It's anything but surprising that President Obama has chosen Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Nothing is a better fit for this White House than a blank slate, institution-loyal, seemingly principle-free careerist who spent the last 15 months as the Obama administration's lawyer vigorously defending every one of his assertions of extremely broad executive authority. The Obama administration is filled to the brim with exactly such individuals -- as is reflected by its actions and policies -- and this is just one more to add to the pile. The fact that she'll be replacing someone like John Paul Stevens and likely sitting on the Supreme Court for the next three decades or so makes it much more consequential than most, but it is not a departure from the standard Obama approach.I don't think I'd describe anyone on the right as "quite comfortable". This lady is another lefty, that's for sure, and I don't see anyone on the right giving high 5's over this nomination. Chances are anyone Obama could get confirmed was going to be to the right of John Paul Stevens, and this one probably is, but not by much. She has no judicial record, limited record of legal publications, limited time as an actual lawyer, and has spent most of her time in the academic realm.
The New York Times this morning reports that "Mr. Obama effectively framed the choice so that he could seemingly take the middle road by picking Ms. Kagan, who correctly or not was viewed as ideologically between Judge Wood on the left and Judge Garland in the center." That's consummate Barack Obama. The Right appoints people like John Roberts and Sam Alito, with long and clear records of what they believe because they're eager to publicly defend their judicial philosophy and have the Court reflect their values. Beltway Democrats do the opposite: the last thing they want is to defend what progressives have always claimed is their worldview, either because they fear the debate or because they don't really believe those things, so the path that enables them to avoid confrontation of ideas is always the most attractive, even if it risks moving the Court to the Right.
Why would the American public possibly embrace a set of beliefs when even its leading advocates are unwilling to publicly defend them and instead seek to avoid that debate at every turn? Hence: Obama chooses an individual with very few stated beliefs who makes the Right quite comfortable (even as they go through the motions of opposing her)
In other words, she's Barack Obama.
She won't change the complexion of the court other than there will be one more stall available in the judge's men's room. And for those who think she'll be some sort of intellectual counterpoint to John Roberts and Sam Alito and will be able to swing Justice Kennedy toward the dark side, I have my doubts.
The question now is, when will the most oppressed group in America get a judge on the Supreme Court - white male Protestants?
Posts
2 comments:
"In other words, she's Barack Obama" - perfect description.
I read the NYT excerpt about Judges and read "...Judge Wood on the left and Judy Garland in the center."
What REALLY amazed me was that the NYT would say "Beltway Democrats do the opposite: the last thing they want is to defend what progressives have always claimed is their worldview, either because they fear the debate or because they don't really believe those things,..."
Lefties in a tizzy--who woulda thunk it?
Post a Comment