©
By Ben Feller
WASHINGTON
President Barack Obama on Monday nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, declaring she would demonstrate the same independence, integrity and passion for the law exhibited by retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
If confirmed by the Senate, Kagan would become the third woman on the high court. At 50, she is relatively young for the lifetime post and could help shape the high court's decisions for decades.
The former Harvard Law School dean "is widely regarded as one of the nation's foremost legal minds," Obama said. He introduced her in the White House East Room as "my friend."
Kagan said she was "honored and humbled by this nomination." She called it "the honor of a lifetime."
"I look forward to working with the Senate and thank you, Mr. President, for this honor of a lifetime."
Obama cited what he called Kagan's "openness to a broad array of viewpoints" and her "fair mindedness."
In a statement issued before Kagan had completed her remarks, the lawmaker who will preside over her confirmation hearing, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, "The Senate should confirm Ms. Kagan before" Labor Day.
"Our constituents deserve a civil and thoughtful debate on this nomination, followed by an up-or-down vote," he said.
The Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said his party would make sure there was a "thorough process, not a rush to judgment" on the nomination.
"Judges must not be a rubber-stamp for any administration. Judges must not walk into court with a preconceived idea of who should win," he said, adding that Republicans would have a vigorous debate on that principle.
Obama began with high praise for the retiring Stevens, a leader of the court's liberals, calling him "a giant in the law," impartial and having respect for legal precedence.
Kagan "embodies the same excellence, independence and passion for the law," Obama said.
"She's an acclaimed legal scholar with a rich understanding of constitutional law. She is a former White House aide, with a lifelong commitment to public service and a firm grasp of the nexus and boundaries between our three branches of government," Obama said. Kagan served in the Clinton White House.
Obama noted that neither Kagan's mother nor father "lived to see this day, but I think her mother would relish this moment. I think she would relish, as I do, the prospect of three women taking their seat on the nation's highest court for the first time in history ... a court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before."
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
A compromise choice
The choice of Kagan shows that Obama knows he doesn't stand a chance getting a more liberal justice confirmed. Previously many Republicans even touted her legal intelligence. Even if she hasn't served on the bench before, her knowledge of the legal system definitely qualifies her. So far from what I have read about her stand on different issues, I don't agree with her completely, but I know there could be a lot worse sitting on the Supreme Court. She is definitely a compromise choice.
Bets on which senator if any
Will ask her about her personal bio. You won't find anything on the net concerning her family. Just isn't there. If she's in the closet as some think at FreeRepublic and other blogs, then why not say so. Afterall, Obama is promoting diversity isn't he? All the personal elements of her upbringing and environment shape her thinking on the constitution. So will Kagan cover-up or open-up.
Great posts
Its refreshing to see an intellectual discussion on this subject rather than the usual name calling. (A few exceptions noted.)
Thanks!
Care to throw your hat into the ring? Seems to be enough anti-Obama and anti-Kagan sentiment already in this thread, so unless you have some "pros" to post, it'll just be redundant.
Here's a pro: She has a very impressive bio--I'd hate to be up against her on Jeopardy some day! Her lack of experience as a judge sounds disturbing on paper. However, it must be noted that William Rehnquist set the precedent in this category...and he served with distinction for 19 years. Any arguments to be made against Kagan based primarily on her lack of judicial experience, her religion, her gender, and her 'questionable' sexual orientation should be left at home.
Ms. Kagan is smart
But is Ms. Kagan WISE? If so, show us examples of her wisdom. Show us how her judgement will make America a more equitable and just place under the law.
Thanks? For what?
So, we don't take into account her gender, her sexual orientation, her religion, and especially her experience? Let's hope she never has to become involved in any issue where these would be important.
Let us do a "What if" situation
"Let's hope she never has to become involved in any issue where these would be important."
Ok, let's try it. "What if" she is gay ? How would she react to having to make an ultimate decision on something that is on the Front burner of the military now? How would she react if she had to vote on Obama's desire to eliminate the "DADT" and allow gays open enlistment in the military? How would she react to the rest of Obama's socialistic desires ? There is a lot of suspicion here.
NavRet
That is my point. With no experience as a judge, she would obviously tend to decide along her ideologies. She's gay, and I would think she would take the side of the gays on issues that would hinder their agenda.
let me be clear
as President Obama is fond of saying. I am not anti-Kagan. I think she's as moderate as conservatives could have reasonably hoped for. She does indeed possess a daunting intellect. I also agree with you about leaving most of what you say being left at home with the exception of judicial experience. It's a legitimate issue. It wouldn't stop me from voting for her were I a US Senator. I just don't understand from a philosophical perspective how some who has never been a judge at a lower level could be tapped to be a jurist at the top of the judicial food chain. It does, however, fit with President Obama's choices of other people - I believe he has the lowest percentage of cabinet members and other key advisors than any President in history. He is obviously far more comfortable around academics than people with real world experience, which makes sense considering his background. Selecting a former Dean of Harvard Law with no actual judicial experience fit this mold.
Forest from the trees
Just like in any profession, those who have all kinds of direct experience in the field can get wrapped up in the regular, 'accepted' dogma of the profession as it stands. Such people can't see the forest from the trees because they are buried in the trees. We've seen this in many different fields, from medicine to the aerospace industry. The same can be applied to the judicial system. The point has to be understood that Supreme Court justices don't MAKE law but decide what is legal and what is not by their interpretation of the Constitution and thus Constitutional law as granted by Article III of the same said document. Having justices sitting on the highest court in the land that are scholars and don't have judicial experience is a great idea: it gives hope for cutting through the legal dogma that plagues this land.