[Update below] Fox News reports:
Speculation is building that President Obama is leaning toward Solicitor General Elena Kagan as his pick to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, with Kagan getting a high-profile endorsement from within the administration Sunday.
Attorney General Eric Holder, who is Kagan’s boss at the Justice Department, said an announcement will come “very soon” and did little to dispel the notion that Kagan is the leading choice.
“She’s done a wonderful job in the Justice Department. I’ve known her since the Clinton years. And I think she would be a great justice,” Holder said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
He cited her credentials as solicitor general and the first woman to ever hold that post, as well as the position of Harvard Law School dean.
“I think people will get an understanding who she is, what her judicial philosophy is, if in fact she is the pick,” Holder said.
Kagan just celebrated her 50th birthday, and her relative youth is seen as a plus for the lifetime appointment. She has interviewed separately with Obama and Vice President Biden and was a finalist for the 2009 opening that was filled by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Last year, the Senate confirmed Kagan’s appointment as solicitor general with relative ease. It was well known at the time that Obama might eventually send her name to Capitol Hill again.
Three other candidates have also gone through multiple interviews at the White House in recent weeks. They are: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sidney Thomas and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood.
If selected, Kagan, who is not married, would be the fourth woman ever nominated to the high court and continue a trend of Ivy League-educated lawyers who sit on the bench.
Unlike the others she would join, Kagan has never before served as a federal judge, an issue that is sure to come up in a confirmation hearing. It could also give her the outsider status and perspective that some senators have called for in a candidate.
Another interesting twist to a possible Kagan appointment centers on religion. She is Jewish, as are Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The other six justices are Roman Catholic, meaning a Supreme Court with Kagan would be the first ever without a Protestant.
UPDATED INFO: President Obama has selected Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the Supreme Court nominee to replace the retiring John Paul Stevens, a legal source close to the process told CNN Sunday night.
(Source: Fox News)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
9 Responses
I hope this is not true.
Anyone appointed now will by definitiion be an extreme radical leftist out to help finish destroying the Constitution and plunging this country into oblivion as a once free and democratic nation.
I hope the one doing that, at least, won’t be a Jew.
Kagan is an excellent choice; she is anything but a radical Leftist unless you think that supporting indefinite detention of Al Qaeda supporters makes one a radical Leftist.
You should check some Jewish-oriented sources before assuming that she is Jewish. For someone has young as her (born in the late 20th century), unless it is known that she is Shomer Shabbos and Shomer Kashrus, you need to check her maternal grandmother (or earlier) before concluding she is Jewish. Neither she nor her mother have Jewish personal names, and her educational background doesn’t suggest anything other than a secular background, and secular persons of Jewish descent have, at least since World War I, been about as likely to marry a non-Jew as a Jew.
#2 That is only one item among very many.
What about abortion, what about unconstitutional animal rights laws, what about unconstitutional reverse discrimination laws and minimum wage laws and laws against religion (like ordering the Ten Commandments being taken down from courthiuses).
What about all the anti business legislation and “global warming” scam laws?
All of this and more is anti Constitutional and I seriously doubt that she is conservative on even half of these issues, let alone on all of them as she would need to be to be a good choice.
#3 Who cares if she is halachically Jewish. She claims herself to be Jewish. That is enough for the secular world. If she claims to be Jewish then either way there are advantages and disadvantages to the Jewish community. Its not like she can help make the capitol hill minyan anyway.
hereorthere,
I would hope that you would oppose the Ten Commandments plaques in courthouses: Every one of them has used the Christian numbering! The US Constitution and every State Constitution says that we are not to create an official religion in the US.
And why are animal rights laws unconstitutional or even undesirable? Ditto for minimum wage laws or business regulations. Both seem quite consistent with Torah principles requiring humane treatment for animals, and limiting the excesses of the free market.
FYI #3- Wikipedia has her religion listed as Jewish. Mother’s name- Gloria Gittelman Kagan. Father-Robert Kagan.
I dont care if she is jewish or not. I am not a cardiac jew like most posters here who get all excited over a jewish name. To me she is a radical just like Obama. She has virtually no record on ANYTHING! She hasnt been a judge and was only in her previous position for a year (sounds familiar Obama fans?). She was the one who didnt allow the Military – IN WARTIME – to be present at Hahvahd during a job fair. She said their stance on “happy” people in the military was cruel and unusual (mind you that bills was passed by a DEMOCRAT Congress and signed by a DEMOCRAT President). That didnt stop her from taking a job in the same Clinton administration.
She is a straight out of Chicago. She got tenure in the college there despite not doing any papers – unheard of!
Obama wants someone LIKE HIM in the court. Dont fall for the spin given to you by MessNbc etc.
4, Our nation is based on the “Ten Commandments” thus I see no reason to have them removed from any courthouse. Unlike Hussein Obama who thinks this is not a x-stan nation, the truth is our laws are what most people refer to as Judaic x-stan.
6, Charlie (on the wrong side again!) Having the numbers on the 10 commandments is not x-stan. How else should they number it?????
Your definition of “humane treatment for animals” is NOT the Torah definition. I would go so far as to say you probably disagree with the portions of Maseches Chulin which discuss things done with animals (and I dont mean eat them!).
Limiting the free market??? Please move to a commie country because that it sounds like you are.