Post User Polls

Agree with Senate's decision to confirm Elena Kagan?

The Senate confirmed Elena Kagan Thursday as the 112th justice to the Supreme Court, making her the fourth woman ever to sit on the high court, by a vote of 63-37.

Kagan, a self-described progressive, is not likely to tilt the court in a different direction, given Stevens' role as a leading liberal jurist the past three decades. But most Republicans, who mounted a largely muted opposition to the solicitor general's nomination to the high court, denounced Kagan for lacking judicial experience. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called Kagan "someone who has worked tirelessly to advance a political agenda."

Did the Senate make the right decision? Weigh in below.

By Cameron Smith  |  August 5, 2010; 4:08 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Whom do you trust to regulate the Internet? | Next: Who was your favorite D.C. Housewife?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



no I don't like this-you are judging us

Posted by: skipperke | August 5, 2010 4:35 PM

Now we just need to stop the conservative activism of the Roberts court by having another progressive. This is the sorriest court I've seen in six decades of my life.

Posted by: JeffDavis0 | August 5, 2010 4:48 PM

at least ginsberg will make sure they execute judicial restraint...
I'm sure they have rules on how to deal with a renegade justice...

Posted by: DwightCollins | August 5, 2010 7:00 PM

I grieve because the Senate has lost its view of "advise and consent."
Still, I am hopeful that Justice Kagan will be a moderate and measured voice of sanity on this court. Lord knows it needs one.

Posted by: maggiedog1 | August 5, 2010 7:07 PM

The first thing wrong with this appointment; it is wrong according to the bible. Second she is againist the military which would place her in an unamerician position, therefore should have been rejected. Every senator who voted yes should be impeached for lack of mental ability to ascertain right from wrong

Posted by: jdharwell85 | August 5, 2010 7:28 PM

What a revolting development. Now we have the three leftist female stooges on the highest court in the land.
Disgusting.

Remember these democrat pieces of feces who put them on the court in November.

Posted by: LarryG62 | August 5, 2010 7:30 PM

I don't agree with much, if any of her political views...but I believe that elections matter, and this President, like the President before him, is entitled to have people of his choice appointed to the Judiciary (unless, of course, they are clearly unqualified for the office)......

Posted by: MajorConfusion | August 5, 2010 8:14 PM

mitch mcConnell is against her? Wow, that's a complete freakin' surprise to me. Who could've predicted that. Man. That's why I keep reading the paper...

Posted by: AHappyWarrior | August 5, 2010 8:18 PM

I'm sure this poll is about as reliable as the recent census conducted by ACORN. Leftists are leftists are leftists..

Posted by: wewintheylose | August 5, 2010 8:28 PM

If corporations are "people". She is better then what up in the court now.

Posted by: webster11 | August 5, 2010 8:36 PM

The first thing wrong with this appointment; it is wrong according to the bible. Second she is againist the military which would place her in an unamerician position, therefore should have been rejected. Every senator who voted yes should be impeached for lack of mental ability to ascertain right from wrong
******************************************
According to WHOSE Bible? Pat eff'n Robertson's?

Our founders were against a standing standing army. I guess that makes YOU un-American.

Please turn yourself in immediately.

Posted by: st50taw | August 5, 2010 8:46 PM

We need to "balance" the Court and in more ways than one or two.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | August 5, 2010 8:55 PM

Thank goodness! I doubt that I'll agree with all of her rulings but I'm sure that she'll be a breath of fresh air on the Court. I really dislike all you leftists and rightists for your knee jerk reactions. But I am particularly put off by the dummies that cite her lack of experience as a judge. Are you righties really saying that Chief Justice Rehnquist, without experience as a judge was not qualified? Dumb and dumber!!!!

Posted by: Fergie303 | August 5, 2010 8:57 PM

I've got a news flash for the yahoo righties.

Just because because something or somebody is not in tune with the Tea Party's xenophobic, hyper-nationalistic, militaristic, un-regulated, free-market, bible-thumping,earth-polluting greed-fest does not automatically make them/it part of a Communist plot.

In any case, the people who do not agree with you are not the lunatic fringe. You are.

You will receive a demonstration of this in November. In the meantime, please keep kicking the moderates out the conservative movement. That's the only truly patriotic endeavor you are engaged in, only not in the manner you think.

