Kagan won't have the conformation battle we predicted

Many liberals, including President Obama, predicted the Senate Republicans would try to block whoever he nominated for Supreme Court. This was part of his decision to choose one of his more liberal candidates, rather than a moderate such as Merrick Garland. One can question whether Kagan will actually be as liberal as Obama likely wants, but she is definitely not a moderate. Given the Republicans' recent track record on supporting Obama's agenda, this news is surprising. Several moderate Republicans are giving her good marks, indicating the GOP may not have the votes to block her conformation.

This is likely for several reasons. Moderate Republicans have much to lose by trying to play culture wars with the Supreme Court nominee. Grilling the nominee on abortion looks good if you're from Alabama, but middle class Bostonians may not judge it so highly. Also, there is the fact she is a woman. It would be easier to oppose the nomination of a woman if the court had 5 women. Opposing a woman from Harvard isn't as easy when she would be the third woman on the court. Lastly, many moderates don't want any more publicity about them opposing President Obama's agenda. Primary voters are much more riled up about economic issues, supporting a Supreme Court nominee won't cause them much harm. All in all, it looks like the conditions are right for a smooth conformation.

Elena Kagan, a lesbian?

Probably not. But the rumors about SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan's sexuality have gotten the conservative base riled up. They point to several friends of Kagan's who have claimed she is a closeted lesbian. They also believe it explains the instance where she banned military recruiters from Harvard University because of their Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. It could be the lack of a husband past child bearing age. Whatever the motivations for these rumors, or their truthfulness, this debate raises an interesting question. Should we have an openly gay Supreme Court justice? As with most liberals, I would say definitely. We should have a supreme court that accurately reflects the population as a whole. Gays represent about 10% of the population. Does this mean that we should have one gay justice? I am all for choosing the most qualified nominee regardless of their race or sexual orientation. We don't necessarily need a gay justice, we just need to discard sexual orientation as a qualification for serving on the Supreme Court.

Attack Kagan but leave Thurgood Marshall out of it

The RNC is now attacking Elena Kagan's ties to the iconic Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall. Thurgood Marshall was the first African American Supreme Court justice, serving the high court from 1967-1991. He presided over many major rulings notably Roe v. Wade. He put individual rights above all else in his decisions and understandably came down on the left side of the court. He is arguably one of the best Supreme Court justices we have had this century.

There is nothing to excuse this indecency. They are attacking Elena Kagan's agreement with Marshall's 1987 remark in which he called the constitution "defective" and said it was the duty of the court to stand up for those disadvantaged by the law. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. The conservative wing of the court has no problem saying the constitution is flawed when they want to amend it to include a clause that bans gay marriage. So why is saying the lack of an Equal Rights Amendment is a bad thing? Why does saying that all people should be protected under the law make you a liberal or conservative justice? Even if you agreed with this principle, lets show some respect for a man who helped facilitate great positive change in this country.

As for the criticism of Kagan, her assumed liberal views should not be a sticking point in the debate over her conformation. John Paul Stevens was the leader of the liberal wing. Placing another liberal in his position should not be a problem for any decent senator. This being said, it is not even known if she is a liberal senator. Many of her friends say they do not even know of her judicial interpretation. I'd advise Obama to do a little research to avoid another David Souter-like mix up.