Everything You Wanted To Know About Elena Kagan

Tom Goldstein of the SCOTUS blog preps us for the likely nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court with an exhaustive discussion of timing and likely issues.  In summary, she will be nominated tomorrow; her hearing will start June 28; she will be voted out of the Judiciary Committee on a 14-5 vote by mid-July and confirmed by a 65-35 Senate vote by the end of July.

So that's that.  I disagree with this:

Note as well the five issues that will be mentioned in the nomination fight, but won’t blossom into major points of discussion.

...3. Sexuality.  The White House slapped down whispers asserting that Kagan was gay.  Among the LGBT community and social conservatives, the issue won’t disappear entirely.  But the Administration’s response was decisive and fully informed, so it will not emerge as a genuine question.

First, the truth will probably be relevant.  Now, I don't know what the truth is, but it wasn't just a conservative columnist passing along the allegation - PinkNews and Queerty didn't seem to realize there was a controversy when they described Elena Kagana as "openly gay" and "the lesbian former Harvard Law dean".  And I can confirm that the Harvard rumors are out there.

And why do we care?  Well, if the White House is lying that is always fun for the Senate.  And the gay rights agenda has stalled legislatively and is headed back to the courts, where gay rights strategists will be hoping to find friendly judges (e.g., in California).  Given that, it seems a bit much to expect that a White House denial will be accepted at face value.

I belabored that earlier, but let me repeat one aspect:

Let me remind people of the circular logic in play not that long ago - gays were a security risk because their behavior was shameful (and illegal) and exposed them to the threat of blackmail.  If Ms. Kagan is that intent on preserving her privacy, then she is also at a bit of risk here, presumably.  Certainly if she tells a Senate committee that she is not gay she had better be telling the truth, or she will be vulnerable to a lifetime of pressure from those in the know.

I don't think her being gay is a problem in itself, but lying about it would be disastrous and stonewalling it seems unlikely to work.  This is tricky - does anybody want to see a panel of witnesses present their personal experiences with her, as we saw with the Anita Hill /Clarence Thomas debacle?  I really would prefer not to.

Comments

[Buford Gooch says GS sucks]

I'm pretty socially conservative, and I don't care about her sexuality at all. I do care about her judicial temperament, and I'm having a very hard time figuring out what it is. It would be highly amusing if she were to "grow" in office, and end up being fairly conservative.

[Lord Whorfin says Obama still sucks]

Your last pararaph-
As in Warergate, the crimes after the first crime are the worst.

I don't care what her sexual preferences are, but judge her using same criteria as past Supreme Court nominee hearings.

[daveinboca]

When I read the Glenn Greenwalds and similar wack-jobs whining about Kagan and pining after Wood, I go for Kagan.

Unless, of course, this is an elaborate don't-throw-me-into-that-briar-patch double-clutch shuffle. But Greenwald's horror that Kagan actually recruited and hired conservative as well as liberal jurists for the Harvard faculty was too strident to be feigned.

I'm very socially conservative, but I agree with Buford. Usually the weak lean left, but an athlete like Whizzer White sure fooled JFK and the Democrats, just like Souter and Stevens and Warren et al. fooled their Republican POTUS appointers.

[The press no longer cares; they just hope.]

Well-played, and with a sentient press corps, this would be about lying and not about sexuality. But what's the chance it's going to be about anything but the troglyditism of Republicans.
====================

[Janet]

What is the "rule" on sexuality today? Is knowing it important and celebrated, or is knowing it nobodies business?
Seems like the left decides when "we" need to know.
Same with race. Sometimes it is very important for perks, awards, club membership, jobs.....and sometimes it is a crime to notice race.
So what is the rule today and where are the official deciders that brought us to this point of madness?

[Rick Ballard]

Great, now Goldman Sachs will have their own justice. That should come in handy.

[I love it; California taxpayers paying for a Greek bailout.]

Two things re: the Euro bail-out. 1. We'll show 'em. We can print money 48/7. 2. Where is TCO when we need him?
==========================

[Jack is Back!]

Back from SoBe, darn it.

Wow! Its all I can say about the new makeup of the SCOTUS if Kagan goes thru. Between her and Sotomayor we have the legal version of the "beef trust".

She went thru 61-31 for the SG position but that is arguing not deciding. It still makes Kennedy the king-maker for all controversial decisions, so that doesn't change.

I don't see her gayness (true of not true) playing any part in the major decisions we really face but then who knows.

