Posted on 05/26/2010 3:36:00 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Voters have an increasingly unfavorable opinion of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan but are more convinced than ever that she will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of U.S. voters now hold a favorable opinion of Kagan but 47% view her unfavorably, up from 43% a week ago and 39% just after President Obama announced her nomination.
These findings include 15% with a Very Favorable opinion and 23% who regard her Very Unfavorably. This, too, marks a shift from the first survey when Kagan’s Very Favorables were 18% and Very Unfavorables were 17%.
By comparison, the president’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, maintained favorables around 50% through the first three surveys following her selection, with unfavorables falling to 40%.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
Well the pubs could make the same argument that they would like input just Bush Sr gave the dems. And If the pubs can take the senate, well that changes all through the rest of BO’s term.
Yes, but doesn’t the new term start in October? There is really no way to delay the vote until after the elections without critically disrupting the court—something that won’t be done right before an election.
But you’re right, when the pubs take over Congress in Nov, arguments against any future picks (Ginsberg?) will have much stronger bite.
Sorry.....Elena Kagan does not represent my beliefs as a middle American, non-Harvard grad, non NYC financial elitist, and non liberal. As a white anglo Protestant fiscal and paleo conservative, my beliefs are typically far different from her leftist Communist demographic ilk.
She represents her tribe not mine. We each have beliefs and all beliefs are based upon upbringing, our education, our geographic location, our religion, our race, and our church. We Christians are typically hard working, and not overly greedy, and support broad issues and not the hard thinking thought police such as Kagan’s peers. We believe in fair play for all and not just over-representation for a few.
Most of us Americans are not a member of an elitist ilk such as Kagan who have never had to get their hands dirty or actually work for a living.
We should demand full diversity on the Supreme Court that represent all Americans, and not just more NYC elitists that represent only their own.
Thanks-
Who cares? It doesn’t matter. It didn’t matter what Americans thought when the health care travesty passed, and it won’t matter when they vote to approve the marxist for the SCOTUS.
I hope we keep this position open till the next congress. Then I hope the Republican controlled Senate refuses to hold a vote on Kagan. Sure Obama could then appoint her using a recess appointment, but she’d be limited to serving one year. If we were to win the White House in 2012, we could then have a Republican president fill the seat permanently no later than December 2013. During the time the seat is vacant, Republicans would be able to have a 5-3 advantage. While it is occupied by Kagan or some other leftist, there wouldn’t really be any difference in the balance of power that has existed since the Clinton administration.
Well, in the first place, she is a moonbat of the first order, who believes in activist law and international one-world law in place of the constitution. She is a flaming lesbian, although she is hiding it. She wouldn’t allow military recruitment on campus.
Not to speak of abortion and gay marriage.
In the second place, it is very poor political thinking to say, “Well, the next one will be worse.” No, the worst thing you can do is to roll over and let Obama do what he wants, which is pretty much what the Republican senators did with his first SCOTUS candidate. All that accomplishes is to put a lousy candidate on SCOTUS for life, and strengthen Obama’s hand for the next appointment.
Every time Obama is defeated, it strengthens us and weakens him. So you have to fight him every inch, ESPECIALLY when he has a truly ugly and extremist candidate like Kagan.
I’m not sure you’re correct regarding your first point. As a threshold matter, there is no such thing as “activist law”. Activist judges, sure, and Kagan may prove to be one. She’s very much been a company woman her whole life, however, so while she may (you might argue will) defy congress as a SCOTUS judge, IMO she’s less likely to than other possibilities.
There is nothing to support your contention regarding international law. She has written almost nothing on the subject and at her Solicitor General confirmation hearing stated:
“I do not believe that international law (assuming it has not been incorporated into domestic federal law) can prevent federal and state governments from broadening the application of the death penalty should they wish to do so. In a case like Kennedy v. Louisiana, 128 S. Ct. 2641 (2008) [finding use of the death penalty unconstitutional for rape], the appropriate question is whether the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the application of the death penalty to a particular kind of crime, not whether international law does so.”
