Obama Intros Kagan


I hope this is Obama's Harriet Myers. After her they got Alito.
Yeah, I not only want my money back that I donated to Obama but I want my vote back at this point.

Welcome to the third Bush Term!!
Dan, your first link is from last year, and is about Sotomayor being Obama's Harriet Myers, not about Kagan.
Man, the loony left are gonna hate Obama now! Such a centrist!

So loony left, who ya gonna vote for in '12, Palin?

LMAO....you have been useful idiots and thanks for your vote for Obama in 2012!
I only have one question: "What in the hell was he thinking?"

Yep, it's going to be "interesting" alright - and for all the wrong reasons.
There are some real problems with some of her views that need to be thoroughly scrutinized. A nominee for the highest court of the land that has a history of impeding the access of our nation's army recruitment procedures in universities and therefore affecting and endangering our nations security is someone that in mine and in many others eyes is not deserving of such a high honor and responsibility.
@4 Politics, like love, is all about minimizing disappointment. If you expect perfection you'll never be happy.
Is there even a constitutional right to heterosexual marriage? I thought marriage was a matter of state law.
Dan, there's one thing that you're not considering here with the gay marriage issue.

She was right.

Allow me to explain. When asked, she said, "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage." Well, right now, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Just like the 14th Amendment didn't require desegregation of public schools until the Supreme Court--rightly--interpreted it to do so in Brown v. Board. Just like interracial marriage was not a federal constitutional right until the Court handed down Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Federal constitutional rights exist when the Court interprets the Constitution to say they do.

When she said that, she was ready to be confirmed as SG, a position that requires her to take on the government's position, regardless of what that position is. And right now, unfortunately, that's the federal government's position. Note that, when the issue of whether the federal constitution SHOULD be read to confer a constitutional right to gay marriage, she responded, "I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question." That's pretty evasive.

People who are honest about their views of hot-button issues get Borked. That's the current culture of the nomination and confirmation process, and has been for a couple of decades now.

Of course, this could be overly optimistic. I'm just saying that it's really not time to panic.
is there a constitutional right to different-sex marriage?

if we (sit back and) let the right dispose of this dubious candidate (for us) will Obama then react by nominating one even further to the right?

ok just one more foolish question: how is the Riemann sum related to an n-dimensional simplex?
The 'Is she a Gay?' thing is a sex-infused Trojan horse to inject her policy barring military recruiters at Harvard Law.

She said the military discriminates in its hiring practices because of DADT. If the Republicans get their way, this will be the meat of her confirmation hearings.
Re my post @11, see @6.
@8 The question is not so much a right to marriage, but to equal protection. The state does not have to build roads, but they can't build them and then say only white people can use them.

It really boils down to whether gay people are a suspect class and if so what kind of hurdle the state has to clear to discriminate against them. With race for example its strict scrutiny, which makes most kinds of race based discrimination illegal. Though say with gender it is less.

Its not really about marriage, but about whether gay people can be legally discriminated against explicitly or otherwise.
There's no constitutional right to straight marriage, either.
Yes, what #14 said. The quote from her is "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage." Which is basically lawyer weasel words (though it does answer the question she was asked directly).

If DOMA gets struck down it will be on an equal protection grounds, not on a "constitutional right to same-sex marriage" which is basically a nonsense phrase.
Thanks for the perspective, Anne @9.
She's cool in my mind. electronic cigarette
From what I understand, Harriet Miers tanked when she bombed one interview after another when she met with members of the Judiciary Committee. She gave poor responses to their legal questions, and only really lit up when talking about how "wonderful" Dubya was. By all accounts I've read, Kagan has a top-notch legal mind. She'll probably impress most in those one-on-one meetings.
@9: Thanks, Anne! I was all ready to rant about the 14th's equal protection clause thinking it did state a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, not realizing we have to wait for the corresponding precendent from the SC first. Much appreciated, really helped me get a better handle on this.
Everything I've read says that she will be confirmed without issue - sure there will still be a 'dog & pony show' however she's already been thoroughly vetted - and 'no drama Obama' is fairly astute about such things.

