Jonathan's+Page

= Elena Kagan: Why Her? =

Why did Obama choose Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court Justice? What were his reasons? Is she qualified? What does the conservative media think about this decision? How are justices appointed to the supreme court? All of these questions and more will be discussed in the wiki.


 * Mainstream Media**

media type="youtube" key="z9X_fQJHKN8" height="469" width="605" =What the Elena Kagan pick says about President Obama=
 * ~ = Citizen Media: [|POLITICO] =

Printed May 10th 2010 Written by Glenn Thrush Read more: This Politico Article President Barack Obama’s [|decision to pick Elena Kagan] for the Supreme Court reveals less about the nominee than the president’s own management style — a hybrid of principle and political calculation.

It’s the audacity of caution.

Obama’s preselection talk was bold and progressive on the big picture issues of judicial fairness and fighting for common people against powerful business interests. Yet he struck a far more moderate tone in private, with administration officials telling POLITICO — on the very day Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement — that they were [|seeking someone “confirmable”] and collegial enough to sway conservative swing Justice Anthony Kennedy.

And that’s precisely what Obama’s getting in the U.S. Solicitor General, whose legal paper trail is as fleeting as her establishment political roots are deep.

“It's a strategic choice, a lot like Sotomayor was — someone the White House knows well and has all the credentials but won't generate a big, distracting fight,” says constitutional lawyer Tom Goldstein, co-founder of the widely read SCOTUSblog.

In many ways, Kagan’s career mirrors that of the man who chose her for the high court — reinforcing the notion around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. that Obama is drawn to people who, well, remind Obama of Obama. The 50-year-old Kagan is short, female and Jewish, but there the differences seem to end. Kagan, like the president, has a reputation as a progressive but not necessarily a clear record to match, which has aroused suspicion on the left. She is ambitious, restless and intellectually acute and even shares the president’s love of a good, grinding pickup basketball game.

As dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan set about to reform, renovate and change — but ever so carefully, reaching out to the right and earning influential conservative admirers who will help her during the confirmation process.

“It’s true that the president not only knows her but probably sees a reflection of things he values in himself: real pragmatism, a desire to bring people together and an academic background that he associates with a thoughtful approach to big constitutional questions,” Goldstein added.

Obama emphasized Kagan’s middleness when he presented “my friend Elena Kagan” Monday morning in the East Room. He introduced Kagan, who would become the first justice since William Rehnquist without experience on the bench, by enumerating the virtues she shares with Stevens, suggesting she would be an “impartial guardian of the law” who would act with restraint and “respect for precedent.”

None of this, of course, guarantees an easy confirmation process this summer — or that all, or any, of the seven GOP senators who voted for her as solicitor general last year will vote for her again. Anti-abortion groups already are promising a fight, with Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, calling Kagan an “untried and untested judicial pick” and “an abortion advocate and activist and an apologist for activist judges.”

But there were early glimmers that Obama’s play-it-safe strategy was working: Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a key conservative on the Judiciary Committee, told CNN that Kagan was “nominally qualified” for the job and dismissed talk of a GOP filibuster.

And South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the sole Judiciary Committee Republican to vote for Sotomayor, said Kagan “has a strong academic background in the law,” adding that he was “generally pleased with her job performance as solicitor general, particularly regarding legal issues related to the war on terror. I look forward to meeting her again, this time to discuss her qualifications.”

Not only was Obama’s pick of Kagan calculated to defuse opposition, but so was the execution of the president’s deliberation and the announcement of his decision, which proceeded with a campaign-style efficiency and caution overseen, in part, by longtime Obama message guru Anita Dunn.

Obama and Kagan took no questions from reporters Monday during what was essentially a pep rally — a break from Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who invited queries, some of them tough ones, from reporters.

Even though administration officials said Kagan had been the front-runner since she was vetted for the Sotomayor seat last year, they were careful to ensure that special-interest groups knew that Obama had expanded the field to about 10 — including a variety of other candidates, such as Leah Ward Sears, an African-American jurist from Georgia.

