June 25, 2010
As Kagan confirmation hearings are set begin, do sentencing fans have any new SCOTUS insights?
Elena Kagan is the first SCOTUS nominee in a long time without any judicial record and without any history of engagement in criminal justice matters. In light of that reality, the run-up to her confirmation hearings have been largely devoid of any blog-worthy discovery or discussions. And I suspect and fear that the hearings as well will have precious little discussion of criminal justice issues. (Because the Supreme Court is going to hand down the McDonald incorporation rulings next week, the Second Amendment will surely get some play during the hearings, though I anticipate Kagan dancing around tough questions by saying she agrees that there are individual gun rights but they must be subject to reasonable restrictions.)
But perhaps I have missed some hidden nugget or lurking story-line concerning Kagan and criminal justice in the (seemingly tepid) media coverage of her back-story. Or perhaps readers have some new insights concerning how the transition from Justice Stevens (who has a truly historic sentencing jurisprudence legacy) to a new Justice (who is essentially a blank slate) will impact the Court's criminal justice work. Or perhaps as the winding down of the current Term is providing new perspective on where the Roberts Court more broadly may be headed on criminal justice issues.
Whatever the possibilities, readers are encourage to share any new SCOTUS insights in the comments.
June 25, 2010 at 09:45 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference As Kagan confirmation hearings are set begin, do sentencing fans have any new SCOTUS insights?:
The nominee does not matter, nor does its political affiliation or beliefs. It will be a waking nightmare for the nation. She is a poster child for the lawyer affliction, being a dumbass (a lawyer term of art, not an epithet, characterizing the destruction of a good intellect by law education, indoctrinating modern students into garbage Medieval, supernatural doctrines).
If it is a lawyer, it will be a cult criminal weasel running its con, and voting the interest of the criminal cult enterprise (CCE). She will be an enthusiastic trasher of Article I Section 1, granting the lawmaking task to Congress. She will be an energetic judicial reviewer, and Legal Realist, a horribly deformed, bastard sibling of the Nazi Judiciary, both spawns of the Free Law Movement infecting our entire appellate dumbass judiciary via that parasite vector, the German Llewellyn.
She hates America, and wants it to be France, so her ilk may fully run it. She will immunize the lawyer client, the criminal. She will introduce Euro trash alien legal doctrines to grow the size of government, a wholly owned subsidiary of the CCE. She will continue to sign the death warrants of millions of viable babies. She will be another Ruth Ginsberg, but without the health problems. Medical care will keep her in her seat into her 90's. History will look upon us, and be disgusted.
Eventually, there will be a major terror attack, and payback will visit the CCE. It is too bad that tank tracks may also crush that rare flower of Athens, the US Constitution, along the way. Thank the lawyer.
I hope the next Congress acts to save us. If the Supreme Court wants to legislate from the bench, it should have a legislation size number of Justices, e.g. 1000, each paid $10 a decision and no more, an overpayment for the value of these garbage decisions. When the weasels complain, we can quote the decisions affirming the draft and servitude on a jury, as a privileges and civic duties. All decisions written at higher than a sixth grade reading level fail to give notice to the US adult public, and should be void.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 26, 2010 9:34:52 AM
Never thought I'd find myself saying these words but the Republican parrot chorus might be right about Kagan. She does seem to have the sensibilities of a political operative.
Two opportunities to plant a seed to change the direction of the court and two lost opportunities, one to identity-politics and the other to political skittishness (a safe pick in that there's not much of a record to challenge).
I've given up hope for a progressive Samuel Alito from this split-the-difference, profoundly disappointing president.
Of course almost everything Alito does offends me, but at least he's ideologically driven...as opposed to a calculating pol more interested in what's doable than what's right.
Posted by: John K | Jun 26, 2010 12:35:17 PM