TPMDC

Last Justice Standing: Kagan's Five Funniest Moments On Tuesday


Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is a funny lady. Facing a somewhat skeptical Republican contingent on the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Kagan slayed 'em in the aisles with a nearly nonstop stream of sarcasm and wit.

There were a lot of important issues discussed yesterday, and a lot of digging into Kagan's legal philosophy. But the main takeaway from the first day of questions and answers for Kagan was the nominee's ability to knock 'em dead.

1. Christmas at the Kagans By far the funniest moment came when Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) asked Kagan where she was on Christmas Day last year. The question was actually a lead-in to talk of the foiled airline bombing attempt in 2009 and legal rights during war time, but Kagan took the opportunity to school Graham on some American Jewish tradition. From the transcript:

GRAHAM: Now, as we move forward and deal with law of war issues, Christmas Day bomber, where were you at on Christmas Day?

KAGAN: Senator Graham, that is an undecided legal issue, which -- the -- well, I suppose I should ask exactly what you mean by that. I'm assuming that the question you mean is whether a person who is apprehended in the United States is...

GRAHAM: No, I just asked you where you were at on Christmas.

KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant.

2. Hairy questions Some Senators didn't know what to do with Kagan's humor (while some, like Graham, rolled with it and turned the hearings into a sitcom at times.) Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) -- not a man who has a lot to laugh about these days as it is -- seemed stymied when Kagan turned his long chat about all the times he's asked Supreme Court nominees about putting TV cameras in the Court chamber into a discussion about hair care.


SPECTER: I will put into the record what the justices have had to say. I've questioned almost everybody about this subject, and I've had the opportunity to question all of the people on the court now.

But there's a lot -- there are a lot of those who have been favorably disposed to it -- or at least have acknowledged its inevitability -- and remind them that they all appeared on television this year on C-SPAN, and most of them -- many of them have appeared over the years selling books and being in a variety of situations.

KAGAN: It means I'd have to get my hair done more often, Senator Specter.

SPECTER: Let me commend you on...Let me commend you on that last comment. And I say that seriously. You have shown a really admirable sense of humor, and I think that is really important.

3. Play it again, Herb. Kagan can wield sarcasm like a pro, as Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) found out when he tried to question Kagan about the 1995 book review where she wrote that the modern nomination process is, among other things, "vapid and hollow." The article made a lot of appearances in the questioning yesterday, to the boredom of many -- not the least of which was Kagan herself.

KOHL: Well, I think this is a good time to refer to your 1995 law review article in which you criticized the Supreme Court...

KAGAN: It's been half-an-hour since I heard about that article.

4. Stop me if you've heard this Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) slipped into some, uh, delightful partisan banter early on in the hearings yesterday. The two men have served together in the Senate for a long time, and sounded more than a little bit like an old married couple having the same fight for the umpteenth time. Kagan let the scene play out. (Leahy's comments weren't caught by the mics, but those of us in the room could hear him criticizing Hatch for cutting off Kagan mid-sentence.)

HATCH: Let me ask my questions the way I want to.

(CROSSTALK)

HATCH: I will. I'm going to be fair. I intend to be, and you know that after 34 years. [To Kagan] Go ahead, I -- did you have something else you want to add?

KAGAN: No, go ahead.

HATCH: [About him and Leahy] We have to have a little back-and-forth every once in a while or this place would be boring as hell, I tell you.

KAGAN: And its gets the spotlight off me, you know, so I'm -- I'm all for it. Go right ahead.

5. Sleep it off Kagan was brutally honest when Kohl took his turn to ask about televising Supreme Court hearings (which, it should be said, appears to be at least the third most important opinion Senators want from a nominee before they'll consider her for the Supreme Court.)

KAGAN I have said that I think it would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the courtroom. And -- and the reason I think is as -- when you see what happens there, it's an inspiring sight. I guess I talked about this a little bit in my opening statement yesterday.

I basically attend every Supreme Court argument. Once a month I argue before the court. When I'm not arguing, I'm sitting in the front row watching one -- some member of my office or somebody else argue. And it's an incredible sight. Because all of these -- all nine justices, they're so prepared, they're so smart, they're so thorough, they're so engaged. The questioning is rapid fire. You're really seeing an institution of government at work, I think, in a really admirable way.

So I think -- and, of course, the issues are important ones. I mean, not -- some of them will put you to sleep, you know.

Here's an ABC News video compilation of some of the funniest moments from yesterday:

Comments (79) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (2)

June 30, 2010 9:34 AM   

I'm sure the righties in the land won't get it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 1, 2010 3:33 PM    in reply to DownriverDem

CAN WE STOP with this NONSENSE. Kagan needs to be appointed and no one's vote is being swayed by this theater. Yesterday's announcement by the Indiana man who wants to buy an Anti-Aircraft gun and can now do so because of the SCOTUS ruling just underscores how important the court is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 1, 2010 5:45 PM    in reply to SQLInjector

oh it might be satire...doh!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 2, 2010 5:30 PM    in reply to SQLInjector

Note: this guy is a spammer, don't click on the link.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 2, 2010 6:33 PM    in reply to midnight rambler

Seriously? I even corrected myself to say it was satire! What's up man.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 9:38 AM   

She's handled herself very well so far.
I likedthe Christmas at a Chinese restaurant part best.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

aq

user-pic

June 30, 2010 10:50 AM    in reply to It's Pat

Celebrating Hanukkah on Christmas Day?
Er... No.
But, then again, what else did I expect from Sen. Graham?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 11:31 AM    in reply to aq

I know, that part had me scratching my head. I think Graham was just trying to go along with the joke but he really looked like an idiot. I believe his question was initially intended to trap her but she turned it on him really good.

I'm very impressed with her so far.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 5:51 PM    in reply to It's Pat

I'm going to give Lindsey points for trying. But he is so outclassed in the off-the-cuff humor category that he looks bad. Compare him instead to the conservatives.

What is it about conservatives that they can't handle humor unless it puts someone else down?

Kagan wins, of course.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 12:00 PM    in reply to aq

Look up vapid, you'll sse Graham.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 5:27 PM    in reply to It's Pat

The funny part about the Chinese restaurant part was the followup, where they had to get Senator Chuck Schumer to explain to Graham that the really *is* what Jews traditionally do on Christmas, along with going to the movies...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 9:51 AM   

Nothing disarms the opposition like a sense of humor.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sbv

user-pic

June 30, 2010 1:58 PM    in reply to Rich in NJ

it bugs the hell out of them when everything they say isn't taken as gospel from God's own mouth to their ear! "let the good times roll" she is one smart, funny, sharp lady and that, along with barack, will drive them crazy!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

June 30, 2010 6:02 PM    in reply to sbv

I was pretty neutral on Elena Kagan when these hearings started, but she has really won me as a fan in the last couple of days. She is a New Yorker through and through, and this whitebread Southerner has long had a soft spot for New York moxie.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 9:55 AM   

Gotta say, I like Kagan. She's not the ideological counter-balance to Roberts that the country needs...but she's got a sense of humour and seems to be a professional through and through.

And she's already spoken out against Citizens United.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 12:07 PM    in reply to EnnuiDivine

Sheez! We don't need an ideological counterweight to Roberts. We've got four of them and a fat lot of good that's done as we lost monumental decisions 5 to 4!

We need a POLITICAL counterweight to Roberts who can swing Kennedy to the left on decisions.

What difference does it make if she's uber-liberal if all she does is become the 4th vote on a dissenting opinion?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 6:03 PM    in reply to EnnuiDivine

An ideological counterweight is someone who buys into the particular set of issues but is opposed to others who also buy into those issues. Sort of like Conservative vs. Socialist.

The fact is that the world has moved on and the people who are trapped into the world the conservatives are trying to recreate are building a comfortable fiction that takes one hell of a lot of energy and money to maintain. Kagan has demonstrated to me that she has moved past that world and is likely (no guarantees) to address the real world that currently exists.

Notice, for example, that the conservatives have had to look back into history to try to recreate the liberals of the 19th century to deal with. They have their entire world view based on 19th century politics, because they think they can get enough of the voters to support them to give them 21st century political power.