[Appalled]

TM:

I have difficulty believing any GOP senator is going to raise this particular issue in Judiciary Committee hearings. He'll look like a homophobic twit; or he'll look like a smear artist. Playing to stereotype in Committee hearings is rarely a good move. (Remember Kennedy in the Alito hearings?)

As for the White House -- I'm not sure there's much risk to them as long as they don't continue to get too far out front about this issue. If they push this too hard, the National Enquirer will likely find somebody admitting a fling with her, and the regular media might pay attention.

[Rick Ballard]

I'm rather more interested in speculation concerning how Kagan would address the glaring incoherence of the proposed Dodd Retirement Fund Act than her preferences in companionship.

Kim,

Today's short squeeze will be very memorable. It will also fail before "long term" can conceivably be applied. As jimmyk noted, this is frenetic deck chair rearrangement on the stern as the bow slips beneath the waves.

[peter]

You never know. Supreme Court Justices are humans, not charicatures of different types. Scalia's best friend on a personal level is ACLU Ginsburg. Maybe Sotomayor and Kagan will be too similar, and hate each other, and it will affect their vote. Then again, maybe it will rain Skittles tomorrow.

[Clarice]

I'd be astonished if the gay thing comes up in the hearings. I'll be so happy when people stop coming out and start staying in. I don't want to know.
Prof Jacobson of Legal Insurrection whose views I respect has very nice things to say about her, notwithstanding the more serious questions raised by the paucity of her research and almost non existent record.

She does appear to be smart, and smart is a good quality for those on the court. I can see her and Roberts working together for greater clarity in court decisions...well greater clarity than nincompoop Stevens brought to them.

[Jack is Back!]

The "gay thing" comes up via the military recruiter ban that Kagan imposed on Harvard. That's is how they will do it.

Also, to all you non-Ivy league trained lawyers out there - nah, nah, da nah, nah:)

[Old Lurker]

BACK!

I missed you guys last week as we visited friends in Seattle and Portland.

Boy, are my western friends upset with DC these days. Can't imagine why.

[Clarice]

Hi, OL. I was wondering where you were.

And bearing good news, too.

[Cecil Turner]

I don't care about her sexuality. I do care if she lies about it. I also care if she thinks solidarity with her fellow gays is more important than national defense (which she apparently does).

[Clarice]

Cecil, remember what happened to Larry Summers when he jumped off the PC bus for even a moment? Deans of every top law school joined in that risible suit to block the Solomon amendment and were laughed out of court. Do you seriously think they all thought they were on sound legal footing? I don't.

Jennifer Rubin agrees with me--she's no cause for a full court opposition.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/291411>Could be worse

[Porchlight]

My concern is that quota picks are odious to me in general. If she wasn't chosen for a historical first, why was she chosen, exactly? It doesn't appear that her scholarship is all that stellar. So that brings up "stealth pick" worries.

Overall, though, it could be a lot worse.

[fdcol63]

It's a tough call. Adding another liberal extremist on the SC is never a good thing.

But as Kagan probably won't alter the ideological balance of the SC, the GOP and conservatives would probably be better served by avoiding a messy fight over Kagan and saving whatever political capital they have for the time when that appointee comes up.

Hopefully by then, the political balance of power in the Senate will have changed.

As they say, elections have consequences. We knew Obama would appoint people like Kagan to the SC if the chance came up, and it did.

[nathan hale]

She seems as their Breyer pick, I don't even have a box for Sotomayor, I think they picked
her as a lark, and before they knew it was too late

[Ranger]

Deans of every top law school joined in that risible suit to block the Solomon amendment and were laughed out of court. Do you seriously think they all thought they were on sound legal footing?

Actually, I do think they thought they were on solid legal ground. I think they were truely shocked when the case got resoundingly decided against them. A classic case of "group think." They all wanted it to be on solid legal ground, so they convinced themselves that it was on solid legal ground.

[Danube of Thought]

Minus 12 at Raz.

[Captain Hate]

Rather than state that it could be worse, why is she any more qualified than Harriet Miers?

[Pofarmer]

OT, but is this the prevailing state of mind in Canada?

http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=165869&mid=1189742#M1189742

If so, man, are they doomed.

[Pofarmer]

why is she any more qualified than Harriet Miers?

Why, because Obama picked her.

[nathan hale]

You have a better link, Po, conversely do we really want to know

[Jimmymsp]

If the White House is lying about her sexuality, the nomination should be withdrawn. Sexuality would not be the question. The question would be did the WH lie about Kagan's sexuality because they are afraid that the country isn't ready for an openly gay supreme court justice.
The sexuality bothers me when you include her experience. If an openly gay supreme court justice is approved, the person should be extremely qualified because of the historical importance and Ms. Kagan is not experienced at all.