If she is a lesbian can she really be called a closet case? Did she ever publicly state that she was heterosexual? If anything it would be better if she keeps stonewalling, saying nothing that can be used against her, nothing that can be used by the crazies to raise money.

'Fierce advocate' must 'know' the real answer. But like her he is a 'careerist' not a grandstanding politician that talks big but doesn't do anything - if you want 'real' change this is the way it has to happen. Souter, Stevens, O'Connor - all drifted to the left after they were confirmed. Have a little faith people.
Kagan a "centrist"? No, she's a good liberal--certainly more of a liberal than John Paul Stevens was when he was nominated to the Supreme Court back in the mid-70s. Kagan will be a great progressive justice.
There is, in fact, a constitutional right to marriage. It is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process clause. See, e.g., Meyer v. Nebraska; Loving v. Virginia.

That's why DOMA is unconstitutional.
All the senatards will vote for her if she lets them watch.
(most of) you guys are as batshit crazy hysterical as the Tea Party nutbags
Maybe Rosie O’Donnell is available? We know more about her legal Views.
Oh, and Kagan is an awesome, solidly liberal pick. Progressive? Maybe not in every respect. But solidly liberal.
what was your reaction to the nomination? take this fun poll. =p

Why should we know her orientation? We have no right to know that. That's a personal matter unless she's actively fighting gay rights and gets paid to do it. Anyway, she hasn't hired any lesbian hookers.
Can we put to death this idea she's a "centrist" ? You just reinforce the (false) view that Justices are politicians and always going to rule a certain way. I still remember how Lefties said women were going to be dying of coat-hanger abortions if we nominated Souter.

Comparing her to Harriet Myers is insulting. Kagan is miles ahead of Myers..who was killed partially by Bush's own party not because she was "too centrist" but because she was an intellectual lightweight. The snob factor killed Myer's. Kagan is not a lightweight (insert chunky lesbian joke here), she will have the respect of the other justices--if not judicial agreement.
@ 18 - the blawgosphere is abuzz with the fact she hardly has any published scholarship for being a dean of Harvard.
"Why should we know her orientation?"

Well, she sure is ugly enough to be a lesbian……brrrrrrrrrrr.
@18: She may not have been the most prolific scholar at Harvard Law, but she was one of the greatest Deans ever. And the scholarship she has produced has been outstanding (hence enough to get her first tenure, then the deanship).
Oops - should have been "@30."
Sloggers are hilarious. Kagan wrote a 150-page undergraduate paper describing disappointment that socialism failed in America (you'll be hearing a lot about that in the coming days), and everyone is complaining that she's a right winger. Trust me, there is not a single right winger supporting her. Not one. Every single Republican will vote against her. But still, apparently she's not progressive enough to replace retiring Justice (and moderate Republican) John Paul Stevens. Amazing.
Maybe she is asexual.
My lezdar is going DING DING DING. Of course, I don't care about her sexuality, I just care that she's going to be intelligent and reasonable and not conservative.
Well, at least we can be sure that she'll be attacked just as much from the left as from the right.
Also, the fact she is only 50 makes me more inclined to want her than a 60something "classic" liberal who keeps all the cultural warriors on the left happy. We need someone there for a generation at least.
And right wingers going after Kagan for her stance on military recruitment is odd, since it was a policy of the American Association of Law Schools, which includes Harvard. She wasn't some lone crazy demanding that the military not discriminate. Every member of AALS was required to restrict recruitment by employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation:
[T]he Association has required, pursuant to Executive Committee Regulation 6.19, that employers that seek to use law school career services provide written assurance that they will not discriminate based upon sexual orientation or any other of the protected categories.
And yes, marriage is a fundamental right under the United States constitution. Read more here.
@1 ftw.

Because he needs to have Kagan fail so he can nominate a liberal atheist Justice instead.
So she's best known for packing Hah-vahd Law School with two dozen Far-White nutcases, and then defending the policies of the Bush Administration that Obama is continuing??