Kagan looks like she has enough snap to see this sick dynamic. Besides - I really like her sense of humor. If I joined a synagogue would they teach it to me? Like they did Jon Stewart?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 9:55 AM   

It's like a Catskill Mountain Resort -- a Jewish comedian playing to a bunch of senior citizens (but in this case, there are more gentiles than Jews in the audience).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 12:15 PM    in reply to Thornhill

Stewart has to get her on his show.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 1:06 PM    in reply to glblank

double ditto to that one. I'd bet there's more than one producer there who's thinking the same thing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 1:06 PM    in reply to Thornhill

LOL. Funny AND accurate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 1:08 PM    in reply to Cal Gal

"Did you hear the one about the Rabbi, the Priest and the Supreme Court Justice?"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 6:15 PM    in reply to JEP07

No. Tell me about it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 11:42 PM    in reply to Richardxx

...So the Rabbi says: "I only take tips!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 9:59 AM   

Next question, "Alright Ms. Kagan, would you please tell us how your sense of humor will help corporations and the richest 1% of Americans get even richer. This, of course, is a very important attribute of all recently confirmed Supreme Court Justices."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 10:00 AM   

What do you expect from someone who looks like Zero Mostel's long-lost brother, errr sister.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 10:23 AM   

She's a winner, with that smile, with the humour and apparently her very high intelligence. I just love it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 11:03 AM   

Oooh, when she gets confirmed the Clarence Thomas jokes are gonna be good.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 11:11 AM   

I predict, based on humor and sarcasm, that she and Scalia will get along just fine. Which isn't a bad thing, actually. It seems to work for him and Ginsburg.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 11:15 AM   

One also admires her abilities as an actress. To so completely disguise one's contempt for the baboonery being offered by the Republicans takes real acting ability.

And why are these hearings such a vapid, degenerate affair? It is the fault of the Republicans, who will seize on the smallest piece of candor as an excuse to filibuster and grandstand.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 11:57 AM    in reply to rhallnj

perhaps because the republican senators are vapid degenerates?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 1:13 PM    in reply to daveminnj

VD's? would they be related to STD's?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 6:24 PM    in reply to rhallnj

The Repubs asking the questions depend on the conservative troglodytes who elect them, otherwise they wouldn't be there. Those Repubs are playing to that audience. The hearings are such a vapid, degenerate affair because those Republicans in leadership positions would lose those highly desired positions if they reacted like intelligent sensible individuals.

They've created and assembled their base of voters so that they can attain the power of elected office. Now the Republicans have to dance to the strings they think the base will pull. If they fail, ask Sen Bennett what happens.

The key is not the politicians or the issues. It's the fears and ignorance of their base.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 11:17 AM   

Watching and listening to those senators is painful. They are humorless, self centered stiffs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 6:28 PM    in reply to Philip

They don't dare be anything else.

They know what messages their base will respond favorably to. They never know what an off-message comment will lead to. So they reject or ignore everything that is off-message to what they think their base will react favorably to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 11:41 AM   

Even if Kagan were a strong progressive, her entrance into the court will have no effect on the entrenched 5-4 corporate majority that is rapidly destroying American democracy with its unprecedented decisions.

http://www.facebook.com/campaigncorner

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

aq

user-pic

June 30, 2010 12:18 PM    in reply to Jerry

Here's to hoping for a speedy retirement to Roberts, Alito, or Scalia...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 6:33 PM    in reply to Jerry

That's a purely numerical evaluation. One of nine and replacing a liberal. But what if she is highly persuasive? She might become very influential.

Keeping it on topic, that may be what Kagan's sense of humor predicts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 1, 2010 11:42 AM    in reply to Richardxx

Richard, nice to read your input...and it's on the money too!
Kagan should insist on reading all her opinions, whether for or against, in the court, I think...she would be a sensation!
We underestimate women at our peril. They're not driven by testosterone but they will eat you for breakfast if necessary.
Nice to hear your take on things.
Rog

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 11:55 AM   

Of course she's funny. Check out who she was separated from at birth.

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2007/03/jon%20lovitz.jpg

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 12:13 PM   

Humor shows a sharp intellect. Irony can not be found in the law books. For Graham to ask his question demonstrated just how little he really understood or knew about Kagan, making his obtuse attempt at partisanism look all the more the vapid weasel he is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 6:50 PM    in reply to glblank

Look. Graham is what his supporters want and what his personal power can keep in the Senate. But he is not a DeMint or Coburn.

Clueless about Kagan and about New York Jews? Frankly most of us are. But I suspect that Graham's apparent gayness makes him a lot more complex of a person than DeMint, Coburn or others. So does his long-term experience as a JAG officer. To stay in the Senate he has to stay Republican and he has to cater to his base, but it appears to me that he also stretches it to trying to do the best he can for America as long as he doesn't lose his Senate seat.

Weasel I'll agree with. Vapid is a step too far. Will you accept "nasty" as an alternative adjective?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 12:14 PM   

Will the Democrats use the behavior of the Republicans in these hearings against them in a campaign add. We'll see. i sure hope so.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 7:02 PM    in reply to Bushdidit

My question has to be - how many local voters will be swayed by making this issue? Will they vote for or against the candidate as a result?

Compare that with two things. How much money is available to the campaign and how many enemies and active voters against it will it create?

Every Congressional district is going to answer this in a different way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 4, 2010 5:02 PM    in reply to Richardxx

Richardxx, I have seldom seen a more reasonable and well thought-out and expressed thread on one of these comment sections. Am definitely looking forward to Kagan's confirmation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 12:59 PM   

I think the Christmas Day thing was quite sinister. It was a slimy conservative so called Christian and Southerner coding his way to get her to basically say she was Jewish. He wanted to highlight that for his base base. Big neon letters "This woman is NOT CHRISTIAN". Therefore she does "not share OUR values". etc etc. It's like a typical southern job interview--they want to know things they can't actually ask you so they play these kinds of games. These are the guys who show over and over again that they are used to having all the power and are beyond ballistic that they don't have it any more. So they keep playing these dirty games.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 1:08 PM    in reply to eve cairo

I don't like the jerk, but to me this question was less sinister and more clueless. Christians tend to think everyone celebrates Christmas, just like they think the cross is a secular as well as religious symbol.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

June 30, 2010 6:09 PM    in reply to Cal Gal

I couldn't figure out where Lindsey Graham thought he was going with that. It was a really stupid question. (Rather stupidly asked, too. "Where were you at?" Ouch.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 8:01 PM    in reply to slb

He was going for some high-drama intro in the seriousness of being "at war on terror" etc. And his arrogant "Christian" centric world-view and cultural assumptions got sliced apart by Kagan's quick wit and humor, and so de-railed his attempt to create a stage-setting rhetorical ramp-up to his detention of terrorist line of questions/attacks against Kagan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 1, 2010 3:09 AM    in reply to Lestatdelc

+1

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 3, 2010 1:39 PM    in reply to slb

His next question, would have been about the Fruit of the loom bomber. But, the homorous reply blew up his chain of thought.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 8:06 PM    in reply to eve cairo

Good grief. Not every culturally ignorant (and arrogant) thing a GOP pol says is dog-whistling in some Machiavellian, 11th dimensional chess sort of way. Sometimes GOPers say culturally stupid because… well, they are culturally stupid.

And consequently open to being skewered with humor over it I might add.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 1:03 PM   

She looks enchanting and just plain "fun" in that photo.

I hope we get to hear some of her behind-the-scenes remarks from the bench, I'd bet she will lighten-up all of the others, except maybe Alito. He's got NO sense of humor.

Scalia will no doubt appreciate her levity.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 1:09 PM    in reply to JEP07

Right on. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, as the saying goes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

June 30, 2010 6:12 PM    in reply to JEP07

Kagan would be a big reason to push for televising the Supreme Court procedings. I can see the potential for great entertainment!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 1:12 PM   

She's cute as a button!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 7:13 PM    in reply to ShawnATL

Is she still single?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 1:15 PM   

Judging from Specter's remarks regarding Kagan's sense of humor, it's clear that, while Specter himself no longer has a sense of humor, he can appreciate it in the abstract and deems it good.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 1:20 PM    in reply to barnacle

Barnacle, that may sound like snark to some, but it is really quite accurate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 7:21 PM    in reply to JEP07

Essentially he is willing to recognize a sense of humor as long as if his base calls him on it he can blame someone else. Other than that he is not going to admit his positive reaction.