Posted by: st50taw | August 5, 2010 9:04 PM

For a real-time example of my previous post, go here immediately. It's just too good...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/tea_party_exposes_diabolical_u.html

Posted by: st50taw | August 5, 2010 9:10 PM

This appointment could really change the court. Here is an active, sharp mind, combined with an energetic spirit of leadership and solid legal expertise. You don't get to be Dean of Harvard Law for nothing! She could very well influence other justices and swing the court away from its disastrous subservience to Scalia and Thomas.

Posted by: troisieme | August 5, 2010 9:18 PM

This is a sad day for God fearing,Jesus loving strate people in the US.As long as obama is in office he knows he has one sure voteon the court hopefully his will be a short stay.

Posted by: br5491 | August 5, 2010 9:24 PM

This is interesting.

Some people hate her because she is a woman.

Others hate her because she's probably smarter than they are.

And then, of course, she was nominated by a Democrat.

Actually, I'm hoping that this Democrat President will be able to nominate 2 or 3 more women to the Supreme Court. It will bring up the average IQ of the Court.

Posted by: KHMJr | August 5, 2010 10:21 PM

This is a sad day for God fearing,Jesus loving strate people in the US.As long as obama is in office he knows he has one sure voteon the court hopefully his will be a short stay.
Posted by: br5491
_____________
While you may "think" she is a lesbian, you are giving in to fear mongering. Do yo have an evidence that her sexuality has affected her reasoning at all in her last 20 years in goverment or academia?

when you said "sad day for jesus loving Jesus people", beacuse she is Jewish?

LActually she is pretty moderate and not a "raging liberal". I think you may find her to be center left and open to intelligent debate based on the facts of the case.

Posted by: cadam72 | August 5, 2010 10:46 PM

I just hope she's sympathetic to people like me too, otherwise we're in trouble.

Since we no longer really need a legislature to make our laws why not just shut down Congress and save the money? The Supreme Politboro could use the savings to expand its apparatchik and -- Presto! -- citizens' paradise here we come.

Posted by: politbureau | August 6, 2010 12:15 AM

I hope she is a raging liberal, and not a "sunshine" liberal.

Honor your religion, if you have one, and respect the religion of others. Religion to me is a fantasy, invented in your mind to make you feel good. Most Christians just can't accept the fact that the Muslims will soon outnumber them.

The bigoted racism in religion is enough to flush it down the toilet.

President Obama has been brutally attacked each day by self called religious people.

If their were a God-I am certain she would be a black gay woman.

Posted by: COWENS99 | August 6, 2010 2:26 AM

It's amazing that Kagan's many suporters here brand anyone who disagrees with her confirmation as misogynistic.
If a man had equally limited "real world" experience in the courts, I would also oppose his confirmation.
I gues you can't throw out the "race card" on this particular appointee, so you try playing the "gender" issue. Geez.

Posted by: OttoDog1 | August 6, 2010 2:30 AM

Roberts represents the corporate citizen, which is why he's also Chief Justice...

Posted by: Nymous | August 6, 2010 3:57 AM

Jews make up less than 3 percent of the US population. Jews now make up 33.33 percent of the US Supreme Court. Something is WRONG with this picture. Only a handful of Bolshevik Jews took control of Russia in 1917 and eventually slaughtered tens of millions of Orthodox Christians. America, BEWARE.

Posted by: usnr02 | August 6, 2010 6:25 AM

I do not trust her to stick by what she said in the confirmation process.

Sotomayer said Heller was settled law, then turned around and agreed with Bryer that it was a rong decision in his discent in McDonald.

Kagan said the same thing....

Her background, like Sotomayer and Obama, is tied to be living in La-La Land places like Manhattan, Chicago, Inside the Beltway, and Harvard. She believes that government - particularly national - power is the solution is the way to go...

Posted by: GHF_LRLTD | August 6, 2010 7:08 AM

Hell no. We need justices who respect the Constitution and the limits of their own power.

Posted by: thebump | August 6, 2010 7:42 AM

The government has done away with the protective 2/3 majority in order to get what they want. This action diminishes the taxpayers protection from illegal actions.
shuttdlrl

Posted by: shuttdlrl | August 6, 2010 7:45 AM

Another call up from the Harvard University bonus baby farm team. No hit no catch player.

Posted by: ZebZ | August 6, 2010 8:18 AM

sooner or later she is going to rule against one of the dem groups...
and sparks will fly...

Posted by: DwightCollins | August 6, 2010 8:20 AM

This poll is OBE.

