It’s Elena Kagan

Posted on 05/10/2010 at 6:19 am by Bob Cesca

The big political news today:

WASHINGTON — President Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the nation’s 112th justice, choosing his own chief advocate before the Supreme Court to join it in ruling on cases critical to his view of the country’s future, Democrats close to the White House said Sunday.

I don’t know anything about her, so I have no idea whether this is good or bad news. Though Greenwald doesn’t appear to like her. I don’t know whether that’s good or bad news either.

UPDATE: Here’s a thorough primer on Kagan.

This entry was posted in Supreme Court and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://broadwaycarl.blogspot.com Broadway Carl

    Expect “ugly lesbian” jokes from Limbaugh in 5… 4… 3… And I don’t know if she’s a lesbian.

  • Paul W.

    I can’t remember the last time Greenwald liked any of the Obama decisions concerning the judicial branch or his DoJ was concerned. I’m not sure that is the standard you want to go by, I will also point out that Obama’s goal with the SC is not the same as progressives (moving the court leftward vs appointing someone whose interpretation of the Constitution isn’t rooted in a 1787 society).

  • MichaelLA

    HORATIO SANZ IN A WIG, BABY!

  • indyinwc

    When I went to bed last night, I’d never heard of her before. By 7:00am this morning, I now know she’s a Gay Jewish Liberal. Whether any of it’s true, I dunno, but it must be ’cause I’ve read it on the internets.

  • camel54

    This is one of those subjects that I’m painfully unqualified to argue for against anyone. The important facts about her, you know, something she wrote in a paper 30 years ago that makes it clear she will want to do something Hitler-esque if she’s appointed will be exposed soon enough. Plus, she will have been a member of some group that clearly shows she’s a this-ist or a that-ist. But most importantly, we will discover that she will not comment on hypotheticals and will be asked the same question 100 times and be lectured at for many hours before this nonsense concludes.

  • http://radicalsahm.blogspot.com/ Radical SAHM

    The more illuminating aspect of this nomination is that Obama could have chosen a progressive and he didn’t. Can we dispense with the “he can only do so much with the hand he’s dealt” rationalizations now? Obama does not advocate for the progressive agenda. He’s a centrist and the center moves.And what’s all this about not listening to GG? He is relentlessly critical of Obama so he can’t be correct? GG is one of the most rigorous and intellectually honest writers out there. if you can push him aside because he’s not a fan of your guy then you’ve crossed the line from supporter to follower.

  • http://bloggingdottie.blogspot.com/ Angie Villa

    A more gender balanced Supreme Court makes sense bc studies prove women are more empathetic than men & men act more empathetic around women. Women earn almost half of all law degrees awarded each year. Kagan is highly qualified, and well respected on both sides. Thank you President Obama!

  • Ron

    Liberal? Oh, God, she is nothing like a Liberal. If you study her history and the history of closeted Gay politicians, you’ll understand that she will do a century’s worth of harm – dismantling civil rights immediately. (Remember Roy Cohn?) She will move the Supreme Court far to the right to demonstrate that she is no Lesbian. Like all closeted gay politicians, she will surge to the right to “prove” that she is no queer. This is a very, VERY bad thing. How many ranting right-wing nuts rail against teh Gays only to later be found to be Gay. We don’t need this kind of self-inflicted pain. Please don’t open this can of worms! Rent “Outrage” and see how this choice is a major mistake.PSMichaelLA – Roy Cohen was a Gay and Jewish AND wrote that he considered himself “Liberal” Kagen is a bad, bad choice for America (but perhaps a step towards Amerika.

  • eljefejeff

    Radical, have you read Greenwald’s criticism of her? It’s borderline ridiculous. Greenwald, like everyone else, hears that she’s one of the more moderate choices Obama interviewed, so he found a few things that he didn’t like about her. It didn’t matter who. Greenwald hates Obama. It’s that simple. Therefore I don’t listen to him, just as I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, because I know he’ll never give Obama the benefit of the doubt on anything.But I still would’ve preferred Diane Wood. I don’t get this pick. I’m glad she’s a woman but that’s about it.

  • Ron

    Sorry – spelling is Cohn. Do rent “Outrage”; it lays out a damning history of closeted homosexuals.

