Obama Nominates Elena Kagan to be Next Supreme Court Justice

[Sam Spade]

Repost...

Haven't really read through the thread at all... but

Guess I'm going to have to read some of Kagan's briefs.  Ugh.  I need to see if she's the one that could counteract Roberts in the persuasion field - which seems to me what's he going after (along with nominating someone like himself).  What's not important for liberals are the positions espoused as Solicitor General, but rather the quality of her argument.

Diane Wood was the best intellectual by far of those nominated, but she's probably too old, and getting through confirmation would probably be quite difficult given some of her opinions.  I quite respect her work though.  She'd probably be divisive like Scalia were she to get on.  However, Scalia's divisiveness is often overrated, IMHO - he's made the most important changes to legal interpretation in the last 30 years of any person period.  And those changes have been for the better.

Merrick Garland would have coasted through confirmation but he's probably too moderate for those here.  I also think he's an excellent consensus-builder, but not a great legal mind or persuader.  He's kinda old too - henceforth another problem.

None of the other potentials were interesting to me.

PS:  Alito sucks as a justice, IMHO.  So does Sotomayor.  Roberts is a f-ing genius in persuasion and writing which is what so concerns Obama because Stevens was the only person able to counteract that.

[Sam Spade]

Wow - just read through a couple of appellate briefs that she's put forth as Solicitor General.

They suck.

[Sam Spade]

Wow - just read through a couple of appellate briefs that she's put forth as Solicitor General.

They suck.

Please enlighten us.  That's a legitimate criticism, unlike jfern's .

Poor legal argument, mediocre writing and not even an decent attempt at persuading the justices.  I'm shocked that this product is what is being presently produced by the SG, as both Ted Olson and Paul Clement were real pros at appellate practice. 

FYI, Ted Olson's brief in Bush v. Gore, which was produced in under 48 hours, is a astounding tour-de-force of appellate practice and is, IMO, required reading for any law student.

[Sam Spade]

Team Olson was anticipating this, and that brief (which was brilliant, and superb prose), had been a work in progress long before the Florida Supremes did their expected thing.

I understand, but you still can't have it all written before bringing it up (though you can certainly have the outline).  Nevertheless, it was one of the best pieces of legal argument and persuasion ever.

Do you agree with me on Kagan?  I've batted 3 for 3 recently on adjudging Roberts, Alito and Sotomayor. 

The only annoying thing is that it means our SC jurisprudence will get worse, potentially much worse, in the upcoming years.

[Sam Spade]

On 2, yeah, she really hated alfonse d’amato and worked in Democratic administrations, hardly proof that she shares the progressive viewpoint on Constitutional interpretation of the law.

Heck, I hate D'Amato.  What's so wrong with that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This reminds of someone else.  Can't put my name on it.

[Sam Spade]

If I really cared about her "ideology" (and I don't), the most troubling part of her record is her views on free speech, one of the few areas of the law where there are actually some writings by her.