I believe she’s a lesbian also. She insists she’s not, but I don’t wish to test her on that ;) And anyone who is nominated will be against DADT, for abortion, and pro-gay marriage. Again, all I’m asking for is realism.
Your second point is interesting—and I don’t think you’re wrong regarding giving the nomination a vocal fight. I do think it’s a case of be careful what you wish for. I think Kagan should receive structured and scrupulous vetting. I hope she will. But defeating this nominee is problematic, IMO. I don’t think there are many more moderate possibilities, so it might not be wise to shoot all of the political capital on this nominee to get backdoored with a Pam Karlan or Harold Koh. (Sorry, I’m a bit of a SCOTUS nerd.)
” if Kagan is shot down (and she won’t be) the next nominee will be more liberal, much more liberal.”
There is an election coming this November and Republicans are expected to make significant gains in them.
Here’s someone else we need to learn more about. Kagan is not making a favorable impression and it gives conservatives an opening.
On the contrary. Her own website at Harvard Law school describes the changes she made in the first year curriculum. A course on Common Law, which has been the basis for law in the west for more than a thousand years, and was taught in every American law school, was eliminated.
In its place are courses on international law and regulatory law. Instead of laws based on freedom and tradition, you have laws based on regulatory whim and international influence.
SCOTUS has already appealed to international law in several decisions. It is a very dangerous practice, and has no basis in the constitution.
Her position on these matters is all too clear, and she herself appears to have chosen the language used in the law school website.
Hopeful news ping.
I’m very familiar with the 1L curriculum at HLS. (I graduated from a similar school ~5 years ago and have quite a few friends who went there.) The course on international law is an elective which students have the option to take amongst other choices.
Further, it’s extremely flimsy to argue that providing more international law classes bears on Kagan’s constitutional philosophy. Frankly, Harvard grads need international law courses. Many work on complex, international transactions, on litigation involving cross-border contracts, or in sensitive government jobs that require an appreciation of international law. It doesn’t at all elucidate whether Kagan will use international law in interpreting the US Constitution.
Maybe there’s hope, based on this.
Speaking for myself, I have nothing against the study of international law. I have a big problem with her removing common law and Constitutional law from the required cirriculum for first-year law students. This could have a terrible effect on the American legal system in the future.
I think you get plenty of common law in the other courses.
And I should edit my above comment. Con law has always been elective at HLS, not recently made optional. It looks like, however, there has been a mandatory international law course added to the 1L curriculum. That’s my mistake. My thoughts on the addition remain as stated above.
I think she’d be confirmed with 80% disapproval
In its place are courses on international law and regulatory law. Instead of laws based on freedom and tradition, you have laws based on regulatory whim and international influence.
SCOTUS has already appealed to international law in several decisions. It is a very dangerous practice, and has no basis in the constitution.
Her position on these matters is all too clear, and she herself appears to have chosen the language used in the law school website.
Let's compare them.
Yale http://www.law.yale.edu/academics/jdfirstterm.htm
Harvard http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/degrees/jd/index.html
Stanford http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/courses/#1st_year_curriculum
Columbia https://www.law.columbia.edu/jd_applicants/curriculum/1l
Univ. of Chicago http://www.law.uchicago.edu/prospective/1Lcourses
New York Univ. http://www.law.nyu.edu/academics/courses/requiredfirstyearcourses/index.htm
UC Berkeley (Boalt) http://www.law.berkeley.edu/162.htm
Univ. of Pennsylvania http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/registrar/descriptions/l1only.cfm
Univ. of Michigan Ann Arbor (lists first-year required courses) http://web.law.umich.edu/_ClassSchedule/ClassSchedule.asp?term=1790
Univ. of Virginia http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/academics/curriculum.htm#courses
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.