[So what else will she lie about? Goldman Sachs?]

This is about lying. That's what closeting oneself is, for public figures, anyway.
===========

[I could go on and on, but I want to go hang from my tail for awhile.]

If you lie about something this important....
========

[Captain Hate]

Ugh, is anybody more annoying when addressing something important than Toonces with his mandatory civics lesson for idiots? Time for a shower.

[Jim Hlavac]

Sir, your use of the verb "stonewalling" is intriguing. Did you know that the "Stonewall" was the name of the gay bar that was raided on a hot June night in 1969 and touched off three days of riots by gay men and women so that gay bars would be raided no more? That this riot led to the modern gay rights movement is undeniable, particularly in light of the thousands of gay pride celebrations in late June all across America commemorating the Stonewall Riots.

So I would think that "stonewalling" in light of a closeted gay person might well mean just coming out and staying so, vocally. Even if not riotously.

See, with this sense, it's intriguing that "stonewalling" should have two opposite connotations.

[I could go on and on, but I want to go hang from my tail for awhile. Oops, lost my grip for a moment.]

Uh, huh. We know. Did you know that Nixon stonewalled? Does that make him gay?
============

[Pofarmer]

Try LUN Nate.

[nathan hale]

I thought it had to do with General Stonewall Jackson

[Steve]

Thanks for this post! We are following her nomination, in depth, over at Common Cents...

http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

[Danube of Thought]

I'm guessing--and hoping--that she won't be asked. And if she is asked, I hope she says "it's not your business." Time for this crap to end.

[Clarice]

Maybe so, Ranger..We've all heard of the expression that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

You cannot underestimate the group think at institutions like colleges and TV newsrooms.

[Clarice]

Bravo,DoT. You have my vote.

[jean]

So it is like Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military.Except in the military that is a bad thing.Very confusing

[Manuel Transmission]

OT, I just received a link to Amped Status (LUN) that describes the financial terrorists and their techniques that are yanking us around.

Sure would like to hear from the JOM financial wizards on this.

Breathtaking, if true...

[nathan hale]

My suspicions were right the first time, Po

[Danube of Thought]

So it is like Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military.

I don't think so. There are reasons for not having openly gay people in the armed forces that have no application to the legal profession or the judiciary. If Kagan is gay and had "told" on herself, that wouldn't disqualify her. Neither does the fact that she doesn't say anything one way or another.

[Pofarmer]

There are reasons for not having openly gay people in the armed forces that have no application to the legal profession or the judiciary.

Because, I mean, gay people would never push an agenda or anything.

[Jim Ryan]

A weak president who can't weather another battle with 60% of the country, he picks someone well to the right of himself.

[jimmyk]

So if DADT comes up before the SC does she have to recuse herself? She's already stated that she views it as discrimination.

[Clarice]

http://volokh.com/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-i-love-the-federalist-society-i-love-the-federalist-society/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+volokh%2Fmainfeed+%28The+Volokh+Conspiracy%29>She's not bad

[Captain Hate]

I also don't think it matters if she likes to munch carpet; I just wonder if SNL will use their "Pat" character to spoof her hearings or if they puss out on a sterling opportunity.

[Melinda Romanoff]

MT-

Too big a blanket being used in their sneaker party. The sell off was a specified spread of targets, HFT programs fed it logarithmically. The program trade systems, separate and older than HFT, might have been tweaked, or directed, to start the cascade. The GS "lioquidity" question, however, is particularly pertinent.

Still stinks. Where's Schumer, Dodd, Durbin, and Reid on this? Too quiet.

[nathan hale]

She seems sensible, even if she doesn't agree with a point of view, is able to understand it which seems to be head and shoulders above
the rest, she had the task of defending Soto'
s muddled appeal, you need a medal for that

[Clarice]

I think you can't ask much more than a smart judge who gives respectful attention to other views..these aren't after all merit appointments and with the rare exception of Roberts you never get the whole ball of wax in a single candidate.

[Danube of Thought]

"Because, I mean, gay people would never push an agenda or anything."

More than straight people?

[Danube of Thought]

Raz on the PA Dem senate primary: Sestak 47, Specter 42.

Wouldn't it be great to see that gasbag go out this way?

[Pofarmer]

"Because, I mean, gay people would never push an agenda or anything."

More than straight people?

