Breaking News

Wednesday round-up – part III

In other nomination-related news:

  • From the U.K., the Telegraph discusses the prospect that, if Kagan is confirmed, the Court would be made up of six Catholics and three Jews.
  • The Los Angeles Times reports that Elena Kagan, if confirmed, would join two other female Justices –Ginsburg and Sotomayor – from New York City.
  • At AOL News, Tamara Lytle discusses the likelihood that cameras will come to the Court and concludes that, although “Elena Kagan may have raved about the benefits of allowing cameras” in the Supreme Court, that day is “still likely far off.
  • The BLT reports that the American Bar Association will begin to evaluate Elena Kagan’s qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. Eugene Volokh briefly reviews past ABA ratings for Souter (“well qualified”), Thomas (“qualified”), and Roberts (‘well qualified”)
  • At the WSJ Law Blog, Ashby Jones turns to the question of a possible successor to Kagan in the SG’s office.  He notes that a recent story by Marc Ambinder in the Atlantic has identified associate White House Council Don Verrilli as a likely successor.  However, even if the job may ultimately go to Verrilli, Jones writes, “it hasn’t happened yet.”
  • Elena Kagan’s Financial Disclosure and ethics agreement and can be found at ProPublica here and here respectively (via Politics Daily).
  • At Concurring Opinions, Daniel Solove discusses whether judicial neutrality is possible, responding to a critique by Professor Lawrence Solum of his earlier piece .
  • Niraj Chokski at the Atlantic attempts to predict how Justice Kagan might rule on technology cases.  He concludes that, although “nothing is certain…Kagan may prove to be an opponent of corporate Hollywood on fair use while also defending Internet service providers in the net neutrality debate.”
  • The Ninth Justice posts results from a Gallup poll, which indicate that Elena Kagan is not viewed as positively as Sonia Sotomayor immediately following the nomination announcement.
  • At the Denver Post, Mike Littwin, contends that President Obama’s choice of Kagan is “continuing in the Bill Clinton tradition of picking only-so-liberal liberals for the court”; Kagain is, he notes, “almost certainly” not the “counterpoint to Antonin Scalia.”
  • Kathleen Parker, at the Washington Post, questions whether Kagan adheres to “Obama’s ordinary-people principle,” arguing that Kagan “can’t be characterized as anything close to mainstream America.”
  • In an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times, Jonathan Turley argues that Kagan’s confirmation would result in a lack of educational diversity on the Court, which would be “composed of former law students at either Harvard or Yale.”
  • The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz explores the extent to which Kagan’s influential friends among the “upper crust of the media, academic, law and politics” have created a “presumption of excellence and lot of favorable profile.”
  • At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr examines how Kagan’s interpersonal skills, which have helped her to achieve immense success, might “transfer to the unique, often mysterious world of the Supreme Court.”
  • Andrea Tantaros, at, writes that Kagan’s possible votes on landmark legal battles of the coming years will go a long way in defining Obama’s legacy.

In non-nomination news:

  • The cross in the Mojave dessert that was at the center of the recent Supreme Court decision in Salazar v. Buono, was torn down by vandals, according to stories at CNN, ABC News, USA Today, and the Telegraph.  The Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Liberty Institute are “offering rewards totaling $35,000” for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those behind the theft.”