Here’s how Pravda is spinning the appointment of Elena Kagan:
Together with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan‘s confirmation would represent a shift toward a younger, changing court, one that values experiences outside the courtroom and emphasizes personal interactions as much as deep knowledge of the law.
I don’t know where they get the goofballs to write this stuff. Sotomayor was a judge for 16 years, after all.
And the notion that we want someone who “emphasizes personal interactions” rather than “a deep knowledge of the law” is ridiculous.
What it tells you is that Kagan has been a closeted academic all her life. Obama has made many mistakes, most of them because he is a closeted academic. He knows little of the real world, and trusts left wing academics who have little knowledge of the real world to tell him what to do.
So now he appoints a closeted academic – a person who has never really practiced law. She went right into government and academics, and was never even a real judge having to deal with real judicial problems. Academics have the luxury of dealing only with problems that interest them. They can avoid the real, messy hard questions and hide behind theory.
No, you don’t want someone on the Supreme Court with a deep knowledge of the law. No, you want a schmoozer, apparently. This is like selecting a doctor based on the color of his shoes. The issues that make it to the Supreme court are hard ones. They are not personal interaction issues, but require a very deep understanding of what judging is all about. They require a deep knowledge of history, and it is almost certain that Kagan has the same politicized view of history as Obama.
She is going to get beat up for quite a while after she joins the court.
Obama said as much Monday, praising Kagan during an East Room nomination ceremony as someone who has an “understanding of law, not as an intellectual exercise or words on a page, but as it affects the lives of ordinary people.”
This is Obama-speak for “I want someone who believes the court should run the country, make the rules, and interfere with every possible aspect of our lives”
And as for representing women, how does appointing two childless women (one of them gay) to the court represent the averge American woman? Childless women are going to have a much different view of the world, aren’t they? So really, they are not very good representatives of “women” at all.
Obama is ruining the country. Now he is ruining the Supreme court.