« | »

AP: Kagan Held Her Own Before SCOTUS

From the relentless propagandists at the Associated Press:

‘General Kagan’ holds her own before high court


May 15, 2010

WASHINGTON — Six times in the past nine months, Solicitor General Elena Kagan has come to the mahogany lectern in the Supreme Court to argue the government’s case before the justices she now hopes to join soon.

An intimidating setting for any lawyer, the venue is all the more daunting for Kagan because her courtroom experience before appearing before the justices was exactly nil.

Yet "General Kagan" held her own and emerged to declare the experience "a great deal of fun."

Note that this article provides no evidence to to substantiate the claim that ‘General Kagan’ “held her own.” On the contrary, is it reported that she was regularly upbraided by the court for her flawed arguments.

Kagan is the first woman to serve as the government’s top lawyer at the Supreme Court.

Kagan won one of the two cases that have been decided thus far.

Never mind that ‘General Kagan’ lost the others, including the first case she chose, which was also her most significant, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

A case in which in which she argued for government controls on political speech, in direct contravention of the First Amendment.

Indeed, it has been suggested that it was actually Ms. Kagan’s overreach that caused the majority of the justices to side with Citizens United.

Those results have more to do with the strength of the cases she inherited than her persuasive abilities in a courtroom.

This is undoubtedly true. But of course it puts the lie to the AP’s headline and the gist of the article, altogether.

Which raises the question, apart from trying to promote Ms. Kagan for the Supreme Court, what exactly is the point of this article? It contains no news.

But of course we are being rhetorical.

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, May 15th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

11 Responses to “AP: Kagan Held Her Own Before SCOTUS”

  1. proreason says:

    Clone of Obamy.

    Affirmative Action baby. Always promoted before she managed to do anything. Resume is entirely based on the schools she went to or the positions she was appointed to. Fierce avoidance of doing anything she couldn’t blame on somebody else. Never wrote any formal documents that she could be criticized about. Big talk. No action. A Communist but no hard evidence to prove it. Lifelong nurture of the lie about being a conciliator, while being a rigid idealogue.

    She has even positioned the one or two actions she took (banning military recruiters at Harvard, arguing against the 1st Amendment) as things she was required to do because of the position she was in.

    Manchurian SCOTUS candidate.

  2. 2old2givea says:

    Wow! The propaganda hits just keep on coming!

    (Wiping a tear.) The Kremlin would’ve been so proud. And jealous.

  3. JohnMG says:

    This headline confuses me.

    Kagan holds her own WHAT before SCOTUS?

    I shudder to think.

    • U NO HOO says:

      My first question exactly, holds he own “what?”

      Obama becomes executive in chief of the world with no management experience, Kagan becomes one of nine chief judges of the world without judicial bench experience.

      I shudder to think also.

  4. GetBackJack says:

    Now I get it … why the MSM was devoting headlines and breathless column inches to Chastity Bono two weeks ago …



    … prepping the imagery battleground, so to speak. Kaga is a dead ringer ofr Bono or a young Elton John. Either way, we’re fooked.

  5. misanthropicus says:

    Kagan must not be in SCOTUS.
    All the fuss over her sexuality and so on iss a red herring – the problem isn’t with Kagan’s sexuality per se, this just an attempt at diverting the discussion on the liberals’ “descrimination” favorite terrain.
    The problem with Kagan is that she is a liberal of the worst “what’s personal is political” type, and if given the opportunity she quickly would inflict her personal problems upon this nation.

    I illustrate Kagan’s highly likely position here, by mentioning the abhorrent behavior of the two, San Francisco 9th cirtcuit “judges”, Vaugh Walker and Alex Kozinsky (both active, radical leather & chrome gay – see the scandal surrounding Kozionsky’s web site), when they brazenly tried to sway the proceedings of anti-prop 8 action in favor of the plaintiff, i.e. gay movement.

    Action which was, fortunately smacked down by an irrate SCOTUS (we reached the point of liberal depravity of hearing about SCOTUS correcting the ABUSE of a US Court), and both snails (“judges” Walker & Kozinky), had tho retract their humid horns. Now, I am sure, as most of this nation is, that Kagan, if a SCOTUS member, as a “What’s personal is political!” powered liberal critter would have merrily aproved Walker’s and Kozinsky’s actions, by invoking who knows what rights the unwashed masses unable to find in the constitution.

    Commissar Kagan is dangerous for this nation- nyet to Kagan.

  6. Mithrandir says:

    The liberals’ drive for endless mediocrity. Qualifications mean NOTHING to these people. It is just a turnstile for the next racial group or voting block to have a chance.

    That is how we keep getting into un-fixable messes, because they don’t want to admit someone has no intelligence or experience, and when they do screw it all up, they blame someone else.

  7. Petronius says:

    Awwww. Little Boots did an oral argument.

    So she’s done six oral arguments, and a stint clerking for Thurgood “now-it’s-our-turn” Marshall. And apparently, apart from this, Kagan has never practiced law, either inside or outside a courtroom.

    Making an oral argument on appeal, even to the U.S. Supreme Court, is not the same thing as litigating a case or practicing law. Making an oral argument is relatively easy, especially when you have a big staff of attorneys to prepare your argument for you. The rest is like reading from a teleprompter. All you have to do is deliver your oral argument in a nearly empty courtroom, stay within the time limit, and answer the justices’ questions. The questions are usually predictable, and your answers are rehearsed in advance with your litigation team.

    To sum up, Kagan has never done any of the fundamental business of lawyering and litigation.

    Or, to put it another way, Kagan could not carry Harriet Miers’ briefcase.

    Harriet Miers was a trial lawyer. She was a commercial litigator with 27 years experience in the practice of law before she became White House Counsel. She represented clients such as Microsoft and Disney, and rose to the top position in her firm of 400 lawyers. Yet Miers was deemed by Republicans and Democrats alike –– including Senator Obama –– to be unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

    Apparently empathy is what really matters these days.

    Actum est de republica.

    • proreason says:

      Little Boots is more qualified to be a Supreme than the man with a postage stamp resume is qualified to be your local dogcatcher.

      But you are right. Qualifications no longer count for political office. Only the ability to shamelessly lie that you are going to save the planet with godlike empathy for each of 300,000,000 people’s problems.

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”Little Boots did an oral argument…….”

      And so did Monica Lewinsky do an oral……..oh wait a minute, I don’t think she argued about anything, did she. But somehow they both have the same amount of experience when it comes to cozying up to the president.

  8. heykev says:

    I just hope that Republicans use whatever means they can to block Little Boots nomination.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »