Can someone explain the logic behind expecting President Obama to reject his own Solicitor General

[ProSense]

A lot of articles are referencing briefs filed by Kagan on behalf of the Obama administration. Are these articles designed to show why Obama shouldn't pick her?

It's his nominee. If she works on his behalf, it's safe to assume that he approves of her.

[JDPriestly]

1. She apparently was a good administrator, but her courtroom skills

leave a lot to be desired. Maybe that is what nobody wants to say.

She should have sent someone else to argue Citizens United (if she could have). How much courtroom experience does she have? Arguing even a simple motion takes a quick mind, an obsessive-compulsive mind that prepares every aspect of argument at a nearly subconscious leve.. To be effective in front of judges, you have to know how to intrigue them, how to give in at the right moment, how to switch the topic, how to admit when you are wrong, how to protect their egos when you are right. You cannot have that stunned in the headlights voice. Listen to the clip from Kagan's argument before the Supreme Court that is on Rachel Maddow. Kagan should have been far more present in her argument. I realize it was her first time before the Supreme Court. Never been there myself. Cannot imagine how stressful it must be. But that is why Obama should pick a judge or law professor or someone with experience arguing cases.

Maybe Obama is promoting her up. She kind of messed up on Citizens United. What better way to gracefully let her go than to nominate her for the Supreme Court knowing she may not get the votes. Very strange.

[ProSense]

2. "She should have sent someone else to argue Citizens United "

What does that have to do with the question in the OP? As for the this: "How much courtroom experience does she have?"

There have been 111 Americans who've served on the high court, and more than a third had exactly zero judicial experience before being confirmed. Indeed, two of the last four chief justices had never donned a black robe until they took their place on the Supreme Court. If never having been a judge should be a disqualifier, it'd be a sharp departure from the way the system has always operated.

To drive the point home, Sam Stein compared Elena Kagan's post-law-school resume to that of William Rehnquist, the former chief justice and conservative stalwart.

Here's Rehnquist...

1952-1953: Clerk For Justice Robert Jackson
1953-1969: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1969-1971: Assistant USAG, Office of Legal Counsel


...and here's Kagan.

1986-87: Clerk for Judge Abner Mikva, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
1987-88: Clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court
1989-91: Associate in Private Practice, Williams & Connolly
1991-97: Assistant Professor and Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1991-94 as assistant professor)
1995-96: Associate White House Counsel
1997-99: Deputy Assistant to the President, Domestic Policy Council
1999-01: Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
2001-03: Professor, Harvard Law School
2003-09: Dean of Harvard Law School
2009-10: Solicitor General of the United States


A Democratic Senate confirmed Rehnquist with a 68-vote majority. If anyone raised concerns about his lack of judicial experience, the questions didn't resonate.

To be sure, it appears some of those urging opposition to Kagan on this point aren't especially sincere -- they're looking for an excuse and this seems like a convenient one. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), for example, thought it was a great idea to have non-judges nominated to the Supreme Court, right up until yesterday.

Regardless, if the White House's detractors are seriously going to pursue opposition to Kagan, they'll have to look elsewhere for effective talking points.

link

[11 Bravo]

3. Bookmarking (and thanks). I saw this earlier, then was unable to relocate it.

It provides a pretty damned compelling rebuttal to your friendly neighborhood dittohead.

[JDPriestly]

4. Two years in private practice. My point exactly.

She will be out of her league. From what I can tell, she has never done appellate work in private practice, and if she ever appeared before a court, it was a long time ago and very few times. She has probably never managed a case from beginning to end. She is a theorist. She is probably a good theorist. But she is mostly an administrator. We need a lawyer on the Supreme Court, not an bureaucrat.

Rehnquist was in private practice much longer.

[ProSense]

5. "Rehnquist was in private practice much longer. " What?

There are tens of thousands of lawyers in private practice. They are not qualified for the SCOTUS.

[Whisp]

6. Denny Crane for SCOTUS. ;)

[JDPriestly]

7. No, but to sit on the Supreme Court, you probably need to have

some private practice or at least litigation practice as a lawyer for a government legal office.

[AllentownJake]

8. She is exactly the type of pick I would expect from the President

No surprises in her appointment.