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

[Martina]

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

[Martina]

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

One only needs to recall Ted Kennedy's hatchet job of Robert Bork in his 1987 Senate confirmation hearings for Associate Justice to see in Elena Kagan the logical evolution of one who refuses to be "borked". One can only conclude that by allowing Kennedy to get away with what he did for ideological gain, we created Elena Kagan -- we did it to ourselves. As you indirectly suggest, the true tragedy lies in the loss of the profound ideas that might have engaged us more effectively on the issues of the day if only she had been free to express them.

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.

[AtLast]

I don't know if the confirmation hearings will demonstrate much about Kagan as a jurist. This does go to the not wanting to[I] be borked[/I phenomenon. These hearings have become too politicized for any real substance to come through.

I just don't have much of a feeling for her at this time. Some of the progressive analysis I have viewed does make me wonder about her stance on presidential powers and the use of torture by the US. Concerning these, I always flash on Dick Cheny!

I was very jazzed about Sotomeyer even though I could not put her into a liberal/progressive stance really. Her record as a prosecutor was pretty moderate and even conservative. But, I had a sense of her as someone that stands up for things. Kagan feels wishy-washy to me.

Does anyone have an idea about her and same-sex marriage? Obama does not support it. But, I doubt if he would support a federal constitutional amendment stating that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Any information about this would be appreciated.