NBC: Obama to name Kagan for high court

President Barack Obama will nominate U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan to serve as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, NBC News’ Pete Williams reported late Sunday night.

Kagan, 50, served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009. Obama nominated her to serve in her current post as solicitor general early in 2009, and she won Senate confirmation by a vote of 61-31. She is the first woman to serve as solicitor general of the United States.

She was widely viewed as a front-runner when Obama was considering candidates for a Supreme Court opening last year, but the president ultimately chose Sonia Sotomayor for the job.

Fox News background on Kagan

C-Span video of Kagan

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
16 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. RuBegonia says:

    A gift for Stanley Ann.

  2. CO2aintpoison says:

    Nepotism much? The Mob Squad Family continues to birth its illegetitmate scoundrals into the administration. Disgusting. Perhaps we get lucky and the Republicans will stand in the way. Doubtful. Is it November yet?

  3. Teri says:

    What’s this obsession Obama has with appointing people that look like Paaats ?

  4. Kimj7157 says:

    I know the first thing I would look for in a potential Supreme Court Justice is, of course, someone who has NEVER BEEN A JUDGE.(!) That’s a no brainer…obviously.

    • thierry says:

      well, he is the potus who himself has basically done nothing in the real world… like have a real job. might as well surround yourself with mini- mes.

      it’s just like no real practice every day doctors truly involved in his deathcare and people who have no experience with money whatsoever being involved with banking and finance. as far as urkel is concerned being a socialist and fawning lackey is all the requirement one needs to j-o-b with him. ain’t nothing going down but neo- national socialism justice.

  5. Tinker says:

    At least McCain likes to have smart and good looking women around.

  6. aliencats says:

    how could we consider someone without a background of decisions to go on. Is Obama just doing this because she is a gay women. That is her qualification… What are this womans views? We can’t let this happen… This needs to be stopped just because obama nominated her.

  7. morecowbell says:

    Kagan…. OMG…. when is this ever going to stop..

  8. bigbud66 says:

    Wonder what Tammy’s “Gaydar” says about Sotomayor.

    • KatieSilverSpring says:

      Come on, bigbud66, we must think for ourselves; we love Tammy but she is our channel voice not our direction (I hope I said that correctly & made sense). We need to know what Kagan is, what she may do, oh sh*t, forget that, we know; we just need to encourage our representatives to vote against her. I live in an area where none of my reps will even care what I say so we need to keep pumping on. We need to work the Fall 2010 elections, I plan to do this even though I haven’t done any of this since I was a young’un.

      Kagan has made her views known. She is anti-military, she is PC, she is sad at the demise of the socialist movement of the 30s. Oh, G-d, she is upper West side Manhattan, sorry that says it all. She was a Harvard Law Dean at 40-something (come on, when in history did that age ever happen, never mind, gender, “religion”, sayx-you-ell orientation). Her actions speak loudly, and I don’t mean the assumed-gay part. Whether she is or not, who cares, really. Look at the other side for a minute. If Tammy was named to the Supreme Court (I don’t recommend it, T), would we be sweating bullets that she is gay? Nooo. We would be looking at the advantage. So, we need to look at the disadvantage of having Kagan on the Court.

      Shiver moment.

  9. thierry says:

    the thing about gaydar is that it goes off whether you want it to or not. when someone looks like a tennis coach gone to pot or has a voice as deep as paaaaats, well… (whomever is telling these cookie cutter wimmin to go with the big huge faux pearl neck brace needs to be arrested. it doesn’t make them more feminine looking but less.).

    but there is the phenomena of the suburban soccer mom who looks sort of lesbian-y and can cause the false alarms if you’re from the city and in with the gheyness. these women are not gay and are not closeted- they’re just sporty sorts with sensible shoes usually sneakers, outfits they could have stolen from their sons and the short style- less hair. think florence henderson in’ the brady bunch’ but more chunky , less hip hair style, no dresses. this woman doesn’t strike me as suburban soccer mom accidental gaydar setter off-er.

    frankly i don’t care whatever these dunces do in their private lives as long as only consenting adults are involved , there’s no criminal behavior and the sheep aren’t unduly traumatized. i do care if they lie because that marks them as untrustworthy and a target for manipulation and blackmail. i want them to be above all qualified for their positions and in agreement with our constitution and basic founding principles.

    everyone knew in their hearts urkel was unqualified to be president- but here we are. we should expect because of the narcissistic freak he is that he will only choose people like himself- unqualified and most importantly who won’t dare show him up( boy he read hillary right on that which is a really sad statement)- he wants to look at his administration and see himself reflected back. he will consistently choose people like this- gay or straight, male or female- until we remove him or the senate straps one on and stops him.

  10. Maynard says:

    Kagan is being quoted as an advocate of the “disappearance” of speech that promotes “racial and gender inequality”. Although she uses the qualifying word of “uncoerced”, which would seem to make the censorship voluntary, remember that she’s writing in a law review. Within this context, she’s not addressing custom; she’s advocating laws and policies that will promote the disappearance of speech. The law is, by definition, coercive. This woman is dangerous.

    In her 1993 article “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V,” for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

    “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”

  11. Laura says:

    The regulation of so-called hate speech is the exact same thing as regulation of free speech, period. And as gay woman I do not feel less equal or powerless, or need the government to issue me special rights in order to be protected, free or able to do more, I can take care of myself and achieve anything I want based on my own individuality, ambition, desire and drive, my sexual orientation is not my entire being, nor is it anything more other than what it is, simply 1% of who I am. I do not base my entire existence on who I am sexually attracted to, that is ridiculous! I transcend my sexuality, I do not dwell and live in it as if that were the only aspect of who I am and how I define myself. I think the hate crime bill is.. well stupid, frankly I think if you kill someone regardless of who and what they are, I believe there is hatred towards the individual, I mean I highly doubt they were adored. So if someone were to kill me just for being me whereby my sexuality does not exist does that mean I am less of a valued person and only my sexuality promotes my value and enhancement as a person and makes me more worthwhile of existing? I would hate to think that all I am that is worthwhile is only based on my sexuality, I would like to believe that it would be of more importance to my existing as a human being takes sole priority, therefore then everyone would and should be under protection against hate crimes. If someone killed me because I was known as a conservative, a hate crime would not be implemented, however if someone killed me because I was a lesbian a hate crime would be implemented, so I guess I am considered less a person in one aspect and more in another simply based on another persons ideology, whereby I feel kind of like a slave to the extent where the value of my life is dictated by what other’s think. I am really one of one, a free individual whereby someone else’s ideology should not dictate the value of my existence in any aspect.

  12. […] Memeorandum has a thread, and MSNBC has more information. Tammy Bruce linked to a C-Span video of Kagan if you want to check it […]

You must be logged in to post a comment.