Elena Kagan nominated to replace Stevens

Yeah, that's why I don't understand why the press corps is worked up: "deeply frustrated." I guess solely because of the White House public relations video on her? That they should do the interviews or nobody?

 

Sounds about right. I think it's also reflective of the fact that Obama has really used the web and digital video to get his message out without engaging with the White House press corps.

Seems like a mistake to me. He's squandered a ton of good will.

 

I imagine they might as well just vote on her tomorrow since she has no resume to review. No writings. No experience as a judge. But she is a friend of Obama's, so she's inherantly qualified.

 

blahblahblah.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/11/white-house-contrasts-kag_n_571605.html

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005100018

 

See: Harriet Miers.

 

Is that where you want to go?

 

This kind of predictable reaction is exactly what makes politics more and more distasteful to me. Just pick the easy criticism and go with it, no matter if it is intellectually honest or not. One conservative after another on Rachel Maddow quoted when Harriet Miers was nominated that her lack of judicial experience was not an issue, but now suddenly it's deeply troubling to the same people. Shameful, although I take it with a grain of salt because I understand the game.

I thought David Brooks had the most thoughtful criticism the other day, in that she is basically an ambitious careerist who has suppressed her thoughts for the last 30 years to remain viable. I'm simultaneously sad for her and insanely jealous.

 

I agree 100 percent. And while Obama can claim that the Kagan pick comes from outside the judiciary, which people were complaining about, she's really not much different from the rest of the justices as far as background goes.

It'd be nice to see a politician, particularly someone adept at consensus building, get nominated once in a while. I'd also like to see a state appellate court judge elevated once in a while. O'Connor was both.

 

I just wanna say, from what I've read lately, it seems Kagan is not gay. I don't like the whole discussion anyway, but I think it's really, really distateful if she is just a plain-looking, career-oriented, unmarried woman.
Plain-looking unmarried men are not assumed to be gay. In fact, it's the opposite -- if you're "too" handsome, people think you're gay. (a burden with which I have never been saddled, alas).
If, indeed, the "gay" rumors are BS, we are a long way from being the type of society we want to be.

 

Really? There have long been hushed questions about Souter's sexuality precisely because he never married. And I would say he's fairly plain looking, but that's just my opinion.

For pieces of an old Washington Post story from the time of his nomination that dealt with the rumors you can see this link:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/07/david-souter-is-not-your-standard.html

 

It's gotta suck being this wrong this often, so here's a friendly tip for you. If you find yourself typing "I thought David Brooks had the most thoughtful criticism..." just delete it and move on with life. David Brooks can't even agree with himself.

Brooks on Roberts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/opinion/21brooks.html?_r=1

Brooks on Kagan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/opinion/11brooks.html?ref=opinion

And WTF is "careerist"?

 

Kagan's not a practicing lesbian. The Butches thinks she's too butch and the fem's think she's too ugly.