Kagan's View of Free Speech Questionable

This Washington Post editorial entitled “Elena Kagan: Hostile to free speech?” discusses Kagan’s opinion regarding freedom of speech. The author had a vested interest with regard to this when he was involved in a Supreme Court case which pitted Citizens United versus the FEC. Kagan represented the FEC. This case resulted in a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5-4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a critical film about Hilary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. The author of this editorial won the case, but is wary of what is to come should Kagan be elected.

This relates to what we have studied in government in that it is talking about the judicial appointment process for the Supreme Court. Bossie says that Kagan is unfit to take a place on the Supreme Court due to her disregard for the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. Bossie argues that she does not regard grassroots interest groups as being constitutionally protected, which would skew her interpretations of Supreme Court cases.

We believe that the author has some very valid point in questioning Kagan’s views on free speech. In the appointment process, her involvement in Citizens United v. FEC should certainly not be overlooked. However, we do take this article with a grain of salt, as the author is incredibly biased because of his involvement in the case.

Photo Credit

Mary M. and Chris D.

Kagan Must Speak

In the Newsweek article, "Elana Kagan Must Speak", the importance of her speaking on issues is highlighted. They refer back to a Supreme Court case about Credit Card companies several years ago and how one word, "location", was a crucial determinate in how credit card companies opperate. Although this has nothing to do with Kagan, it is an example of why it is so crucial for her to speak up and share her views. Because everything can be interpreted differently.

I agree with this article about Kagan needing to speak. I have a hard time putting someone on the Supreme Court, republican or democrate, if we do not know where they stand. And to me this poses another problem, if she cannot share her political views what else is she hiding?

Photo Credit:

By:Brooke Adair

Obama makes choice for Supreme Court nomination

The article, "Obama Picks Kagan, Scholar but Not Judge, for Court Seat," discusses Obama's choice to nominate Elena Kagan as the next Supreme Court Justice. Ms. Kagan has some impressive credentials: she studied at both Oxford and Harvard Law, she was the dean of Harvard law school, and for the past year has served as the United States solicitor general. However, if confirmed, she will be the first Justice since Thurgood Marshall to not have prior judgeship experience before serving on the Supreme Court. Some critics are concerned about her lack of experience, but President Obama insist that she is "one of the nation's foremost legal minds."
Analysts predict "a fight over her confirmation but not necessarily an all-out war." The White House hopes that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings by July 4.

-Mary M. and Maddie R.

Elena Kagan ain't gettin' by easy!

Senate Judiciary chairman, Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.),

will oversee Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings.

The May 11 Washington Post Article, "Elena Kagan nomination for Supreme Court riles both sides of political aisle," discusses the process that wil occur in trying to get Elena Kagan confirmed. She is an interesting case because she has no prior judicial experience. Although she has great credentials, both conservatives and liberals aren't completely confident in Kagan because they don't know where she stands on a plethora of issues. She does, however, have a rich history in law--even becoming the Dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan took some heat for a state she made in the confirmation process for Solicitor General about indefinite detention of combatants not on an actual battlefield. Both sides wait eagerly for the nomination hearings.

This is relevant for a number of reasons. A position on the Supreme Court is one of the most prestigious and powerful positions in our government, and also the best way for a president to leave his legacy. The confirmation process will be both difficult and easy at the same time. Difficult becuase many Senators will be apprehensive due to not knowing where Kagan stands on the issues. It will also be somewhat easy for Kagan because she has no prior judicial decisions to defend. This confirmation would be historic because it would be the first time for there to be three women on the Supreme Court at one time. I think that Kagan will end up getting the confirmation with a little breathing room to spare.



Photo Credit: Melina Mara/the Washington Post

Grade This Post.

By: Chris D.

Who will Obama choose?

According to the CNN article"What you need to know about the top Supreme Court contenders" (published May 9th), there are four front funners for the soon to be vacant seat of Justice John Paul Stevens: Elena Kagan, Diana Wood, Merrick Garland, and Sidney Thomas. President Obama, using the power given to him in Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution, will appoint one of the previously metioned nominees to the Supreme Court. If all goes smoothly, the Senate will confirm the nominee, and we will have a new justice on the Supreme Court by the new session this fall.

Here is a brief overview of each of the possible nominees:

Elena Kagan is the US Solicitor General. She is the youngest among the nominees but has a fair about of law experiance. Not only was she a Harvard Law School Dean, she also worked as a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall. Like many Supreme Court nominees, she has an ivy education. Kagan is fairly neutral and doesn't have a paper trail on critical isses, such as abortion. However, she does lack judicial experience and tends to defend executive power.

Judge Diane Wood is on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. She does not have an Ivy League education and is from the Midwest. If appointed she would bring a lot of diversity to the court. Plus, Wood as delt with a court dominated by conservative judges. Wood's record on aborion, religion, and immigration would make the conformation process difficult. Conservatitves are already putting up a fight.

Judge Garland, with his Ivy League education and decision that both the left and the right agree with is a typical candidate. Case subject matter included environmental protection, ending disability discrimination, and stopping terror. With little controversy in his private or professional like, Judge Garland seems as though he would be pretty easy to confirm.

Judge Sidney Thomas is a faimly man with a legal background. He often took more gray area cases while on the court of appeals such as, right to privacy and what constitutes free speech cases. Thomas would add more to the court's ideological diversity that Garland would, but Thomas would aslo face a tougher confirmation.

In the end, Obama ended up choosing Elena Kagan!!!

Grade this Post

Posted by EGrenadier and MTaylor

Kagan Supreme Court Nominee

On May 10, 2010, President Obama plans to make an announcement to the White House to replace Justice John Paul Stevens with our Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Kagan is fifty years old and is known to be the "front-runner" for the nominations. Receiving her law degree from Harvard and Dean of the Law School, Kagan has the qualifications of becoming a Supreme Court Justice due to her education as well as her minority representation of women. If confirmed, Kagan would be the fourth women in history to serve on the Supreme Court and making this the first time in history for three women to be on the Court at the same time. Through the nomination process, qualifications such as education, judicial experience, representation, and minority status are all factors for the final confirmation from the Senate for a new Justice. Although Kagan has the education, minority status, and same political representation as Obama (as we know of), she has no judicial experience, having the potential of strong opposition from the Republicans.

GLeeper & AHillary