Elena Kagan nominated for US Supreme Court justice

[MTR Admiralty]

You all have heard it. And I've saw the nomination ceremony yesterday at school on TV.

 

Elena Kagan, native of New York, is coming close to be the next US Supreme Court justice. She is currently the Solicitor General (basically the lawyer for the US Federal Government in a US SC case involving it) and was the former dean at Harvard Law. Her two brothers are current teachers in NYC public schools (as mentioned).

 

Kagan will replace John Paul Stevens, who recently announced his retirement. John Paul Stevens was the oldest member of the Court. He is known for saying that his ideology has changed, but that the Court has shifted (to the right). Kagan plans to follow a middle path, bridging the conservative and moderate justices on issues. Her middle way has won criticism from both the hardcore liberals and conservatives on issues of her background.

 

When confirmed by Congress, Kagan will become the 4th New Yorker to serve on the current bench. Justice Scalia, who is now the oldest member of the Court, hails from Queens. Justice Ginsberg, currently fighting cancer, is from Brooklyn. Recently nominated Justice Sotomayor, comes from the Bronx. Kagan will make the 3rd current Jewish justice on the bench. No Protestants sit on the current bench as the other 6 are Catholics. This will also be groundbreaking because she will be the third woman to sit on the current bench.

[R32 3348]

Her brother is a teacher at my HS (Hunter College HS).

[MTR Admiralty]

Her brother is a teacher at my HS (Hunter College HS).

Her other brother is a teacher at my HS. Kagan and that brother have different political views though.

[nel070]

From what I have heard about Ms Kagan I think she will make an excellent Supreme Court Judge. She is a legal Scholar and seems to fit the ideology President Obama wants in a Judge I hope the republicans let the nomination go through.

[MTR Admiralty]

From what I have heard about Ms Kagan I think she will make an excellent Supreme Court Judge. She is a legal Scholar and seems to fit the ideology President Obama wants in a Judge I hope the republicans let the nomination go through.

I think they probably will. Because one of the other picks is much more to the left.

[Grand Concourse]

"All the more to blame McCain for throwing the election."* sarcasm

 

On a serious note, probably wouldn't have made much of a difference anyway, as he would've been pressured to replace the retiring judges with one more left of center anyway.

[MTR Admiralty]

"All the more to blame McCain for throwing the election."* sarcasm

 

On a serious note, probably wouldn't have made much of a difference anyway, as he would've been pressured to replace the retiring judges with one more left of center anyway.

With Congress already deeply divided by party lines, the last thing we need is an over-partisan court. Chief Justice Kennedy acted as the "mediator" as he played on both the left and the right. 4 of his colleagues were moderates and the other 4 were conservatives. He was the balancing stone. If Kagan becomes SC justice, she would most likely unite a politically diverse court. A more mediated court would allow it to keep a check on Congress.

[Grand Concourse]

She doesn't have much experience on the bench and reminds me more of Hariet Mires. I just don't think she's qulified.

[MTR Admiralty]

She doesn't have much experience on the bench and reminds me more of Hariet Mires. I just don't think she's qulified.

She hasn't been a judge and she's only been solicitor general for only one year, so critics oft cite these. And frankly, these are some of her weaknesses. But it's not we that decide if she will be the next, it's Congress. And believe me, they will volley her a series of questions regarding experience, political views on critical issues, background etc...s

[SubwayGuy]

This is a good thing as she is viewed as a "practical" judge. The recent Supreme Court decision to allow free reign on campaign spending and marketing advertisements by corporations and unions that don't have to hide their affiliations and can openly support candidates sets a dangerous precedent. Hopefully in the future campaign finance and marketing is something that a long hard look can be taken by the Supreme Court the next time an issue comes up, and it would be nice to see people who see how it affects everyday people.

 

The thing is there is no requirement for truth in advertising. A big business could say "vote against this (hypothetical) law that requires us to hire people because it will make unemployment in the US worse" and they will never have to back up those ridiculous claims. The more ridiculous part is if that ad were to run, 45-50% of the population (maybe more) would believe it anyway just because it's on TV.

[MTR Admiralty]

This is a good thing as she is viewed as a "practical" judge. The recent Supreme Court decision to allow free reign on campaign spending and marketing advertisements by corporations and unions that don't have to hide their affiliations and can openly support candidates sets a dangerous precedent. Hopefully in the future campaign finance and marketing is something that a long hard look can be taken by the Supreme Court the next time an issue comes up, and it would be nice to see people who see how it affects everyday people.

 

The thing is there is no requirement for truth in advertising. A big business could say "vote against this (hypothetical) law that requires us to hire people because it will make unemployment in the US worse" and they will never have to back up those ridiculous claims. The more ridiculous part is if that ad were to run, 45-50% of the population (maybe more) would believe it anyway just because it's on TV.