Ever seen any straight pride marches?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

This is tricky - does anybody want to see a panel of witnesses present their personal experiences with her, as we saw with the Anita Hill /Clarence Thomas debacle?

Only if they're hot.

Personally, I think it's like when Nathan Lane came out.

[matt]

will she recuse herself in any case involving Barbara Mikulski?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Ever seen any straight pride marches?

Ever see any gays saying straight people are unqualified because being straight is a mental illness?

You should see some of the comments I'm deleting at PJM on Cythia Yockey's story on Kagan.

[Danube of Thought]

Ever seen any straight pride marches?

Seen plenty of black pride events as well. So blacks shouldn't sit on the bench?

[Danube of Thought]

will she recuse herself in any case involving Barbara Mikulski?

Why should she?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

If you lie about something this important....

(1) how important?

(2) I don't think Kagan has lied about it at all. The O Press Office may have, but they've lied severn more important ways before breakfast on a good day.

(3) I seem to recall a lot of people complaining about having, eg, their faces rubbed in Barney Frank's sexuality (eeewwww!). Now we're talking about kagan, who appears to neither be closeted nor making a big deal about being a lesbian if she is on, and we're going to be annoyed because she's not more voluably "out"?

[boris]

"plenty of black pride events ..."

At one time it was rather true that whites (at least in the south) did have an agenda. So in that regard the comparison to "straight agenda" does not work.

[boris]

When was the last time a conservative candidate for the SCOTUS could openly state a pro-life position?

[Clarice]

DoT, re Specter..It is delightful.

In a way though it's sad. He wasn't bad when he started out--he stuck his neck out on the Yablonski murders when I worked with his office and he assigned Richard Sprague to prosecute Tony Boyle.
With time though he got worse and worse. I do think the brain cancer has made him incomprehensible by now.

[Clarice]

The Hill:

"The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is pulling out of the Hawaii special election for Rep. Neil Abercrombie's (D) seat, effectively handing the seat to the Republicans. "The DCCC will not be investing additional resources in the (Hawaii) special election,” Jennifer Crider, a DCCC spokeswoman, said in a statement. "Local Democrats were unable to work out their differences. The DCCC will save the resources we would have invested in the Hawaii special election this month for the general election in November." The committee concluded"

[Captain Hate]

With time though he got worse and worse. I do think the brain cancer has made him incomprehensible by now.

People need to have at least one trusted person in their midst who can call them out when they're acting foolish. Specter got too full of himself with time and power and lost sight of that. Plus nobody trusts a turncoat. Good riddance when he goes.

[glasater]

Laura Ingraham had a recording of Elena Kagan singing the praises of Zero this AM.
Listening to it made me slightly nauseous.

[Pofarmer]

Dunno Charlie. Don't necessarily think that Gayness is a "mental illness" but, I do think that it's a small minority who's vocalness has given it power far beyond it's numbers.

Ever seen any straight pride marches?

Seen plenty of black pride events as well. So blacks shouldn't sit on the bench?

Which is another example of a vocal minority setting itself apart from the fabric of America.

I really don't think any hyphenated Americans should sit on the bench.

[jimmyk]

With time though he got worse and worse.

He pretty much scuttled Bork's appointment with his opposition back in 1987. On the other hand, he did the right thing with Clarence Thomas and the Anita Hill circus, to the extent he wasn't just grandstanding.

[fdcol63]

I musta missed that whole "Nathan Lane in the closet" thing. LOL

[Pofarmer]

I musta missed that whole "Nathan Lane in the closet" thing. LOL

Probably why there wasn't a large controversy.

[Jack is Back!]

I am less concerned about her being gay, straight or bi then I am about her apparent anti-conservative socialist sympathies that even brightened Sean Wilentz' day. LUN

Yeah, I know, its 1981 and we all still had innocence to lose - you know the way BHO has lost all is baggage along the way is now more free than Jack Reacher.

[Jack is Back!]

::LUN::

Stoopid me.

[thepoorshrimp]

He shot out a lot of windows.

More 'emergency' money freezes now that foreign aid 'emergencies' have been funded 100s of billions for years. We should turn this over to Congress every five years just before the presidential elections like PEPFAR's 50 billion and then we can elect another O who hates banks, etc.........

Those poor kids need those under minimum wage jobs too and the disaster grants are such a deal for CNCS.

LIG
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0510/050710cdpm1.htm?rss=getoday&oref=rss

[Pofarmer]

O.K.

So what is the point of these BOT posters?

