Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts United States Politics

Obama Will Nominate Elena Kagan To the Supreme Court 413

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the let-the-battle-begin dept.
Mr Pink Eyes writes "President Obama has made his choice to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court that was left by the retirement of Justice Stevens. According to this article that choice will be Elena Kagan."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Will Nominate Elena Kagan To the Supreme Court

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday May 10, 2010 @08:37AM (#32154462) Journal

    Consensus to people like Barack Obama means to reverse your opinions and agree with him.

    Seriously? Well I guess that's what you get when you link to "America's Watchtower." Check out his About Me [americaswatchtower.com] page for some clues.

    Here's Reuters for some less biased sanity [reuters.com].

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Hal_Porter (817932)

      Reuters? Pfft!

      I always get my news from actungjudenverboten.com. I like their arts coverage.

    • Less biased, but says nothing about the nominee. Very shallow article (I haven't read the one in the submission).

      • by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld@nOSpaM.gmail.com> on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:15AM (#32154924) Homepage
        Not much to know. She's managed to get quite far in her career without making it known what she believes in.
        • Sounds like a politician.

        • And has never had any experience as a Judge.
          • Not required for nomination to the Supreme Court.
          • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:40AM (#32155270) Homepage Journal

            And has never had any experience as a Judge.

            That's neither exceptional, nor necessarily a bad thing. Judges tend to be pretty far removed from the way most Americans live.

            • by thedonger (1317951) on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:47AM (#32155376)

              That's neither exceptional, nor necessarily a bad thing. Judges tend to be pretty far removed from the way most Americans live.

              The Supreme Court is about the constitution. Congress is about the way "most American's live."

              • Most Americans... (Score:3, Insightful)

                by weston (16146)

                Congress is about the way "most American's live."

                Most Americans are apparently lawyers and/or successful businessmen, then.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by raddan (519638) *
                Nonsense. The Supreme Court is about BALANCE OF POWER. The Constitution is an old document. It is simple and elegant, but not perfect. Many laws over many years have clarified and reinterpreted its meaning, as has court precedent, and the administrative guidelines devised to clarify those laws for government personnel. Interpretation-- of the facts and of the laws-- is a fundamental activity of any judge, with that activity being more important as you move up in the judicial system. There is simply NO
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by jimbolauski (882977)
              It's not a Judges job to look at the common American and make decisions, it's their job to take into account the Constitution and court precedent and make their argument based on logic not a warm fuzzy feeling for helping the little guy. Being an administrator at a college and a lawyer for Clinton, does not qualify a person to make these decisions. A justice of the supreme court should be there because of their qualifications not their political capital.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Hordeking (1237940)

                it's their job to take into account the Constitution and court precedent and make their argument based on logic

                No, their job is to interpret the Constitution when a major question arises. Their job doesn't require them take into account precedent, though they usually do. (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/g/stare_decisis.htm)

                The principle of judicial review was established by Marbury V. Madison in 1803 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States). It didn't establish Stare Decisis (precedents).

                As a rule, lower courts have to abide by the decisions handed down from a highe

        • by hvm2hvm (1208954) on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:37AM (#32155236) Homepage
          That seems a good thing for being at the supreme court, no? Yes, she might have a secret agenda but it's more likely she's just not very biased about stuff.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by IICV (652597)

          Gasp! So you mean she keeps her mouth shut and lets her work speak for itself? She's already more qualified than 80% of all politicians.

          Or do you expect everyone to blare on about how they're "for real America"?

    • by Bananatree3 (872975) on Monday May 10, 2010 @08:54AM (#32154688)
      Slashdot has been rundown by PolySci Majors!! RUN AWAY! Run of the hills!
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:00AM (#32154756)

        Slashdot has been rundown by PolySci Majors!! RUN AWAY! Run of the hills!

        Slow news day, and throwing some politics into the mix always generates some page hits. It's either that or the umpteenth "iPad defeats netbooks, AIDS, and communism" article.

    • by scotch (102596) on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:21AM (#32155006) Homepage

      Choice quote from the About Me page:

      "... if it contradicts religious beliefs it should not be legal."

      • by sorak (246725)

        Choice quote from the About Me page:

        "... if it contradicts religious beliefs it should not be legal."

        Nice...So, under his thinking, marriage is a violation of the First Amendment.

  • by dohzer (867770) on Monday May 10, 2010 @08:47AM (#32154568) Homepage

    Today Paris Hilton walked past an internet router.

  • Welcome (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I, for one, welcome our new man-suit wearing overlords.

  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:01AM (#32154782) Homepage

    That squicking noise you're hearing is political talking heads and late night comedians the length and breadth of the nation literally creaming their pants. Warm gushes of pure joy as their jobs are secured for the next 3 months.

    Synopsis of the candidate: the rule of law is like, the foundation of our society and stuff, and should totally apply to absolutely everyone except for Bad People.

    Not, let me grab some popcorn before the shrieking begins from both sides. What a perfect compromise candidate - everyone will hate her.

  • by aaaaaaargh! (1150173) on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:02AM (#32154790)

    I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to put Krogans in the Supreme Court. After all, they were genetically engineered as a weapon and so it might not be safe for the other members of the court. On the other hand, it might give me and Obama Paragon points that might open interesting conversation options later. What do your think?

  • Glenn Greenwald (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gambino21 (809810) on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:30AM (#32155140)

    Glenn Greenwald has written several articles over the past few weeks detailing what information is available about Kagan.
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan [salon.com]
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/10/kagan/ [salon.com]

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:39AM (#32155262)

    I agree with this article [volokh.com], that while she may be a liberal candidate, she seems to be very willing to seriously consider alternative viewpoints.

    You have to expect a liberal candidate is going to nominate someone with a liberal bent, so to nominate someone who can truly work with diverse viewpoints on an issue is, I think, a pretty thoughtful and intelligent nomination.

    As to those wanting this story off Slashdot - just who do you think is going to be involved in the end-game of various copyright and FCC regulation? The largest issues will all end up in the supreme court. Like it or not, the future of what is possible with technology is intertwined with the laws that define what CAN be realistically presented to the market. In an ideal world, wouldn't you love to have her views on copyright extension, and the constitutionality of the ACTA treaty brought up?

    You can chose to ignore politics and focus only on technology - but politics is in no way going to ignore YOU.

  • This woman is evil. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jcr (53032) <jcr.mac@com> on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:57AM (#32155482) Journal

    She has argued before the supreme court that if a prosecutor manufactures evidence, causing the conviction of an innocent person, that the prosecutor should not be subject to a lawsuit from the person they fucked over.

    She has no interest in justice, only in power.

    -jcr

  • by moosesocks (264553) on Monday May 10, 2010 @11:05AM (#32156880) Homepage

    SCOTUSblog has a great writeup [scotusblog.com] on Kagan.

    Although they ultimately come out in her favor, the writers make a great presentation of their evidence, and certainly know a thing or two about the Supreme Court.

    It's definitely worth a read before sounding off on your initial gut reactions to the nomination. It's also your right and prerogative to research the case against Kagan, although you really need to comprehend and understand the context of her job as Solicitor General before jumping to any conclusions.

    Personally, despite my initial unease, I'm growing to like her, and would welcome a persuasive, non-activist judge on the court.

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"

Working...