Kagan's Supreme Court nomination, inappropriate comments
The news overnight that President Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan today to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court has produced a predictable, highly partisan and too often inappropriate string of comments from our readers.
Those who would oppose any nomination a Democratic president would make worry about excessive liberalism. Some worry that Kagan has not been a judge, although that has been true of justices in the past. Others think she's just right.
As Robert Barnes and Anne E. Kornblut write, "Kagan is the government's top appellate lawyer and representative at the Supreme Court. She was confirmed last year by the Senate in a 61 to 31 vote, and was the first woman confirmed to hold the job."
Many comments overnight violated the Post's standards and the comment boards on the story had to be closed for awhile and are now being closely monitored. I have often defended unedited comment boards on the grounds that they provide a true window into what people feel and think, but a certain level of civility is a reasonable minimum standard.
We'll start with jeffwacker, who wrote, "There will be inevitable opposition from people who wanted someone who shares all their political views. I actually anticipate that some of these concerns will come from the left, since Kagan is pretty centrist. In the end, though, it's hard to argue that she lacks the preparation or intellect to serve on the Court..."
Aaron20011 said, "A smart choice. The Republicans will make a little noise, but she'll be easily confirmed in the end. I'd estimate she'll end up being confirmed with 65 to 70 votes in the Senate."
query0 asked, "So, will the Party of No try to block this nomination after Kagan having won her previous appointment by a significant majority? Unfortunately, I fear it will."
vwcat said, "it will be nice to see another woman on the court."
postfan1 wrote, "She's a well-educated shill for the left, who lacks judicial experience. Guaranteed to bring the liberal views of academia to the court. This is par for the course for blatantly political appointments to the court."
gmss said, "The jurist from the western US or who attended institutions outside the ivy league are missing on the bench."
NoWeCant wrote, "Another bottom of the barrel left-wing activist getting their hands on power. On the bright side, with no experience of being on the bench she will be the most unrestricted activist and intellectually timid member on the court. Meaning less chance of her impacting the Kennedy swing vote. Repubs best focus on Nov."
camasca said, "Only one or two more women appointments and we'll have a bench that more accurately reflects the gender split in the nation. It's about time."
KarlD wrote, "Republicans and neoconservatives are cheering the selection everywhere (in their cups). Excessive executive deference, incompetence in arguing opinions, ties to Goldman-Sachs, scanty publication record, craven refusal to stand up for her principles at Harvard regarding recruiting, diversity hiring (38 whites, one Asian), slovenly appearance: everything a Republican can love."
All comments on the main article are here.
There are also comments on related articles including Robert Barnes's sidebar on Kagan's biography.
twm1 wrote, "For all the right winger who are going to mindlessly parrot the GOP taking point that she has no experience as a judge, I'd like to point out that Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist had no experience as judges when Richard Nixon appointed them."
jkarlinsky said, "So she doesn't have judicial experience. Big deal. Scalia doesn't have honesty experience. Thomas doesn't have intelligence experience. And Alito and Roberts, what can you say about those bozos, other than they were nominated by the bozo in chief... Kagan should do just fine."
SavingGrace wrote, "Curious to watch as Obama panders to his favored constituencies in his selections. Unfortunate that he couldn't have picked someone for their ability alone, without paying homage to gender, sexual orientation and academia. Personally, I would have preferred to see a judge with a rich record of sound decisions that support the intent of the Constitution."
thelaw1 wrote, "Obama replaced a liberal with a liberal. Stevens, Kagen, and Obama are fellow travelers. So the court remains what it was."
samuellenn wrote, "The problem is not that see doesn't have experience as a judge she is clearly a smart lady but the problem is she has experience with Obama we need someone who loves america not someone hows agenda is to change it for the worse guess you libs can't wait for social justice."
All comments on this article are here.
Posted by: analgesic33 | May 12, 2010 7:15 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: vava1 | May 10, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: jimfilyaw | May 10, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: kay_sieverding | May 10, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: peregrine1 | May 10, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: porvetti | May 10, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: kay_sieverding | May 10, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: susan166 | May 10, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: jmsbh | May 10, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.