Who will the newest SUPREME COURT Justice? What is the Strategy?
 

It is unfortunate because George W. Bush certainly did not stick to the center. Now we have some of the most conservative judges on the bench thanks to him.

Supreme Court nominations are not a time to play nice and try to be bi-partisan, they have lifetime effects.

I think that, just as with his last nominee, Obama will cave to the Republicans and move the court further to the right. It frustrates me to no end that they can get away with doing something as blatantly manipulative and unprecedented as threaten a filibuster when they don't even know who the candidate will be. Someone needs to stop these people; sadly this administration and this Senate won't.

Between the pending further shift to the right of the court and the treasonous language being spoken by conservatives and their representatives (Oklahoma being the latest example), I fear for our future. I've long said that if there is a revolution in this country, it won't be by the liberals to move us forward, but rather by the conservatives to move us backward. The revolution may have begun.

I'd strike Granholm from the list. She'd never make it through the confirmation hearing.

Although, she is not my top choice for the bench, this was to be expected.

Elena Kagan 'Gay' Whisper Campaign Enrages Rights Groups
Sam Stein, The Huffington Post


Leading gay rights group are accusing Republicans of trying to rile up their conservative base by launching a whisper campaign against potential Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan -- suggesting the current Solicitor General is a closeted lesbian even though she's not.

In its first entree into the upcoming Supreme Court nomination process, the group Human Rights Campaign blasted the increasingly public discussion of Kagan's sexuality, calling it a play "straight out the right-wing playbook."

"Even though the majority of Americans couldn't care less about a nominee's sexual orientation, the far right will continue to be shameless with their whisper campaigns to drum up their base and raise money off of prejudice," Michael Cole, a spokesperson for the group emailed, in a statement to the Huffington Post

In a separate interview, Jean-Marie Navetta, spokeswoman from PFLAG -- Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays -- accused people of trying to manufacture scandal out of thin air.

"People love taking part in rumors like this, whether they're gay or not, because it implies that there's some sort of scandal going on there. And the bottom line is, it doesn't matter and it shouldn't matter," she said. "But we hear it all the time... it's a gossip point for people. And I think it could certainly be used, or be perceived to be used by some as a way to discredit [Kagan], even though we all know that it does not matter and it should not matter."

The comments come a day after CBS published a blog by Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, in which he asserted that choosing Kagan would help Obama "please" much of his base, because she would be the "first openly gay justice." The White House reacted strongly to the assertion, relaying that Kagan is, in fact, straight. It was the first public pushback by the administration in defense of any potential Supreme Court nominee.

Conservatives know no shame.

Why did the White House issue a statement that she is straight?

Why not just avoid answering such suppositions--by responding, doesn't that imply that people have a right to know the sexual orientation of the nominee and that it would affect their nomination?

By issuing no statement, wouldn't that be sending a message that sexual orientation is not a consideration when deciding the best SCJ, that people do not have the right to know of someone's orientation--that, either way, someone's sexuality is not a consideration?

Why issue the denial?

If Kagan wanted to address it, that's a different story.

I would agree with you if we were dealing with reasonable people to whom a logical argument could be given which they would understand and acknowledge. We're not dealing with reasonable people, we're dealing with manipulators who have no shame when it comes to telling lies and ignorant or homophobic followers who buy the lies.

The White House, Elena Kagan, and Me

Ben DomenechEditor of The New Ledger
Posted: April 16, 2010 12:44 PM


It's an odd thing to get attacked by the White House for a blog post, and odder still when the attack is for something mentioned in passing, and intended to highlight a political positive about a potential Supreme Court nominee.

My recent blog post at The New Ledger, crossposted at CBS News, mentioned that I thought the appointment of Elena Kagan, along with potential nominees Pam Karlan and Kathleen Sullivan, would mark the first instance of an openly gay nominee to the Supreme Court. I included it as a political positive, describing it as a "Plus" that "would please much of Obama's base." The issue is already out there: Karlan and Sullivan are both openly gay, and one need not look too far for arguments being made on left-wing blogs that it would be an affirmative good to appoint a lesbian.

As Sam Stein writes: "The White House reacted strongly to the assertion, relaying that Kagan is, in fact, straight. It was the first public pushback by the administration in defense of any potential Supreme Court nominee."

I erroneously believed that Ms. Kagan was openly gay not because of, as Stein describes it, a "whisper campaign" on the part of conservatives, but because it had been mentioned casually on multiple occasions by friends and colleagues -- including students at Harvard, Hill staffers, and in the sphere of legal academia -- who know Kagan personally. And as the reaction from Julian Sanchez and Matt Yglesias shows, I was not alone in that apparently inaccurate belief.

