America's Party News - AmericasPartyNews.com - Committees of Correspondence
  • America's Founding Principles
  •   Home  |  About  |  Platform  |  Affiliate  |  No donations  |  National Committee  |  Be a LeaderSearch  |  Inbox  |  My Settings  |  Log-in  

    'America's Summit  –  Restore the Republic'

    Every Tues. & Thurs. night  –  9 pm EST
    712-432-3566  –  passcode 340794#

    Archive  –  Listen on the web

    Contact Posting Guidelines

    Kagan's qualifications as nonexistent as a Birth Certificate
    ::
       Other Endorsed Independent Projects -> 'Say NO to Socialism!'

    Creating Orwellian World-view by Machiavellianism

    Wednesday, May 12, 2010


    [Alleged] President Obama and Vice President Biden present Elena Kagan for nomination to the Supreme Court
    Kagan's supposed academic achievements are being touted as the primary justification for putting someone who has never been a judge on the nation's highest court.
    Now the fact that Kagan is more or less an academic nonentity would be of merely academic interest if she possessed unrelated but compelling qualifications for ascending to the nation's highest court. But what else, exactly, has she done?—Paul Campos
    Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder. In his article The Next Harriet Miers? He absolutely slays the phony Liberal narrative that Elena Kagan is a brilliant legal scholar who makes up for a lack of jurist experience with unsurpassed legal scholarship.

    Therefore according to linear Liberal logic Kagan is worthy of being nominated and confirmed for the Supreme Court only because president Soetoro says so. Not because of any deserving scholarly works or experience. This is starting to sound strangely familiar to the president’s own eligibility problems.

    According to Professor Campos there is no there there in Kagan’s legal academic scholarship. Campos recounts a career of nearly 20 years since Kagan became a law professor in which Kagan’s academic writings are so scant he was able to read everything that Kagan had ever published in one day. (see article)

    Yesterday, I read everything Elena Kagan has ever published. It didn't take long: in the nearly 20 years since Kagan became a law professor, she's published very little academic scholarship—three law review articles, along with a couple of shorter essays and two brief book reviews. Somehow, Kagan got tenure at Chicago in 1995 on the basis of a single article in The Supreme Court Review—a scholarly journal edited by Chicago's own faculty—and a short essay in the school's law review.—Paul Campos

    I’m beginning to think that we are approaching that mysterious mystical Barry Hussein Soetoro birth certificate argument where we argue about the long vaulted copy of Soetoro’s birth certificate which no one has seen yet Obama sycophants argue to the death that based on a document that they have not seen Soetoro was born in Hawaii.

    In like fashion Campos reveals that the narrative that Liberals are building about Kagan’s legal academic prowess is based on an academic record which isn’t there to support the claim that Kagan is brilliant.

    At best we can only say that Elena Kagan is an Obama crony who is less deserving of a Supreme Court nomination than Harriet Miers was.  And we all have accepted that Miers though educated was not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. But neither is Elena Kagan.

    Thanks for that insight Professor Campos.
    Posted 2010-05-12 8:26 AM (#37518) By: Editor


    The Next Harriet Miers?

    "Yesterday, I read everything Elena Kagan has ever published. It didn't take long..."

    by Paul Campos

    The Daily Beast

    BS Top - Campos Kagan

    As the rumblings become louder that [Alleged] President Obama is going to choose U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan as our next Supreme Court justice, somebody needs to ask a rather impolitic question: How, precisely, is Kagan's prospective nomination different from George W. Bush's ill-fated attempt to put Harriet Miers on the nation's highest court?

    On its face, the question seems absurd. Five years ago, Miers was derided as a careerist mediocrity whose primary qualification to be on the Supreme Court was a slavish devotion to President Bush. Kagan, by contrast is a purportedly "brilliant" legal scholar who was granted tenure at the University of Chicago and Harvard, before becoming dean of the latter's law school.

    Kagan's work reminded me of Orwell's observation that, if book reviewers were honest, 19 of 20 reviews would consist of the sentence, "this book inspires in me no thoughts whatever."

    Yesterday, I read everything Elena Kagan has ever published. It didn't take long: In the nearly 20 years since Kagan became a law professor, she's published very little academic scholarship—three law review articles, along with a couple of shorter essays and two brief book reviews. Somehow, Kagan got tenure at Chicago in 1995 on the basis of a single article in The Supreme Court Review—a scholarly journal edited by Chicago's own faculty—and a short essay in the school's law review. She then worked in the Clinton administration for several years before joining Harvard as a visiting professor of law in 1999. While there she published two articles, but since receiving tenure from Harvard in 2001 (and becoming dean of the law school in 2003) she has published nothing. (While it's true law school deans often do little scholarly writing during their terms, Kagan is remarkable both for how little she did in the dozen years prior to becoming Harvard's dean, and for never having written anything intended for a more general audience, either before or after taking that position.)