  • http://radicalsahm.blogspot.com/ Radical SAHM

    @Eljefejeff.I have read GG on Kagan. Why would I be defending the guy if I didn’t read him?Likening GG to RL just because neither of them like Obama is madness. You HAVE to listen to fact based dissent or you abandon rationality and join a cult. Our highest calling is to doubt every word that comes out of our leaders mouths not to take it as gospel.GG would have liked DW, too. He makes a great case for why she isn’t the nominee. Have you read it?

  • eljefejeff

    I read his support of Wood but that was after it appeared Kagan would be the nominee.Greenwald’s idea of fact based dissent is that she must have an anti-woman bias because she didn’t hire enough women at Harvard. And he brings up her very tenuous links to Goldman Sachs and then admits it’s minor.Can’t stand Greenwald. Sorry. I agree with him more than Rush obviously but it’s hard for me to listen to GG’s opinions on the president because he reflexively dislikes pretty much everything about him, therefore he has no credibility IMO.

  • http://radicalsahm.blogspot.com/ Radical SAHM

    I suspect that if these same criticisms were being leveled at a republican president over a conservative nominee progressives would be falling over themselves in agreement and making much ado about “nonsense” like how many women got tenure under the nominee. I’m not saying it’s pertinent, I’m saying it would be considered pertinent if it weren’t Obama’s nominee.

  • Allonfla

    @Radical: I suspect that if Greenwald had given a thumbs up to Kagan then you and others on the Left would not have a problem with her – even with the same resume.This isn’t about “Obama dealing with the hand he was dealt” – that makes no sense whatsoever in this case. You cannot make the case that Greenwald knows Kagan better than the president and his vetting team. And I’m pretty tired of people on the Left declaring once again that Obama’s not a Progressive. There are only about 5% of you that think that.

  • eljefejeff

    Radical, with all due respect, I disagree. I’m a rabid liberal at heart, but I realize that in the current political climate, any gains our side will make are going to very incremental. The best thing we got accomplished was electing Obama. We are making progress on his watch that we wouldn’t have made under Bush, McCain, HRC, or anyone else who had a halfway decent shot at the White House. I just wish folks like you and Greenwald would appreciate how fortunate we are that he is our president instead of focusing on everything he’s doing wrong.With that in mind, criticize him for not doing enough while he has the chance. I think he’s been too timid sometimes, and I didn’t want him to nominate Kagan either, but as Allonfla pointed out, Obama knows her better than almost anyone else does, certainly more than we do. So do you trust his judgment or not? I do. But the criticism from the far left too often accuses Obama of being a closet conservative which might sound good in your circle but sounds ludicrous to most of us.As far as liberals going nuts over a similar hiring record of a conservative, you’re right, you and Greenwald probably would be all over it, but it wouldn’t make it any less ridiculous of an accusation. Her poor record of hiring minorities is one thing. Criticizing a woman for not hiring other women is just grasping at straws.

  • http://radicalsahm.blogspot.com/ Radical SAHM

    @allonfla if it’s easier to dismiss me as a unquestioning disciple of GG, then go ahead. I’m not, just as I am not necessarily “Left” (an enormous and largely meaningless banner you must admit) but if that’s easier than acknowledging that Obama chose the easier win over the better choice that’s ok. You are tired of people like me who have eyes to see and ears to hear who KNOW that Obama is not a progressive (a good man, a smart man, but a centrist).@Eljefejeff I am glad we got Obama and not McCain. It was with no help from me, but I am glad. Ironically, I do trust his judgment. I trust it in so far as I give him full faith and credit for knowing the reasonable consequences of his judgments. I do not believe he is making concessions, he is governing from the center where he likes to be.Did I say the tenure argument against Kagan was legit? I feel like the said exactly the opposite. Have I said ANYTHING against her except that she wasn’t the best choice? I said I respected GG for being relentless and dealing in fact, I didn’t say I agree with everything he’s ever said. For craps sake, I just posted something about her being good on LGB rights issues. Paint with too wide a brush much?Also, could you please tell me what “my circle” is because I have no fucking clue and it sounds like it might be fun.

  • brutlyhonest

    Don’t you just love it when the left tears itself apart?

    Remember the good old days when GG was tearing apart the bush admin for all their illegal crap? Man did we love his factual reporting then. “Too bad” he has chosen to take the same harsh line with the Obama admin so now we have to belittle him and attack his integrity.I don’t always agree with Glenn (I’ve posted comments proving that on his site and here), but much of the attacks on him for being vocally against kagan seems strangely like the other sides devotion to the infallibility of w.