Look, it's 2010 -- no one should care if a nominee to any position is gay. The fact that conservative Senators John Cornyn and Jeff Sessions have recently expressed openness to confirming an openly gay nominee to the Court is a good thing. Senators should look at things that actually matter -- evaluating a nominee's decisions, approach to the law, their judgment and ability -- to see whether there are actually good and relevant reasons to oppose the nomination. That's all.

But that's about getting the job. As a political matter, there are ramifications for nominations to the Supreme Court, and the core elements of a nominee's biography, like his or her family life, are inescapable when the nation focuses on such a high-profile life-tenured appointment. Making history is a noteworthy thing: many in the Latino community were pleased when Sonia Sotomayor (who I supported) was nominated, and many in the LGBT community would welcome the opportunity to confirm an openly gay justice. Glenn Greenwald and others agree with me on this point, and I can't think why anyone would disagree.

That's why I listed it as a positive: after so much frustration with the White House from the gay community on lack of action on other policy fronts, an openly gay nominee might serve to mend that strained relationship.

As I told Howard Kurtz, and I say again here, I offer my sincere apologies to Ms. Kagan if she is offended at all by my repetition of a Harvard rumor in a speculative blog post. It still seems odd to me that the White House would single out this statement for attack, adamantly slamming closed a door that nobody was trying to open, as opposed to issuing a mild correction. As Yglesias notes, "I'd like to think we're past the point where saying someone's a lesbian counts as a dastardly 'accusation,'" and it certainly was not intended as such.

But on the other hand, if I were Ms. Kagan, I'd feel pretty good about the fact that the White House specifically responded to this, and did so in such an aggressive and forceful manner -- after all, it seems like quite a clue as to who the pick will be, doesn't it?

A bit of what Liu would face...
 

I so want Obama to show some backbone and nominate Liu for the Supreme Court! Sure, I want him on the
9th Appellate Court, but this is one of the brightest analytical legal minds in this country and should be a Supreme Court Justice! I'm not simply saying this because he would be left of center, I find his ideas about the Constitution as an evolving document that must reflect what is in the present as very much in keeping with what the framers had in mind... a living, breathing, thinking framework that can stand the test of time! Why else would it have been conceived with amendment processes and within a very short time, adorned with the Bill of Rights! Not a means to hold a nation in perpetual infancy as strict constitutionalists believe.

I believe Liu is the stuff of Justice Brandeis as has been discussed by many of the analysts commenting on the new appointment before Obama. I have always loved his comment about sunlight (transparency) being the best disenfectant. Was it not transparency that Obama spoke of so much while running, and dealing with the financial crisis? Then threw out a very limited set of standards for lobbyists that really does nothing to stop DC insiders from being consultants to lobbyists! Brandeis called out corporate welfare as we know it today back in the 1930's!

Hell, yes, he would face fire in the confirmation process, but any and all of Obama's appointees would. Liu would more than handle the confirmation hearings, he'd whoop those puppies to the ground with his brillance.

Obama needs to appoint an unabashed liberal... oh, that's right, he is not one, himself.

Guess we have to just wait and see.... Thus far, the short-list is not doing much for me....


-----------------------
WASHINGTON—Senate Republicans fiercely criticized President Barack Obama's choice for a seat on a San Francisco-based federal appellate court Friday, in an intensifying test of his ability to install an unabashed liberal.

Nominee Goodwin Liu (Loo) tried to deflect the criticism by assuring lawmakers that his personal views would "never have a role" in his opinions if confirmed to a seat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.



Republicans blast Obama's appellate court choice

Republicans threw back at Liu his sharp criticism of two Supreme Court justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, when they were nominees. GOP senators told Liu he had no judicial experience, and said they worried he would give the government sweeping powers over Americans' lives.

At a divisive confirmation hearing, Democrats countered that Republicans were applying a double-standard, since they have voted for some GOP nominees who were conservative activists who assured senators they would not bring their personal views to the bench.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the committee, said Republican opposition to Liu was "instantaneous and has continued. They are being unfair."

Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. said they were incensed at Liu's remarks in opposition to Alito's nomination.

Liu, a University of California, Berkeley, law professor, said Alito's vision was an America "where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy ... where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance ... where the FBI may install a camera where you sleep ... where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man, absent ... analysis showing discrimination."

Kyl called those comments "vicious and emotionally and racially charged."

Liu said he used "unnecessarily colorful language" and added, "I have the highest regard for Justice Alito's career." He said those remarks followed a 14-page analysis of Alito's rulings. He said Roberts "has an extraordinarily distinguished record."

Leahy fumed that Kyl's comments were "outrageous."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, noting that Liu omitted material from a committee questionnaire, asked, "Can you assure us this was not an act of contempt?"

Liu said it was not, and noted he previously apologized for inadvertently omitting information.

Both parties in the past have tried -- and sometimes did -- block court nominees of the other party. Obama is slowly remaking federal appeals and lower district courts, following eight years of conservative judges picked by former President George W. Bush.

