Elena Kagan on her way to become a Supreme Court Justice

The fight within the Senate Judiciary Committee came to a head on Tuesday when Solicitor General Elena Kagan was approved of the nomination to become the nation's fourth female Supreme Court justice. As was expected, the support for her nomination ran right between party lines, as the Republicans claimed that she had no experience as a judge and therefore should not be nominated, whereas the Democrats claimed that she was a strong legal thinker. Republicans also claimed that she was unfit to be a Supreme Court justice because of her political opinions. What seemed to be acknowledged on both sides was that the longer the hearings went on, the more uncleamr answers would surface about her judicial philosophy. This was frustrating and played a big part in why members gave up and nominated her. The straw to break the camels back seemed to appear when Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, decided to break away from the partisan GOP vote in favor of her nomination. He also happened to be the sole vote in favor of new Justice Sonia Sotomayor's nomination last year. President Obama now will have become successful in choosing two Supreme Court justices that will have made it to the bench.

Read more...

Senators who oppose Elana Kagan Have No Substance to Stand On

Has anyone wondered why President Obama would nominate someone to the high office of Supreme Court judge when that person was never a seated judge?

There is only one reason know as to why Elana Kagan has never served on a court. Take one guess who stopped her nomination. You guessed right!!   The REPUBLICANS were the only reason why she was blocked from becoming a judge. Back in 2008, President Clinton named her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but the GOP-controlled Senate blocked her nomination from coming to a vote so the appointment could be made instead by an incoming Republican president. And the supposed "tradition" of focusing solely on appellate-court judges for the Supreme Court is, in fact, relatively recent: A half-century ago, there were no former appellate judges on the high court. If anything, the court would benefit from more diversity of experience. With Kagan on board, all nine justices would be products of Harvard or Yale law schools. Surely, the nation has top legal talent beyond the Ivy League.  So none of the criticism seems to be particularly substantive by the Republicans as far as her ability to serve because she never served on a court bench. Congress needs to judge her on what she hasn't done up to now, but to look at her record and see what she has done. As a person who fully believes in the creation of law, she says:

"Law matters, because it keeps us safe, because it protects our most fundamental rights and freedoms, and because it is the foundation of our democracy."

 How can you argue with that. She like Justice Sotomayor had in the past, still has questions to answer, like explaining her role in limiting military recruiters at Harvard Law School to protest the military's policy of not letting gays serve openly. At the same time, the people who criticize her, namely the Republicans that oppose her, have to answer for allowing the confirmation process to sink to the level of tawdry gamesmanship it has reached.  So the lesson is, no matter who you are, especially if you are a public official, all comments most likely are noted by someone. Especially in this day and age of the computer,  TV stations like CNN, and other highly open political papers and outlets, candidates, especially those in high office must be aware that someone may likely tell a story about them, especially if it is controversial.

Read more...