[Pofarmer]

O.K.

So what is the point of these BOT posters?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

So it is like Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military.Except in the military that is a bad thing.Very confusing

In this case it6's more like DADC: "Dont Ask, Don't Care."

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Which is another example of a vocal minority setting itself apart from the fabric of America.

I really don't think any hyphenated Americans should sit on the bench.

So much for Italian-Americans Scalia and Alito.

[Pofarmer]

I don't think there's much danger of Scalia and Alito putting their Italianism(is that a word?) to the forefront of their decisions.

[Sue]

So much for Italian-Americans Scalia and Alito.

Do they describe themselves as Italian-American? Wiki describes Scalia as an American, born in NJ.

[15 people 6 terms]

Congress Creates Independent Payment Advisory Board RFPs have requests for budget justifications and line items in the bids. Contractors will be set up for running legislation in health care. It's starting with rural clinics and loan payoffs and will move it's way up as IT has already been handled with this built in (medicare/caid).

[15 people 6 terms]

voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/can_we_control_costs_without_c.html

[boris]

So much for Italian-Americans Scalia and Alito

Typical deflection from the JOM Scoldy-American.

[Donald]

Oh, after what was done to Clarence Thomas, I would relish an thorough examination of Mr. Kagan's sexual proclivities.

[Cecil Turner]

Is she seriously the best-qualified candidate? She signed on to that clueless amicus brief on Solomon (which brings her common sense and wisdom into question). Her tenure at Harvard Law appears mostly focused on fundraising, her scholarly publications portfolio is thin, and she's never been a judge. I really don't see why she was ever a front-runner, except politics. That part makes sense: she's a relatively young liberal, sure to drag the court left for several decades.

[daddy]

don't know squat about their sexual preferences, but it might be interesting if this Kagan gal and Sotomayor fall in love and decide to get married--(Not that there's anything wrong with blah blah blah). Have Ruth Bader Ginsburg marry them in some state where its illegal, and then let the process eventually push itself all the way up to the Supreme Court, where ultimately I suppose every Justice would have to recuse themselves. Then what would happen?

Sure it's a totally nutty scenario, but in this day and age who'd put it out of the realm of possibility. Heck, we could make it a Sitcom---maybe starring Penelope Cruz as the wise Latina, and some knockout like that Israeli Sports Illustrated Swimsuit model as Kagan. Shoot, who wouldn't tune in for that?

Needs a snappy title though:

"Nanny's and the Professors?"
"The Courtships of Eddie's Mother's?"
"Ally McBrides?"
"Jugs for the Defense?"
"Boston Illegal?"
"Rumpoles of the Bailey?"

Is it beer time yet?

[jimmyk]

Her tenure at Harvard Law appears mostly focused on fundraising, her scholarly publications portfolio is thin, and she's never been a judge.

What I find puzzling is her rise at Chicago. How does someone get tenure at a major law school with a thin publication record? It also sounds eerily similar to to the puzzle about our commander-in-chief.

[Clarice]

She had two prestigious clerkships and two years as an associate at a major lawfirm. Universities and law schools in particular are under a great deal of pressure by the credentialing organizations to have a "diverse" faculty.(Insty has often documented this.) But I expect even without that she'd have been considered a "catch" based on her academic background and experience.

[Captain Hate]

Somebody at AoS claimed if Kagan is confirmed there will be no Protestants on the SCOTUS. I'm not saying that's bad or good but I can remember when JFK being elected was *shocking* that a mackerel snapper subservient to the Vatican was now running the country. Btw, I posted that an hour ago but this lovely software sent it to cyberhell.

[boris]

mackerel snapper ??? cyberhell is too good for hate speech like that ...

[JM Hanes]

I see no inconsistency between being pro gay marriage and believing unequivocally that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage. I'd describe my own position that way. It's pretty funny that she's "rumored" to be "openly gay," but to assume that a lesbian will automatically favor lesbians from the bench, is to sign onto the leftist litmus test which demands that the Court mirror national demographics, and that individual justices "represent" specific constituencies.

Kagan's public acts, as in the Harvard recruiting case, are fair game, of course. Pofarmer's earlier link to Kagan's Letter on that subject was very helpful. I was interested to discover that prior to Kagan's decision, military recruiters were the only ones who were being exempted from committing to Harvard's non-discrimination policy. I consider that a salient fact which, oddly enough, critics on the right who would like to frame her as a run of the mill, anti-military leftist, seem to skip right over. The fact that Harvard sacrificed its own commitment when big bucks were at stake is what I found truly contemptible.