He now will have a second Supreme Court pick to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Depending on Obama's pick, the Liu nomination could serve as a template for a partisan fight likely to follow over the high court nominee.

At the hearing, the barrage of Republican attacks prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. to ask Liu, 39, how he was holding up.

Liu said he was fine. Feinstein said, "You've got amazing cool."

Sessions, contrasting Liu to Roberts and Alito -- both appellate judges before their elevation -- asked, "Have you argued any case before the Supreme Court or the court of appeals?"

Liu said he never argued before the Supreme Court and argued once before a federal appeals court.

The professor and associate dean at the University of California, Berkeley, has written extensively about his liberal views on welfare and applying the Constitution to changing needs of society.

Liu said he knows that appellate judges cannot make "new determinations as if they were writing on a blank slate," and added his views usually were directed at policymakers, not judges.

He told Sessions, "I would have no difficulty or objection of any sort to enforcing the law as written in enforcing the death penalty."

Liu is nominated for the 9th Circuit, which hears appeals from lower courts in California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii and Montana.

AP friday, April 16

What's this weird thing about Kagan being outed by CBS or Huffpo and then taking it back when the Obama administration yelled? i can't follow it. Too early, i guess.

She's another climber instead of a hard-core academic or experienced judge, but that's that way it works, i guess. She seems impressive.

I have no idea if she is conservative, moderate or progressive/liberal. She has no record as a judge to make a decision about her ideology.

I do think she is certainly qualified based on her history as a lawyer, a constitutional law professor and as solicitor general.

I hope during her confirmation hearing, she will talk about her views instead of doing what Alito and Roberts did.......which was not talk.

i don't think an old buddy of Obama's from when they taught at Chicago together is likely to be that conservative. But there is no history to judge her by. All we really know is that she is very bright and very ambitious. She has reached the peak of her career at 50. Wonder how she will manage to stop striving?

This is kinda cute -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/franci..._b_570540.html

Wow. Sad.
 

Yeah, but human too. NOw, if she IS gay, it really is sad. If not, just a mother wanting her daughter to have a husband. Ironic since the mother was sick and widowed. The belief that a partner will save you from living and dying alone clearly had not been proven true for her, but . . .

i am sure she just wanted happiness for her daughter. i hope.

i personally think that big-time strivers often lead very unbalanced lives. i am glad they exist. They bring good things into our lives. Obama seems to have it all. But it IS harder for women. And that's a fact.

One of my friends is a Dean of a college. She has an illustrious career by my standards, but her husband had to pretty much sacrifice his because they have children. They moved from state to state, and it's a major hassle to get your teaching credential accepted by other states. So the husband, a teacher, taught part time at community colleges and did all kinds of other jobs, but not classroom teaching. Right now he is a case worker at a children's mental hospital. This is a guy who was BORN to be a teacher of students with special needs. i sometimes think of all the kids he didn't help. BUT i also see the two wonderful kids he raised for the most part. So, i don't know.

Where Kagan is concerned, if she all shine, all about getting there, we will know soon. We will know if there is a person behind the gown, someone who has been working for the opportunity to make a difference. We'll see. i hope so. She clerked for Thurgood Marshall. One can hope she has a lot in common with him.

Anyway, i thought the article was kinda cute. Real. Again, unless she's a dyke, and then it's a whole nother tale to tell.

i dunno. i am a feminist, but i think that putting career first, while a fine choice, is not something that should be celebrated as an absolutely noble act.

And i can understand how family members might feel a loss -- the loss of grandchildren, of time spent with the family, etc.

However, who knows?

When even I'm thinking "would we have this conversation about a single man appointed to the bench", something is seriously wrong.

The fact is that the culture is having this converstation. And i am too. People like her freak me the fuck out -- whether male or female.

She is the classic striver. Classic. So is Obama. i am glad they exist. They are good enough to manage to convince the banal and the conservative that they have a right to exist and to exist at the top. And we need them there. Some of them manage to have some kind of balance. i really hope Obama is one of them. Some of them are all about the trip to the top and have nothing to offer once they're there. If this woman is one of them, we will know within a year or two.

Most of them, male and female, whether married or single, have limited lives. i find that scary.

i do not celebrate that kind of ambition. i do not hold it up as a role model for young women. God help us if that's what we have to do to be successful and to make a difference. Fortunately, it's not.

Before the kind of media scrutiny and party polarization we have now, ordinary flawed qualified people could attain these heights. Now, not so much. Now if you don't toe the line almost your entire life, with your eyes on the prize, you are not gonna make it. i am amazed and happy that Obama did that. i will hopefully be glad that she has done it. i think it's weird human behavior though, and i am really sorry our culture seems to require it.