And this is considered a 'win' for liberals??

Fuck. This.
I do not care she is Jewish or Christian or Gay or Straight or Black or White or Tall or Short. I care solely if she is capable of discerning and dispassionate jurisprudence.
Yeah for "militarism"- attack and defend our nation at any cost- and continuing to embrace a culture of fear. Such a seductive topic. I just love reading statements laced with fear and cultural narcissism.

" A nominee for the highest court of the land that has a history of impeding the access of our nation's army recruitment procedures in universities and therefore affecting and endangering our nations security is someone that in mine and in many others eyes is not deserving of such a high honor and responsibility" make as much sense as asking, "Who would Jesus Bomb?" Both suggest a mindset that bombing is reasonable and the military is sacrosanct. And, apparently anything that constitutes "endangering our nations security" is unpatriotic and indicates questionable ethics?

So, I'd love to ask a the one with the cross of Christianity in her avatar, who would Jesus bomb and where in the Scriptures does one find verses ascribed to him teaching ideas that the Kingdom of God is a kingdom that promotes "kill or be killed" as a defining characteristics?

Ps. My question is silly and rhetorical. We all know Jesus wasn't associated with bombs and that they didn't even have bombs in ancient Palestine. Besides, he was more of a love your neighbor and turn your cheek kind of guy, anyway. That is what makes "militarism" so very pitiable. Because, we're all going to die someday.
You have to admit, like Obama, she has no balls.
"Fuck. This."

Actually, more like 'Fuck you".

Enjoy the swim back to Loony Left Island...who ya gonna vote for in 2012? Palin?

@ 19 - Well, I'd argue that between the Equal Protection Clause and precedent set by Loving, yeah, any reasonable reading of the 14th Amendment really does have to mandate same-sex marriage rights. But that won't be true until the Court reads it that way. Lawrence, which was admittedly decided on Due Process rather than Equal Protection grounds, made a specific point of not entering judgment on same-sex marriage.
This continues the long drought of appointed Justices from the West.

Because we're not good enough for the Supreme Court, even if we are 50 percent of the GDP.
Unlike Sullivan, she didn't catch AIDS on purpose.
and then

Will is wrong again. Total US gdp is like 9.9 million million, and of that, New England is .6 million million, mideaast is 1.8 great lakes is 1.5 and southeast is 2.2 totalling 5.1, the lions share, okay? of the remainder plains is 0.6 I wouldn't cal that the west. The west, I'd say, includes the southwest (this is texas and okalaham and shit, though, not really the west) at 1.044 million million the rocky mountain states at a piddling .3 million million and the far west at 1.8 million million, so even including texas in with the west, ahem, that is only 3.1 million million or less than one third of the total.

Not half.

Will is wrong again, woo hoo!
however, it should be noted that now we'd have three chix on the court, each one from a separate borough of noo yoik city.

that's diversity for you.

and don't forget we're getting that all important balance of 5 harvard, four yale.

Thankfully, all supremes will have gone to a law school that's not only east of the mississippi, but also east of the hudson river, and in new england.

who says wasp values are not still predominant!
I'm enjoying this new meme of Republicans attacking Obama by trying to compare him to Bush (oil spill = Katrina, Kagan = Miers). In other words, "we admit Bush sucked ass (only metaphorically, we think)".
@ 48 - First, per capita, there are WAY more lawyers on the East Coast than the West. The DC and New York job markets both skew toward law in a way that even other major cities, such as LA, don't. Second, lawyers and judges on the East Coast are far more likely to become involved in the federal government. And third, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is practically a stepping stone to the Supreme Court, because of the sort of issues it tends to deal with. The 2nd Circuit is probably the next most prestigious Circuit, followed by the 9th Circuit.

The other thing is, most of the top law schools are on the East Coast. Of the T14, the West Coast only has one school, Stanford. On the East Coast, you've got Harvard, Yale, Columbia, NYU, Cornell, Penn, Georgetown, UVA, and Duke.