Last week, some liberal groups, hoping Obama would pick Chicago federal Judge Diane Wood, passed around reports that Kagan had briefly served as a paid member of a Goldman Sachs advisory panel.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, speaking to reporters in his office Friday, said the panel “had absolutely nothing to do with decisions Goldman is being investigated for.”

When asked whether Kagan’s service would affect potential hearings, Gibbs said, “No,” adding that the matter had already been discussed during Kagan’s solicitor general confirmation last year, which ended in a 61-31 vote largely along party lines.

= **Citizen Media 2:** = =The Real Reason for Elena Kagan= || Written by Aaron Harber** One pundit after another, along with critics from the Left and Right, query why President Barack Obama did not choose (1) someone with judicial experience (37% of Supreme Court Justices had none and many others had a nominal amount), (2) a Protestant (with Elena Kagan's confirmation there will be six Catholics and three Jews on the Court), (3) someone **not** from the Northeast (three Justices will be from New York City alone and there are none from the southern, south-central, mid-western, southwestern, or western sections of the country), or (4) a non-Ivy League nominee (there are many great schools not named Harvard, Princeton or Yale). [Disclosure: Kagan was in her first two years at Princeton while I was on the University's Board of Trustees.] Certainly adding a third woman to the Court for the first time is historic and represents a degree of diversity not previously seen, but this impresses few. And many ignore the reality that Kagan's own background, while similar in many respects to her soon-to-be colleagues, differs significantly from the current Court. The President's decision may have had to do more with his own legacy than with litmus tests or diversity goals. Nominating Kagan at the age of 50 allow Obama to influence the Court for three decades after he leaves office. In fact, all future Presidents are likely to follow the model established by President George W. Bush and will ignore older prospects with stellar resumes and extraordinary achievements due to their age. What most likely drove Obama's decision, however, was his desire to be successful **during** his tenure as President. In Kagan, he saw three advantages other prospects may have lacked. First, Kagan has an established record of working with people who have incompatible viewpoints and opinions. She is someone who can bridge conflict and find solutions which satisfy a majority. This could be a key skill given the Court's current divisions. Second, Kagan is known to establish positive relationships with those who normally disagree with her. This ability could come into play during critical decisions and, on occasion, allow her to help shape new majorities on a case-by-case basis. Her collegiality should not be underestimated within the cloistered walls of the Court. Third, and perhaps most importantly, Obama already has had the opportunity to watch Kagan fight for his Administration in her capacity as Solicitor General. Kagan gives him someone on the Court who understands and sympathizes with his agenda. He also has someone who comprehends the legal bases for that agenda and who has the skill to effectively communicate the relevant perspectives and arguments to the entire Court. Hence, Elena Kagan represents an **immediate** opportunity for Obama to make his case **inside** the Court. His focus is on how to make his Administration a success. His selection of Elena Kagan helps promote his agenda. For any thoughtful President, those goals are far more important than satisfying racial, religious, educational, or geographic criteria. =** Mainstream Media 2: CNN **= media type="custom" key="6219611"
 * Huffington Post: Printed May 19th 2010

= ** Mainstream Media 3: The New York Times ** =
 * This New York Times article discusses the journey Elena Kagan has had to the position she's in today, President Obama's appointee to the Supreme Court. Printed May 10th 2010**

=** Comparative Analysis **=

Citizen and Mainstream media, dealing with Elena Kagan, both seek to point out doubts. Throughout the examples it seemed that citizen media sought to have more of a backstory, while mainstream media, such as Fox and CNN focused on what the future has in store for the nation. Throughout the reporting, mainstream media was consistently careful to use proper wording, while citizen media was not nearly as strict. All sources were quick to agree and make a point of Kagan not having any judicial experience, as well as President Obama knowing her personally. While citizen media has more opportunity to focus on the past and present, mainstream media has no such leeway. Mainstream media focuses on the “next big story”. Now, mainstream media sources don’t focus on the nomination of Elena Kagan nearly as much as they did when the nomination was first announced. Citizen sources however, are able to continuously research and write about whatever stories they choose, simply because the citizen sources are not constantly searching for the “next big issue”. Citizen sources are where real journalism has been hiding. While mainstream media scratches the heart of the story, it’s citizen media that truly penetrates the surface and finds the facts.