    Kagan's handful of publications touch on topics like regulating offensive speech, analyzing legislative motivations for speech regulations, and evaluating the process of administrative law-making. But on the vast majority of issues before the court, Kagan has no stated opinion. Her scholarship provides no clues regarding how she would rule on such crucial contemporary issues as the scope of the president's power in wartime, the legality of torture, or the ability of Congress to rein in campaign spending by corporations. (Of course cynics have noted that today Supreme Court nominees are often better off not having an extensive "paper trail" regarding their views on controversial legal issues. Who would have guessed it would be possible to retain this virtue while obtaining tenure at two of the nation's top law schools?)

    At least in theory Kagan could compensate somewhat for the slenderness of her academic resume through the quality of her work. But if Kagan is a brilliant legal scholar, the evidence must be lurking somewhere other than in her publications. Kagan's scholarly writings are lifeless, dull, and eminently forgettable. They are, on the whole, cautious academic exercises in the sort of banal on-the-other-handing whose prime virtue is that it's unlikely to offend anyone in a position of power.

    Take, for example, Kagan's article, "Presidential Administration," which appeared in the Harvard Law Review in 2001. The piece is dedicated largely to reviewing the extant literature on the power of Congress and the president to control the actions of administrative agencies. Kagan's thesis consists of presenting a fairly standard view within administrative law scholarship—that relatively tight presidential oversight of administrative agencies can have beneficial regulatory effects—as if it were a novel argument. She maintains, on the basis of thin evidence, that such oversight increased significantly under the Reagan and Clinton presidencies, and concludes with the tautological insight that presidential oversight can be a good thing if it doesn't go too far.

    Kagan's work reminded me of Orwell's observation that, if book reviewers were honest, 19 of 20 reviews would consist of the sentence, "this book inspires in me no thoughts whatever." The bottom line regarding Kagan's scholarly career is that there's no there there. This is a problem not only because we have no evidence regarding what her views might be on almost any important legal question, but also because Kagan's supposed academic achievements are being touted as the primary justification for putting someone who has never been a judge on the nation's highest court. Now the fact that Kagan is more or less an academic nonentity would be of merely academic interest if she possessed unrelated but compelling qualifications for ascending to the nation's highest court. But what else, exactly, has she done?

    Besides her law-school career, Kagan's resume consists of four years in the Clinton White House, where she was associate White House counsel—a full rung down from Harriet Miers' position in the Bush White House—and deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council, and six years as the dean of Harvard's law school. (Last year, Obama chose her as his solicitor general.)

    Apparently her main accomplishment as dean at Harvard was raising a lot of money, which, given that it's the Harvard Law School, sounds roughly as impressive as managing to sell a lot of pot at a Grateful Dead concert. (She's also been given credit for improving the collegial atmosphere at the school, aka, getting a bunch of egomaniacs to engage in less backstabbing, which anyone familiar with law school faculties can attest is not a negligible accomplishment. Whether it's a sufficient basis for putting somebody on the Supreme Court is another matter.)

    It seems clear Kagan is a bright person and an able administrator. But Harriet Miers was those things as well: She had a long and successful career in the private practice of law, she was the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, and she was the top lawyer in the White House for several years prior to her nomination to the Court.

    Miers' nomination was derailed by two complaints: that her primary qualification was that she was a "crony" of the president, and that nobody knew what views she had, if any, on the vast majority of questions facing the Supreme Court. Both criticisms are just as relevant to Kagan's potential selection.

    Consider that Obama and Kagan joined the Chicago law faculty in the very same year, after both were Harvard Law students and members of the Harvard Law Review. (The difference between a "crony" and a "colleague" is often something of a sociological mystery.) Indeed, the most impressive thing about Kagan is that she seems to have a remarkable ability to ingratiate herself with influential people across the ideological spectrum.

    The second criticism of the Miers nomination applies with even greater force to Kagan. As a private lawyer, Miers, after all, had a fairly good excuse for having no public views on the great legal issues of our day. For most of the past 20 years, Kagan's job has been to both develop and publicize such views. That she has nevertheless managed to almost completely avoid doing so is rather extraordinary.

    Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

    For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

    For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

    Posted 2010-05-12 8:31 AM (#37519 - in reply to #37518) By: Editor

    Search this forum
    Printer friendly version
    E-mail a link to this thread

    Latest Posts From All Affiliates
    John Kerry -- long-time enemy of America - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Resist tyranny -- it CAN be done! - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Once Upon a Town - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    God's words to His people who are called by His name in Israel and in America - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    An insightful column by Evan Sayet - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Prodigal Nation - Part 1 [Peter Marshall] - gcsteven (6 replies)

    Well... they ASKED for it - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    The Sower knows, "The SEED of LIFE." - gcsteven (5 replies)

    It is simply not enough for Christians to change the laws; people’s hearts must be changed. - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Understanding Involves Responsibility - DAVID JEFFERS - gcsteven (1 replies)

    Whose responsibility is the health care of illegal immigrants? - gcsteven (1 replies)

    If you control the language... - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    New Political Party takes stand on social issues! - EternalVigilance (0 replies)

    Same-sex marriage fight is a lie, sez lesbian activist. Real goal: abolish marriage - Philomena (1 replies)

    The 28 fundamental beliefs of the Founding Fathers - Philomena (1 replies)

    The U.S. Constitution: Original Intent or a Living Document? - Philomena (3 replies)

    A succinct reply to the ISIS leader - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    The *real* problem at the VA is... - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Huckabee's Speech Against Judicial Supremacy - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    A Miracle For Justina - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Jesus, Yours will be the only Name that matters to me - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Franklin Ed Shoemaker, America's Party candidate for Florida House, District 40 - Gregory (1 replies)

    This Nation's greatest Political and Economic 'Deficit'. - gcsteven (17 replies)

    Email to Massachusetts Governor Patrick On Behalf of Justina Pelletier and Her Family - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    The Scientific and Prophetic Accuracy of the Bible - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    History Repeats Itself - God Warned Israel, Now America - Deuteronomy 8 and 32 - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Significance Of This Primary Campaign To All Who With Tom Hoefling Love Our Lord Jesus Christ - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Is this a Judge? - forJustice (0 replies)

    Message from Tom Hoefling - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Message to Tom Hoefling and Franklin Ed Shoemaker - 1 John 5:4 - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Already Gone - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Global Warming: A Scientific and Biblical Expose of Climate Change - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    1854 US Congress And 1892 US Supreme Court Declared Our Nation And Its Founders To Be Christian - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Who DARES to limit God?? - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    What did you ask for on your 16th birthday? Hear what Justina asked for. - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Political Candidates For The Upcoming Elections Consider Your Ways - Proverbs 21 - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Uninstall Firefox - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Birth Patrol the New Sentry - Bishop Sheen, 1960 - gcsteven (2 replies)

    Christ Is Enough - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Yes, sadly, you DID read correctly - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Judie Brown: The Problems Created by Pro-Lifers - Philomena (4 replies)

    This Week with True the Vote - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    A Battlecry (Psalm 119) - It is time for You to act, O LORD, for they have regarded Your law as void - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    STOP COMMON CORE IN NY - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    G. K. Chesterton: It’s Not Gay, and It’s Not Marriage - gcsteven (2 replies)

    Marijuana 'edibles' pack a wallop - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    LIVE FEED: Pro-LIFE Witness with Arrests at Notre Dame - Philomena (53 replies)

    South Dakota Gubernatorial Candidate Lora Hubbel's HCR1001 Floor Speech (how SB38 leads to abortion) - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    This Week with True the Vote - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Will a popular TV drama series DESTROY itself by...? - TomK--V-USA (1 replies)

    Supreme Court Upholds Prayer At Government Meetings - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Reminder -- V-USA is on Facebook and Twitter - TomK--V-USA (1 replies)

    UH-OH, is Hillary 'testing the waters' for 2016 run? - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Are We in a “Post Christian” Era? - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Update and National Day Of Prayer Call for Justina - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Legislative Updates & Smart Voting News for April 29, 2014 - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    The Bible Is a Textbook of Science - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Justice, just a word? - gcsteven (3 replies)

    No conflict between science and our Creator, Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Aborted babies burned to make electricity - Philomena (1 replies)

    The Right Tool for the Job - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Legislative Updates & Smart Voting News for April 22, 2014 - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    Let us raise a standard to be strong: Part V, Fulton J. Sheen - gcsteven (3 replies)

    Tom Hoefling at Iowa GOP Lincoln Dinner 04.11.2014 - gcsteven (0 replies)

    THE SHORT VERSION -- why America's Party is so much better than the Republican Party - TomK--V-USA (0 replies)

    Legislative Updates & Smart Voting News for April 8, 2014 - SavedByGrace (0 replies)

    RECLAIMING WASHINGTON'S CHRISTIAN HERITAGE - SavedByGrace (0 replies)