Shorter Ruth Marcus

Saturday, May 15th, 2010

“….Elena Kagan was right when she said back in the 1990s that the confirmation process is a joke. The Supreme Court is too important to give these nominees a pass, and to confirm them before we know more about their respective legal philosophies. That said, despite the fact that I know very little about Elena Kagan’s approach to constitutional jurisprudence, and she isn’t likely to be reveal much if any of it in her confirmation hearings . . . . she should be confirmed.”

Seriously, is it me or do the last three words of Marcus’ column basically cut against everything else she wrote?

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

13 Responses to “Shorter Ruth Marcus”

  1. #1 |  James D | 

    My current thought is that Obama is pulling a ‘Harriet Miers’. In other words, he’s picking someone so outrageously unqualified, that when she gets ripped to shreds his real pick won’t seem so ‘out there’.

    Then again, Obama was outrageously unqualified too, so who knows ….

  2. #2 |  Aaron | 

    She’s clearly qualified. My concerns for her are not whether she’ll write coherent, well-justified opinions, ask probing questions during oral argument, etc. My concerns are that she interprets the constitution in a way that is much too friendly to the government. This doesn’t actually have much to do with qualifications or competence, only inclinations.

  3. #3 |  Andrew Williams | 

    Marcus is a nitwit. Obama should have picked Diane Wood. Another in a long list of dumb decisions. Cronyism over common sense.

  4. #4 |  Nick T. | 

    @2
    She’s not qualified. Qualifications has to have more to do than just a list of positions held, especially when those positions don’t involve doing the same thing as the job she is “applying” for. That’s not to say she’d be in over her head, or incapable fo doing the job but being qualified means demonstarting that you can do the actual task. SImilarly, I’m sure I could do a great job managing the Mets, and I bet Radley would make a great Supreme court Justice but that’s not the same hing as being qualified. If we want to go merely by positions held then people like ALbeto Gonzalez seem “qualified.”
    @ Radley, I think it’s just you dude. You have to read the last line of the article as though she’s emphasizing the word “then.” As in, AFTER a proper hearing she should be confirmed. She gives no opinion on whether to confirm ehr without one.

  5. #5 |  Skip Oliva | 

    It should be noted that Marcus is the wife of Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz, who was named chairman by Barack Obama (though he was appointed to the Commission originally by George Bush on the recommendation of Senate Democratic leaders).

  6. #6 |  fur real | 

    if you hate rights liberty and freedom she is qualified, she probably keeps a picture of the Waco Texas tank and house burning in her wallet, just another exercise of reasonable search and seizure liberals, progressives or democrats whatever they are calling themselves this week in her purse, or is that wallet!

  7. #7 |  J sub D | 

    She’s on our team so she must be good. That’s what passes for critical thinking on the WaPo op-ed page.

  8. #8 |  Aresen | 

    I believe her argument boils down to “trust us.”

  9. #9 |  Michael | 

    I’m not going to comment on Kagan since I don’t know what I’m talking about here, but I don’t think the above comments are necessarily incoherent. Kagan has expressed the opinion that the process is pretty crappy, and we would do better with a more open process. This is a general claim. You can believe that, and still think that in this case we’re better off appointing Kagan using the crappy process she has criticized.

    Analogous reasoning:
    1) I believe we would be better off overall in a world where nobody violated anybody else’s property rights.
    2) In this particular case, I believe we would be better off if I violated so-and-so’s property rights.
    3) Therefore, I should violate so-and-so’s property rights.

    If your reasoning is utilitarian, these are not incoherent views.

    Note: I am not making any claims about the empirical accuracy of the claims.

  10. #10 |  Andrew Williams | 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_QYc50QVT4

  11. #11 |  Mattocracy | 

    All liberal supreme court nominees interpret the constitution to favor government and never individual freedom. They never vote to hold government accountable, always vote to ignore civil liberties. Conservative nominees…oh wait, they’re the same. Except when it comes to abortion.

  12. #12 |  Mattocracy | 

    Keep in mind why the supreme court is so important. It’s easier to rewrite the constitution with interpretation than through legislation. It just takes 5 people to get it done this way. It’s a conspiracy.

  13. #13 |  Whim | 

    Elena is a Russian name for Helen.

    Were her parents Commies?

    Her bio info about her parents is rather vague……

Leave a Reply