gmknobl says:

But Kagan isn’t. What’s your point?

Colonel Panic says:

When did Horatio Sans get into politics?

chuck says:

You don’t get it. Criticism that was applied to Bush and the Republicans cannot be applied to Obama and the Democrats.

That’s change you can believe in.

The Aberrant says:

“Criticism that was applied to Bush and the Republicans cannot be applied to Obama and the Democrats.”

One cannot conflate Myers and Kagan, or even begin to suggest that they’re in the same boat, but for the fact that neither of them has ever been a judge. Had Obama said simply “the lack of judicial record”*, then I could see the above as valid criticism. But his statement is lack of constitutional work: Kagan is not only solicitor general, which requires her to at least visit the Supreme Court every once in a while, but she’s quite an accomplished Constitutional scholar in her own right.

*Shame of Obama to actually use this language, however. As a Constitutional scholar, he should know that some of our most respected justices never sat the bench before their nomination to the Supreme Court.

jerry says:

She looks like James Spader.

Conrad S. Bane says:

@McCullough (#6)

You haven’t pointed out an inconsistency yet. I’m not saying there aren’t any – I’m sure there are all kinds of things that Obama the Senator said that are inconsistent with Obama the candidate/President – but there’s no inconsistency here. As has been noted, Bush took heat from conservatives for the Myers nomination, and rightly withdrew it due to her utter lack of qualifications, on so many levels. You might not like Kagan, but you can’t deny she has the constitutional bona fides required of the job. Besides, just about everyone who follows the Court was hoping for a non-jurist to be nominated – otherwise we’d have (for the first time in history?) a SC made up entirely of former federal judges, which is undesirable for many reasons.

bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

Isn’t the truth that “no one” knows how anyone will perform when exalted to the Sup Ct. The position tries a person’s soul. They live with the responsibilities and consequences. Not much cover with excuses, finger pointing, or blaming other parties. Exposed. Sometimes that works for good, sometimes for ill.

I don’t spot any inconsistency yet. All Obama said was that someone without a record needed to be more forthcoming? (I only half listened once because of the metamorphosis that takes place making “all” discussion mostly BS)

If someone is qualified on paper and is proposed by the Presdent, I say vote confirmation. Sleezballs like Roberts will lie to any question that anyone wants to lock down to begin with so the total process is Kabuki Theater.

Boring.

dusanmal says:

@#8 “I consider myself a conservative, and from all I hear about Kagan, I really like her.

One HUGE point in her favor is her opposition to an out-of-control executive branch. (As in Bush-Cheney).

She argued repeatedly that the executive branch EXECUTES the law while Congress WRITES the laws, with the judiciary JUDGING according to the law.”

Nice. Now, let’s see her written opinion on freedom of speech, for example… From 1990′s. If Govt. doesn’t like some speech Govt. is allowed to “unskew” it by running intentional SKEWED propaganda as well as to block the above mentioned free speech using powers of above mentioned executive branch… In other words, she’d be at home at Chavez administration in Venezuela.

@#1 She is blank slate without a single judicial opinion. Because she never have been a judge of anything. Placing her at Supreme Court is equivalent of placing head of Medical School who never practiced as a doctor as a neurosurgeon. Because of the experience in administrative managing neurosurgeons. Insanity. There are plenty Leftist Judges to pick from who at least know what they are doing. Enough of Community Organizers (which she essentially is).

bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

brm–you heard that? You can read about it here:

http://csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/1103/p02s18-usju.html

OUTRAGEOUS!!! Of course, only a qualified immunity should be allowed, otherwise, prosecutors become “above the law.” Not a good thing especially as they often confuse the cases they bring with their tangential political interests.

Still–was she acting on orders ((always the case)) or evidencing her own beliefs ((if so, only a coincidence)).

Don’t be so simple minded.