Our talking about it is NOT the problem. The problem is that men can marry and have children and still pretty much devote their lives to their career. It's unusual for a woman to be in this position.

And my point is that it's fucked up for ANYBODY to do that, family or not. It's insane. You gotta have a scary lust for power to carry it off. Those people scare me shitless. Including Obama. But i like his politics, and it takes that kind of committment to succeed at those heights for an African American or a woman. It takes a lot of it for anybody to succeed at that level these days. But do i like or trust people like that? HELL NO. FUCK NO.

My thoughts here go to the generational differences between mother & daughter.... and to the fact that many women do not have positive relationships with their mothers, especially around the these generational opinions of what constitutes fulfillment for women.

Like so many accomplished women in what remains a man's world (let's not lid ourselves), Kagan is driven and most likely had to make many decisions to get where she has been and is going that put aside things like marriage (same-sex or otherwise) or having children (as a partnered or single woman).

Hummmm.... speaking to balance (Martina brought this up).... her ability to hear other's opinions prior to making her own tells me she has good communication skills. Read or listen to some of her presentations to the Supreme Court. She also includes key points of understanding of what a justice stated prior to making her point back. I don't believe she is driven beyond being human... I think she actually took care of herself in building her career and not trying to be super woman. Unless you do have a supportive partner (one a whole hell of a lot of money) that does share with all of that has to get done in life, trying to do it all is not a healthy road for everyone in these kinds of professions. Then again, I tend to be pro-partnership/marriage- as long as it is one in which there is sharing of labor! Not everyone is.


Something that is bothering me is her record at Harvard in hiring so many non-POC in tenure-track positions. Then again, as the first female Dean, I'm sure she had her share of criticism and every single hire was scrutinized.

Personally, I’m glad she has not been on the bench. Guess that’s up for debate.

I am not thrilled with Kagan’s appointment overall, however. Too middle of the road for me. And she just doesn’t strike me as a champion of civil liberties, especially concerning detainees as in Gitmo. I feel like Obama played it safe, again….

Just have to study her more, I guess. Right now all of the initially criticisms are being spewed. Sounds like there are some issues about her ideas about the First Amendment.... Dunno...[/COLOR][/FONT]

By Emma Ruby-Sachs
 

Elena Kegan
 

This guy says that criticizing her as careerist when Roberts' record was just the same is sexist. i would say the same about him. People who have planned and carried out a career trajectory from the bassonette make me nervous -- but whatever.

There is no info about her of any heft. We will have to wait and hope. i hate that government is like this. We can't KNOW what we are getting because to have a record means that you are too easy to tear down. It's an argument not to stand for anything. To wait and hold on until it's your opportunity. What kind of people does that create? Not my kind.

http://trueslant.com/jamellebouie/20...little-sexist/

Here's some more of this "sexist" criticism. Sorry i agree


from http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opini...Careerist-3562

Here's the whole David Brooks thing. i must say i am rarely a fan of Brooks. But i think he is on the money here --

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/opinion/11brooks.html

This is from one of the comments made on Brooks' piece --

There is an episode of West Wing in which they nominate two justices at the same time. They are going to go safe, and they take a chance and nominate two brilliant jurists, one liberal and one conservative. The liberal is played by Glenn Close, and the conservative by William Fichtner. It's a great episode. Like so many West Wing episodes, it's wish fulfillment stuff. It will never happen. But god, do you want it to.

i watched it with the commentaries. And there's a scene with Toby and Josh just listening to these two argue law. They are like, is this the best thing EVER? The commentary said something like how often do two people like Toby and Josh even meet people who can run circles around them. The thing is that these characters -- the judges -- were not only bright, they took stands. They had real records. Before the compromise of appointing them both, neither stood a chance of getting a nomination.

And no one like that does. What truly committed person could live her whole life not speaking her truth? GIves me chills.

And to have gotten Dean of Harvard Law at that age with those limited creds just meant that she was a good administrator/ass kisser and that her superiors did recognize that she was going places and wanted to be part of it.

Well now she's in a place where she is totally free. There are no superiors to please. There is no place higher to go. There is no staff to administrate other than her clerks. Sure she has consensus building skills, but if she doesn't have a real commitment to SOMETHING, that's all going to just to kind balance out and count for nothing.

She has to have some serious chops if she is going to make a name for herself, which is something she clearly she cares about. She sure hasn't spent these years working on the ideas and practicing the intellectual and moral capabilities that would make her a great jurist. The good thing is she's just 50, and she has some time. i am praying for her because we need someone on that court.

Similar: The speculation around the appointment of David Souter, a single man.

Dissimilar: The discussion of stance, and not the political one...Softball Photo

TPM video about the softball pic [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSyOEnerVQc&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Cable News Wonders: If A Judicial Nominee Plays Softball, Does That Make Her Gay?[/nomedia]