This case was like the first one she took part in when she became US Sol. Gen. I agree that there should be some sort of limits on campaign financing from corporations and unions. Even a strict-constructionist justice (ideally) would say that "campaign financing" is not necessarily an issue of free speech (which was what Citizens United argued about), because nowhere in the Constitution says that funding political campaigns is free speech. (Arguably, everything in the Constitution can be nuanced, it's the court's decision that firmly defines the position of the Constitution for a certain issue) The issue might be raised up somewhere along in the future, and she will work to uphold her argument when she was Sol. Gen.

 

As for now, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act is in the dumpster.

[SubwayGuy]

This case was like the first one she took part in when she became US Sol. Gen. I agree that there should be some sort of limits on campaign financing from corporations and unions. Even a strict-constructionist justice (ideally) would say that "campaign financing" is not necessarily an issue of free speech (which was what Citizens United argued about), because nowhere in the Constitution says that funding political campaigns is free speech. (Arguably, everything in the Constitution can be nuanced, it's the court's decision that firmly defines the position of the Constitution for a certain issue) The issue might be raised up somewhere along in the future, and she will work to uphold her argument when she was Sol. Gen.

 

As for now, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act is in the dumpster.

 

The one distinction that needs to be made legally is that ALL of the rights in the constitution are meant to apply to INDIVIDUALS, and, specifically, AMERICAN CITIZENS. The Declaration of Independence was the foundation for the Constitution, and that held that "all men (today read as "people") are created equal"

 

NOT corporations. Corporations are legal entities subject to legal liability in the eyes of the law to protect their owners from unlimited liability. But they are NOT people, they are NOT individuals and are not to enjoy those rights granted to individuals. Somewhere in history that got muddled and people started arguing that rights enjoyed by individuals are also to be protected when exercised by corporations.

 

They have legal abilities as corporations and the rules MUST apply to corps, but the guiding principles and "unalienable rights" granted to CITIZENS are not necessarily granted to corps and their rights are not "unalienable", only to their employees acting as individuals. For instance, citizens have the right to life. Therefore, ER's MUST treat anyone who walks in their doors. Now, if you say corp's have a right to life, congratulations you just justified every bailout ever, all footed by the taxpayers. It's a VERY slippery slope. Had others felt the same way historically as I do on this, corps would have a hell of a lot less power in this country than they currently do. They would be providers (of jobs, of work, of income) but they would not be a political machine and influential in shaping policy as they are now.

[MTR Admiralty]

The one distinction that needs to be made legally is that ALL of the rights in the constitution are meant to apply to INDIVIDUALS, and, specifically, AMERICAN CITIZENS. The Declaration of Independence was the foundation for the Constitution, and that held that "all men (today read as "people") are created equal"

 

NOT corporations. Corporations are legal entities subject to legal liability in the eyes of the law to protect their owners from unlimited liability. But they are NOT people, they are NOT individuals and are not to enjoy those rights granted to individuals. Somewhere in history that got muddled and people started arguing that rights enjoyed by individuals are also to be protected when exercised by corporations.

 

They have legal abilities as corporations and the rules MUST apply to corps, but the guiding principles and "unalienable rights" granted to CITIZENS are not necessarily granted to corps and their rights are not "unalienable", only to their employees acting as individuals. For instance, citizens have the right to life. Therefore, ER's MUST treat anyone who walks in their doors. Now, if you say corp's have a right to life, congratulations you just justified every bailout ever, all footed by the taxpayers. It's a VERY slippery slope. Had others felt the same way historically as I do on this, corps would have a hell of a lot less power in this country than they currently do. They would be providers (of jobs, of work, of income) but they would not be a political machine and influential in shaping policy as they are now.

Speaking of that, it was a total joke when the SC in the late 19th century said that the 14th Amendment applied to CORPORATIONS and not the folks that it was intended for, the African Americans. Awful to think, how a corporation has more standing than a human being. But then again, that's 19th century big business politics.

[SubwayGuy]

Speaking of that, it was a total joke when the SC in the late 19th century said that the 14th Amendment applied to CORPORATIONS and not the folks that it was intended for, the African Americans. Awful to think, how a corporation has more standing than a human being. But then again, that's 19th century big business politics.

 

21st century big biz politics is the same dog and pony show. Only difference is they don't care about black or white anymore, only green. Attitude is "screw everyone, as long as the corps can make their money" they really don't care.

[MTR Admiralty]

21st century big biz politics is the same dog and pony show. Only difference is they don't care about black or white anymore, only green. Attitude is "screw everyone, as long as the corps can make their money" they really don't care.

Big business politics is always the same throughout the course of history. But yeah, they're looking at green now. But the thing is, I really hope Kagan could balance out potentially partisan forces on the bench. Congress is always prone to be divided between party lines. We don't want the Court to be split by partisan beliefs. We need a practical person like Kagan to really sort out the differences, compromise and show the country what the court wants.