to offer, and eventually Miers dropped out.
Will leftists demand "proof" that Kagan isn't a closet conservative? Or will they be willing to take the Obama administration's word?
-----------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court
AP source: Obama chooses Kagan for Supreme Court
by BEN FELLER – 8 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, a person familiar with the president's thinking said Sunday night.
The move positions the court to have three female justices for the first time in history.
The source spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been made public. Obama will announce his choice at 10 a.m. Monday in the East Room of the White House.
Known as sharp and politically savvy, Kagan has led a blazing legal career: first female dean of Harvard Law School, first woman to serve as the top Supreme Court lawyer for any administration, and now first in Obama's mind to succeed legendary liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.
At 50 years old, Kagan would be the youngest justice on the court, one of many factors working in her favor. She has the chance to extend Obama's legacy for a generation.
Kagan must first win Senate confirmation.
A source close to the selection process said a central element in Obama's choice was Kagan's reputation for bringing together people of competing views and earning their respect.
Kagan came to the fore as a candidate who had worked closely with all three branches of government, a legal mind with both a sense of modesty and sense of humor. The source spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss factors that led to Kagan's impending nomination.
Kagan has clerked for Thurgood Marshall, worked for Bill Clinton and earned a stellar reputation as a student, teacher and manager of the elite academic world. Her standing has risen in Obama's eyes as his government's lawyer before the high court over the last year.
Yet Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. All of the three other finalists she beat out for the job are federal appeals court judges, and all nine of the current justices served on the federal bench before being elevated.
Kagan's fate will be up to a Senate dominated by Democrats, who with 59 votes have more than enough to confirm her, even though they are one shy of being to halt any Republican stalling effort.
For the second straight summer, the nation can expected an intense Supreme Court confirmation debate even though, barring a surprise, Kagan is likely to emerge as a justice.
Supreme Court justices wield enormous power over the daily life of Americans. Any one of them can cast the deciding vote on matters of life and death, individual freedoms and government power. Presidents serve four-year terms; justices have tenure for life.
Republicans have shown no signs in advance that they would try to prevent a vote on Kagan, but they are certain to grill her in confirmation hearings over her experience, her thin record of legal writings and her objections to the military's policy about gays.
When she was confirmed as solicitor general in 2009, only seven Republicans backed her.