I can understand the frustration, but law - especially constitutional and administrative law, the two areas that really define SCOTUS jurisprudence - is a more prominent practice on the East Coast than the West. (Don't get me wrong - there is little that would make me happier than Justice Reinhardt.)
@40: You're citing something from the University of Missouri-Kansas School of Law?
@48: Anne in MA @53 raises some good points, and I left a comment on the other post where you left that exact comment responding as well.
Kagan ain't no Harriet Miers (thank goodness)...
And how any of those who backed Clarence (I-never-had-an-original-thought-in-my-entire-life-that-wasn't-first-spoon-fed-to-me-by-Anthony-Scalia) Thomas, will be able to seriously oppose Kagan with her credentials, is difficult to comprehend...
@40: Marriage is a fundamental freedom. It is not a "federal constitutional right". The individual states handle marriage, not the Federal government, but they all recognize marriages certified by each other. (Sadly, this will make it a lot harder for gay couples in Dumbfuckistan to get married. Not to mention the hypocritical and borderline-legal stance of red states not recognizing gay marriages performed in blue states.)
"the long drought of appointed Justices from the West."

I guess Sloggers will have to wait another 500 years before an Evergreen State College pass/fail lawyer gets nominated.
@53, I'd love to hop into the substantive discussion, but it's a Monday afternoon, and I can't bill Slog for my time. So I'll just add that Boalt is #7, keeping Stanford company as a west-coast flag bearer.
#53 - I'd say the 9th is the LEAST prestigious circuit, considering how often it's overturned
As usual, Greenwald has a worthy response:

Democrats love to mock the Right for their propensity to engage in party-line, close-minded adherence to their Leaders, but compare what conservatives did with Bush's selection of Harriet Miers to what progressives are almost certain to do with Obama's selection of someone who is, at best, an absolute blank slate.

Rest of the informative post here:

She's definitely correct, there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage. There is a constitutional right to equal protection however, which is where the heart of the marriage argument lies. With these legal types we must parse the language. She happens to be one of the better folks at doing that.
Dyke or not, she looks like a man in "business lady" drag. I've thought so from the first photo of her that I saw.
@ 59 - Oops. That was my mistake. Sorry for the oversight (I thought I was forgetting someone). Nine versus two is still massively skewed, though.

Still, my mistake. Apologies for forgetting Boalt, which really is a top-notch school. I blame it on the rushed post.
I don't see how her comment on gay marriage is in anwyway controversial, can some one fill me in?
@65: Read the posts above yours; it's been covered.
Listen up, pinheads. She's the solicitor general. She knows a hell of a lot more about constitutional law than Harriet Miers.
Nick @ 40: I just cited the first web site that I found that described the leading Supreme Court decisions on the constitutional right to marriage. Does it really matter which law school site cites those decisions??

Venomlash @ 57: You couldn't be more wrong. Sorry. The United States Supreme Court can (and has) struck down state laws that restrict the right to marriage, precisely because the United States Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right.

Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383 (1978) (holding that because the right to marry is of fundamental importance, a Wisconsin statute requiring that any resident under obligation to provide child support may not marry without court approval violated the United States constitution because it significantly interfered with the exercise of a fundamental right, but was not closely tailored to effectuate only sufficiently important state interests).

@68: The Supreme Court is right, but the decision was less about marriage and more about making the states play by the proper rules, since under our system marriage is administered by the states. It is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, I believe, and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the individual States. It's a fundamental freedom, but it's not a federal right.

No, none of those posts answered my questions. As of right now, there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage. Until the courts rule that it does, then there isn't. It is a statement of the present conditions as they currently exist, and I fail to see how that statement would prevent her in ruling in favor of gay marriage when the topic hits the supreme court.
@ 70 - That's basically what I said @ 9. But you're right, it bears repeating.
Dan - I linked to this in a comment on Annie's post, but thought I'd share here anyway. There's an interesting article in the Huffington Post where Larry Lessig pushes back against Greenwald's criticism of Kagan. Thought you'd find it interesting.
Anne @9 Perspective was the best Electronic Cigarettes Pakistan.
@70 Of course!!! ecigs here