Kagan nominated to the Supremes

[Anne]

So, how's everyone's Fantasy SCOTUS bracket looking? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10court.html?hp

The HLS Twitter has been blowing up since the 10am EST announcement by POTUS that Elena Kagan's getting the nom for Stevens' SCOTUS seat. UChicago's jumping on board too, since Kagan's a former UChicago prof. So, what do we think? Good choice? Bad choice? Easy confirmation? Fillibuster-worthy?

Let's keep it civil, people.

And, of course, I couldn't resist:

The Supremes-Stop! In The Name Of Love

[LawSchoolGuy]

HA! Props on the vid.

As far as Kagan, I think she was the most "bipartisan choice" Pres. Obama could make. All of the other potential noms were too left-leaning and would probably have caused more trouble during confirmation than they wanted. But isn't Kagan kind of a newby to the political scene? I thought that her appt. as Solicitor General was the first time she had really been in politics.

[Anne]

I'm bumping this just because I'm shocked -- SHOCKED -- that no one on here has an opinion about Kagan's nom.

LawSchoolGuy, I agree with you about her "lack" of political experience but, at the end of the day, the only real political thing about a SCOTUS candidate is the nomination--it all ends up being a lot more about ideologies once the nom is confirmed. She's the safe choice, after all. I don't really expect much controversy surrounding her confirmation, since there really isn't a paper trail to follow for her. Then again, the very lack of a paper trail might be what makes it a controversial confirmation in the first place. I'm interested to see how it pans out. 

[Anne]

Eep, I may have spoken too soon in regards to the "not much controversy" Kagan confirmation: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/taking-a-closer-look-at-elena-kagans-description-of-confirmation-hearings-as-a-vapid-and-hollow-charade/

"It’s Elena Kagan’s “wise Latina” comment. Just as Court watchers dug up a controversial, eight-year-old statement by Sonia Sotomayor last year, they have unearthed a law review article that Kagan authored in 1995 when she was a young law professor at the University of Chicago. In it, she criticized the Supreme Court confirmation hearings as they existed then (and now) as a “vapid and hollow charade,” in desperate need of reform to get at a nominee’s true judicial philosophy and views." (go to ATL for the full write-up)

[Jeffort]

I don't know what to make of Kagan given her lack of a record since she has not been a judge before.  She seems to be a bit of a vague enigma or possibly the mystery prize at the bottom of a box of cracker jacks.  You have to buy the box, open it and eat the candy before you get to see what you really picked and got as the mystery prize that was previously buried underneath sugary caramel coating.  

It will be interesting to see how the confirmation hearings go with this nominee.  Hopefully there will be some efforts to ask good questions and get a better picture of Kagan's judicial philosophies and leanings.  I think we really need to know more about this woman before she gets a stamp of approval.  

I do have reason to be a bit leery about her.  It's nothing super convincing, but it is a sign.  Whenever Fox or MSNBC news discusses her and they show a picture of Kagan my dog starts growling and barking at the TV.  My dog only growls and barks at the TV for a few things, another being when Pelosi is talking.     Seriously, my dog has to be more politically informed than most voters.  She sits on the couch all day watching Fox news and MSNBC news.  If you leave her in the room with the TV off, she will turn it on and tune it to Fox news!  I kid you not, she has done that several times!

[LawSchoolGuy]

UMich Law has actually compiled a site with all her writings, etc. It's pretty comprehensive from what I can tell: http://www.law.umich.edu/library/info/kagan/Pages/default.aspx

And LOL at Jeffort's politicized pooch.