What do you expect from someone who wants to continue to hold his job and has to placate his unpredictable conservative base?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 8:08 PM    in reply to Richardxx

Except Specter already has his pink slip.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 3:00 PM   

Question of the day for Kagan;

Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom you clerked, said: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” Can you defend this approach to judging?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 6:30 PM    in reply to teabagger

You've done this twice now (that I know of); why are you copying and pasting George Will's questions without indicating where it came from?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 7:23 PM    in reply to teabagger

How do you define "the law"?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 5:13 PM   

Grassley asked her about whether it was God or the 2nd amendment that gave people the right to carry weapons. I was thinking at the time that she should have made a comment that the SC was not in the business of judging God, that there were enough people running around who considered themselves qualified to tell God what to think and to do. She wasn't one of them. The SC restricts itself to man-made legislation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 6:13 PM   

Tons of interesting comments about the nominee, yes yes she has a nice smile, she is smart etc etc.... But can someone who NEVER EVER was a judge (Not even in a small claim court, not even there) can take decision that can affect our life??
Would one of you will put his child in hands of a Physician that absolutely no experience in surgery ?? Would you do that ?? Would one of you take the risk ??
I surely would not!!!
Michael and I am a Proud Democrat !!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 7:22 PM    in reply to DGHouston

Those aware of the history of the Supreme Court know that whether or not one has been a judge is irrelevant.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 7:29 PM    in reply to DGHouston

Personally I find the lack of prior judicial experience quite a positive. Judges decide if what someone else did is right. Real people do things.

I seriously distrust the experience of judging what others do as valid background for becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 8:22 PM    in reply to DGHouston

But can someone who NEVER EVER was a judge (Not even in a small claim court, not even there) can take decision that can affect our life?

Of course.

I take it you didn't realize that over a third of the Justices (40 justices of the 111 seated, 36%) had no judicial experience before joining the US Supreme Court, including some of the more notable Justices, such as Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell, Byron White and Louis Brandeis.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 8:30 PM    in reply to Lestatdelc

BTW, you do know that Warren became widely regarded as one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in the history of the United States and perhaps the single most important jurist of the 20th century, as well as being known for the sweeping liberal decisions of the Warren Court, which ended school segregation and transformed many areas of American law, especially regarding the rights of the accused, ending school prayer, and requiring “one-man-one vote” rules of apportionment. He made the Court a power center on a more even base with Congress and the presidency especially through four landmark decisions: "Brown v. Board of Education" (1954), "Gideon v. Wainwright" (1963), "Reynolds v. Sims" (1964), and "Miranda v. Arizona" (1966).

Not bad for a guy who had never been a judge, not even a small claims court judge.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 6:19 PM   

Shecky Kagan! She cudda killed 'em in the Catskills - what a waste of talent. Let's hope that charm works on Kennedy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 7:57 PM   

I liked when she pointed out that her praise of Justice Aaron Barack was in the context of her welcoming him to Harvard as a visiting guest of the University, and that she also said glowing things about Justice Scalia (IIRC) when he visited the University's law school as a guest, and if any of the Senators had visited the University, she would have said nice things about them too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 1, 2010 3:30 AM    in reply to Lestatdelc

Correct me pleaSe, but I think She will be confirmed, and we will hear very little about her position's, and a whole lot of congressional selling to the base-- and they may ask a question, now and then.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 8:11 PM   

How cute.

TPM has become the fox news for the obama presidency.

Does anyone here remember this woman instead of being so cute(cute, geez!) is replacing the most liberal member the court had,which isn't saying much.

I see no reason to trust anyone that has lived their whole life concealing their beliefs.
Don't you all realize what is going on here?

she may well be the 6th vote and not the 4th vote and all you people know how to do is laugh about it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 8:25 PM    in reply to JadeZ

TPM has become the fox news for the obama presidency...

(scroll)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 1, 2010 12:08 AM    in reply to JadeZ

If you think that, I've got a big glass rock to sell you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 11:31 PM   

Why in the world did he ask her where she was on christmas. What an annoying question.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 11:47 PM   

Aw, isn't that Kagan a little cutie!

Get it? She'd have to have her hair done more often? (the quip was actually a little bittersweet since the poor darling has mild alopecia.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 1, 2010 12:18 AM   

"Because all of these -- all nine justices, they're so prepared, they're so smart, they're so thorough, they're so engaged. The questioning is rapid fire. You're really seeing an institution of government at work, I think, in a really admirable way."

As anyone truly objective about SCOTUS right now well knows, her description on applies to all EIGHT justices. :p This is one hysterical RIP on the Unqualified Justice, in over his head and too petrified to speak for fear of making a fool out of himself.

Could this have been her liberal dog whistle? Given how clever she is, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. After getting comfortable, could you imagine the kind of performance spectacle she could make of the court by dismantling the other side with her rapier wit? That would be PRICELESS!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on