Soliciting a General

At first, Elena Kagan's nomination troubled me. Her definition of "battlefield" with respect to battlefield law was problematic. On the issues of law, I general defer to those more knowledgeable. While balkinization was full of conflict o f interest in this case, it's pretty much unarguable that replacing Stevens with Kagan moves the Court to the right. So I was skeptical. Even more so when there seemed to be bipartisan support for her. Fuck. You. Bipartisanship.

Anyways, I've changed my mind. And not only because opposing her is pretty much a lost cause at this point. She's demonstrated a n actual sense of humour and identity politics and tribalism dictates that I must stand by her.

But SRSLY, the positions we've seen from her so far (barring a leaked sex video) were from her playing a position as an advocate. Her job at the time she was presenting those arguments was to present arguments favourable to her employer. That isn't to say that nothing can be determined from those arguments, obviously she was sympathetic enough to the authoritarian stances of indefinite detention that she could make those arguments. That still troubles me. It's just that these positions do not necessarily reflect how she personally feels about those issues. That issue of lack of judicial experience and record actually weighs in her favour in this case.

Although it really IS about her having a sense of humour - about being jokingly irreverant during her Senate confirmation hearing. That takes a kind of self-awareness and EPIC chutzpah that I find admirable AND that I personally believe to be antithecial to wingnut-i-tude. For example, imagine Clarence Thomas making some of the cracks that Kagan did.

As for her answer to the Team Edward or Team Jacob question? I'd have swooned if she had answered Dakota Fanning - but I guess you gotta gripe about the Supreme Court nominees that Usurper Hussein X gives you you have and not the one you might want to have.

No comments: