Monday, May 10, 2010


I have to say I'm sympathetic with this view.

Apparently, Elena Kagan will be nominated for the Supreme Court. I will go into more detail about this later, but there shouldn’t be any sugarcoating — it’s a poor choice. One way of seeing this is to examine Marty Peretz’s attempted defense. Boil off the usual add homienems and you’re left with no actual real credentials for the position attributed to Kagan. He doesn’t try to argue that Kagan — who has no judicial experience, very limited political experience, and no record of influential scholarship — is a better choice than Diane Wood or Sidney Thomas, because the proposition is pretty much indefensible. When you’re reduced to noting that a prospective nominee for the highest court in the land is a “brilliant conversationalist” and that other Harvardites think she’s good people. one has pretty much conceded that the pick is Ivy League nepotism of the worst sort. An the idea that the complete absence of evidence about her constitutional vision is no big deal is something that’s easy for someone who will never be denied an abortion, be discriminated against by an employer, etc. to say, but for people who actually take such things seriously it’s rather important.

I'm not surprised by the choice, but if we thought the Obama administration was going to stop the Court's long drift to the right, we're likely to be disappointed. Who knows, though (assuming she's confirmed), maybe she'll show more progressive values than her centrist credentials would predict.


Weblog Commenting by Site Meter