In any case, Kagan was willing to make her own position clear on that issue, as well as making a case for the Harvard position, and if she is actually willing to defend it in her nomination hearing, instead of obfuscating the way other liberal candidates do, I'd say bravo. As for DADT itself, while there may be compelling practical arguments for keeping it in place, requiring volunteers to lie by omission in order to serve their country doesn't win any bonus points where principles are concerned from me. It's also worth noting that on the new intel battlefront, in a war we were actually fighting, problems with DADT had a discernible impact on our translation resources. I doubt my own ambivalence on the subject is unique on the right.

Obama is not going to nominate a conservative, and I'm just incredible thankful that he didn't send up Diane Wood.

[Cecil Turner]

I was interested to discover that prior to Kagan's decision, military recruiters were the only ones who were being exempted from committing to Harvard's non-discrimination policy. I consider that a salient fact which, oddly enough, critics on the right who would like to frame her as a run of the mill, anti-military leftist, seem to skip right over.

As soon as she thought she wouldn't lose her funding, she tossed the military recruiters. She brought 'em back when she lost her case. Sounds perfectly consistent with the run of the mill leftists to me.

BTW, that reasoning on the anti-discrimination policy is precisely what's argued in the amicus brief linked above. I found it less than compelling (as did SCOTUS). I'd like to see data on which employers are barred (which I suspect are predominantly religious groups and the military), but the idea of a waiver being evidence of anything other than avarice is hard to feature.

[boris]

"lie by omission ..."

Say what?

Consider the rule "boys don't hit girls". Fairly obviously that is a bigger problem than the other 3 permutations.

In what sense does that constitute a "lie by omission"?

Sorry if that sounds snarky ... that just seems, on first glance, to be reading something totally off the wall into the situation.

[boris]

Or ... suppose there was a military policy against married officers getting caught having extramarital affairs ...

Would all married officers complying with policy either by not having affairs or being discrete ... be "lying by omission"?

[bgates]

to assume that a lesbian will automatically favor lesbians from the bench, is to sign onto the leftist litmus test

How about if we're not sure of the hypothetical possible lesbian's sexual proclivities, but we do know she signed on to a radical agenda to the left of the entire Supreme Court, and we know she was picked by Obama as the person closest to his own political beliefs who has a chance of getting confirmed?

I consider that a salient fact which, oddly enough, critics on the right who would like to frame her as a run of the mill, anti-military leftist, seem to skip right over.

So if sensible moderate Kagan threw the military off campus, what would a "run of the mill, anti-military leftist" have done? Invited the Cuban military to the job fairs to use the open booth?

[srp]

We are not going to get someone better than Kagan from the O. Her military recruitment policy was pretty foolish but I put that down more to peer pressure and framing issues than out-and-out anti-military bias. But she seems sane, knows what it means to have to administer a pretty big and prominent place while seeing to it that the bills get paid, and doesn't think conservatives have cooties.

Knocking her out on some personal issue would be a mistake. Reminds me of the Kimba Woods business back in the Clinton Administration. Wouldn't she have been infinitely better than Janet Reno?

[boris]

"Her military recruitment policy was pretty foolish but ..."

... any old excuse will do because she ...

"doesn't think conservatives have cooties"

Which is the real important issue when considering a SCOTUS candidate.

[Danube of Thought]

I really don't think any hyphenated Americans should sit on the bench.

If that's your view, fine. Now go out and get yourself a legislative majority that shares it.

[Annoying Old Guy]

I find the biggest problem with Kagan's action on military recruitment the fact that it is Congress, no the JCoS, who set that policy. As noted, Kagan did what was politically convenient rather than rejecting the presence of discriminating employer, that is, Congress.

[Clarice]

HLS sure knows how to pick deans. The present one, Minow, just libelled a student, invaded her privacy by publicizing and mischaracterizing her email and foreclosed all reasonable discussions on race.

Jut in case you think Kagan's stand on the Solomon Act was an outrage.(I think it was wrong-but as I said before--it was lockstep with the deans of almost all the top law schools and was so stupid they were laughed out of court.)

[nathan hale]

This is curious considering which professors were involved Charles "Professor is racist"
Ogletree, and Einsteinian physicist Tribe

[Danube of Thought]

"HLS sure knows how to pick deans."

I have to confess I don't know how they do it, and I don't know what the hell the dean does. About all I recall is that there was one dean at HLS--I think it was Pound--of whom it was said that he was "so brilliant that he did not need a personality."