Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Kagan
Any thoughts on Kagan as SCOTUS nominee? I'm surprised Fredo hasn't weighed in yet. I guess the key question is this: while she clearly isn't aligned with our conservative views, how does she rank compared to the other possible nominees we could have gotten from a very liberal president and a dominant Dem Congress? I suspect we could have done much worse, but having not paid much attention to other possibilities I don't know if we could have done better.
An obvious and legitimate knock on her is a lack of judicial experience. Seems like this should be a solid pre-req to be on Supreme Court, although she wouldn't be the first to not have any.
An obvious and legitimate knock on her is a lack of judicial experience. Seems like this should be a solid pre-req to be on Supreme Court, although she wouldn't be the first to not have any.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
1 comments:
I really was expecting Obama to pick Wood, who has the legal track record of a tried and true leftist, but indisputable judicial bona fides.
I should've had a better feel for the President's M.O.
"Why should I pick a female jurist when I can cross off two P.C. boxes at the same time (even if it's just via rumor)? Someone gonna call me out on picking someone who has virtually no legal experience outside of academia? And yeah, I know even the academic experience was more focused on fundraising than scholarship, but hey, if you understanding arm-twisting capital-creators into supporting the public sector-academy complex, you understand what this country should be all about."
That said, Kagan is scary, to me, and probably to some on the left as well.
1) She is unquestionably brilliant.
2) She is unquestionably a life-long self-promoter.
3) She's been extremely disciplined about controlling her paper trail. For someone who is currently the Solicitor General, that speaks to a frightening amount of ambition and prescience.
I, and most observers, should be extremely concerned that they have no idea where she will actually take the court. Will she be a neo-Stevens? Will she follow a Breyer tack, as many seem to expect? Will she go old school Brennan activist? Or will she turn into the left's Souter, more conservative than any of the Dems expect, a Kennedy disciple of sorts. I honestly have no idea.
Here's what I know--the Dems in the SJC will want to make sure she follows the party line on the big ticket items, and since it's their committee and their nominee, expect one of the more direct hearings we've seen in some time (a la what the GOP would have done to Meirs had she got to her hearing--but a little more respectful, since Kagan can write in English). I think we may, for a few brief moments, move out of process and into substance during this hearing.
At the end of the day, though, replying to your original post has been low priority. Because this is all kabuki theatre. Unless she says she wants to overturn Roe; or that the President should have the authority to round up potential protesters on the basis that they go to Berkeley; it's all over but for the post-coital cigarette.