It's Kagan
May 9, 2010 9:22 PM Subscribe
Obama to nominate Elena Kagen to the SCOTUS Current solicitor general and former Goldmanite Elena Kagan will be nominated to the Supreme court tomorrow morning (at 10 AM ET)
This post was deleted for the following reason: can you make this post once something has actually happened? -- jessamyn
This post is exceptionally thin
I wanted to avoid editorializing in the FPP.
posted by delmoi at 9:28 PM on May 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
I wanted to avoid editorializing in the FPP.
posted by delmoi at 9:28 PM on May 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
Is she a dyke, and will it matter in the confirmation hearings
posted by PinkMoose at 9:29 PM on May 9, 2010
posted by PinkMoose at 9:29 PM on May 9, 2010
It was my impression that Obama was a fairly cautious politician before the election, not prone to make quick or rash decisions. Nominating Kagen with even the loosest of connections to box-office-poison-Goldman-Sachs appears to me to be not only rash, but incredibly stupid with midterms on the way.
posted by pashdown at 9:30 PM on May 9, 2010
posted by pashdown at 9:30 PM on May 9, 2010
Calling Kagan a "former Goldmanite" is weak sauce. She was on a purely symbolic advisory committee along with a bunch of other people from academia and other unrelated-to-Goldman fields, all of whom met for basically a photo-op vacation once a year.
posted by Justinian at 9:31 PM on May 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 9:31 PM on May 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
Is she a dyke, and will it matter in the confirmation hearings
From what I can tell some people think she's gay, well, basically because she "looks gay". Whatever that means. There's certainly no evidence for it that I am aware of.
posted by Justinian at 9:31 PM on May 9, 2010
From what I can tell some people think she's gay, well, basically because she "looks gay". Whatever that means. There's certainly no evidence for it that I am aware of.
posted by Justinian at 9:31 PM on May 9, 2010
I agree that it is likely Kagen is the nominee, and frankly haven't much problem with her... but I think a FPP about a probable news story is not only jumping the gun, but a poor FPP. Can we at least wait until the official announcement?
posted by edgeways at 9:35 PM on May 9, 2010
posted by edgeways at 9:35 PM on May 9, 2010
Nominating Kagen with even the loosest of connections to box-office-poison-Goldman-Sachs appears to me to be not only rash, but incredibly stupid with midterms on the way.
Yeah, but if the midterms were the main consideration than the decision makes sense; nominating the (brilliant brilliant brilliant) Judge Wood would have brought up very strong connections to her (principled and admirable) strong pro-choice jurisprudence, which is the box-office-poison to end all box-office-poisons.
posted by sallybrown at 9:36 PM on May 9, 2010
Yeah, but if the midterms were the main consideration than the decision makes sense; nominating the (brilliant brilliant brilliant) Judge Wood would have brought up very strong connections to her (principled and admirable) strong pro-choice jurisprudence, which is the box-office-poison to end all box-office-poisons.
posted by sallybrown at 9:36 PM on May 9, 2010
I'm a dyke, cause I'm into chicks and I'm totally butch. I'm also technically male, but who's keeping score? Laugh more, you'll live longer . . . not that it will help, what with the world ending and all.
posted by nola at 9:37 PM on May 9, 2010
posted by nola at 9:37 PM on May 9, 2010
Yeah, this will be deleted and a better post made it in its place. (hopefully)
posted by Afroblanco at 9:37 PM on May 9, 2010
posted by Afroblanco at 9:37 PM on May 9, 2010
edgeways, FPPs about probable news stories are among MetaFilter's proudest traditions. What could possibly go wrong?
posted by gerryblog at 9:37 PM on May 9, 2010
posted by gerryblog at 9:37 PM on May 9, 2010
Glenn Greenwald has been going on and on about Kagan, because he thinks she's not liberal enough.
posted by lukemeister at 9:39 PM on May 9, 2010
posted by lukemeister at 9:39 PM on May 9, 2010
I don't care that the post was about a future event (Kagan is going to get nominated unless a meteor strikes her down before the morning. I could have... and did... tell y'all this weeks ago). I do care that this is a post about a Supreme Court nominee without even the most basic of information about the person in question. Beyond the weak and editorializing second link.
posted by Justinian at 9:40 PM on May 9, 2010
posted by Justinian at 9:40 PM on May 9, 2010
Oops, I missed homunculus's comment. I don't know whether this post should be deleted, but my comment should.
posted by lukemeister at 9:40 PM on May 9, 2010
posted by lukemeister at 9:40 PM on May 9, 2010
I would be happy if Obama nominated someone else, but Kagen has been the front runner for a while.
posted by delmoi at 9:41 PM on May 9, 2010
posted by delmoi at 9:41 PM on May 9, 2010
In defense of the OP, his first link linked to way more info about Kagan than I'm likely to read.
posted by lukemeister at 9:42 PM on May 9, 2010
posted by lukemeister at 9:42 PM on May 9, 2010
To be fair, lukemeister, his complaint is more that we have no idea what her opinions are because her paper trail is virtually nonexistent.
posted by gerryblog at 9:42 PM on May 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by gerryblog at 9:42 PM on May 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
PinkMoose wrote: "Is she a dyke"
I can tell you one thing for sure. She's not a pair of dikes.
posted by wierdo at 9:42 PM on May 9, 2010
I can tell you one thing for sure. She's not a pair of dikes.
posted by wierdo at 9:42 PM on May 9, 2010
Hey, I had homunculus beat by almost two minutes.
posted by gerryblog at 9:43 PM on May 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by gerryblog at 9:43 PM on May 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
« Older Say hello to Salo? | “There is no federal constitutional right to... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Judge Wood, foiled again!
posted by sallybrown at 9:23 PM on May 9, 2010