Posted by: HillRat | August 6, 2010 8:26 AM

Kagan is a good appointment, but what we need is enough liberal judges to make another Warren court, and one judge won't take us there. The Right Wing court that has dominated for 30 years has been taking away our freedoms ever since the days of Saint Ronnie the Rightist, ContraGate be thine name.

Posted by: samsara15 | August 6, 2010 8:26 AM

At first I was confused by the stilted hysteria from the Tea Baggers. But then I realized that the proven fallacy of Kagen's sexual orientation had yet again stoked the politically correct homophobic fires of the o-so-pious hypocrites on the Right, coupled with their misogyny and racism.

So, happily today I welcome the gutless venom of the Radical No Nothing Party of No and take solace knowing that Kagen will bring balance, thoughtfullness, reason and logic to a Supreme Court already reeling under the absurd influence of its Conservative iconoclasts.

Posted by: inplants | August 6, 2010 8:32 AM

No reason not to that isn't based on ideology or bias.

Posted by: topwriter | August 6, 2010 8:44 AM

No reason not to that isn't based on ideology or bias.

Posted by: topwriter | August 6, 2010 8:45 AM

at the whacko righties are licking their wounds this week. AZ 1070 is struck down, Kagan confirmed, gay marriage ban struck down, and jobs bill passes. but they'll get us all in november, dangit! sounds like cubs fans...

Posted by: funkey | August 6, 2010 8:50 AM

The thing that bothers me the most....is what has made these people vote for her to be in this position. I know obama put her there, but, it had to be confirmed by people that are supposed to have our best interest in mind. What is wrong with these "robots"? Has Obama threatened to kill their families or what?
I also, do not think the positions in the supreme court should be for life.
Term limits would work out best for all of the jobs on the hill.
I think that if the president is a ----up in the first year, he should be removed.

Posted by: BrandNew1 | August 6, 2010 8:50 AM

There is no reason to suspect that Kagan will be anything but a very good justice. But I do not understand why people keep saying they hope she will be a moderate. The majority of the court is very far to the right. For balance we need some strong liberals.

Posted by: aschau66 | August 6, 2010 9:38 AM

Did the senators asked Justice Kagan any questions about the legal work she did for Goldman Sachs? NO Did the senators ask her any questions about her views on Sharia law and its role in this country? NO Until we move away from the confirmation process as political theater I will not support anyone because neither they nor the senators are being honest with the American public.

Posted by: jeffreed | August 6, 2010 11:16 AM

What we clearly need is 4 more vacancies while someone moderately sane occupies the White House and the Congress has enough patriots and anti corporate fascism to put in at least moderate judges! It would be nice to get a few libertarian oriented judges, opposed to corporate welfare, corporate jingoism, and corporate takeover of the nation; but I'll settle for just getting rid of the gruesome cabal of George; intent on allowing the Corporate Fascists to steal the country!

Posted by: CHAOTICIAN101 | August 6, 2010 11:48 AM

Kagan is young, smart, vibrant, and hard-left. Obama basically extended a liberal seat for another 30 to 40 years with this pick.
So, I sure hope all the rest of the Supremes stay healthy until Obama is gone, replaced by a center/right/libertarian and the Senate goes back to the Republicans.

Posted by: daskinner | August 6, 2010 12:31 PM

Comments on this and other hot topics indicate a real need for more civil discourse rather than name calling and vile language. As the Unitarian pastor Chris Buice, whose congregation was attacked by a gunman with an expressed aversion to liberalism and Christianity, said:

“A man came in here [and] dehumanized us. Members of our church were not human to him. Where did he get that? Where did he get that sense that we’re not human? ... When you hear in talk radio that liberals are evil, that they are traitors, that they are godless, that they are on the side of the terrorists – that’s hate language.”

A posting "The thing that bothers me the most....is what has made these people vote for her to be in this position. I know obama put her there, but, it had to be confirmed by people that are supposed to have our best interest in mind. What is wrong with these "robots"? Has Obama threatened to kill their families or what?" is totally disgusting. Suggesting that the President would threaten to kill senators' families if they did not exercise their "advise and consent" responsibilities and vote for Kagan indicates hate of the President and the Constitution.

Much of this would die down if the media did not spend its time publicizing the tea party events. If they did not see themselves on TV, they'd quit performing.

I wonder what the history books fifty years from now will say about the events of the last two years or so. Will they devote pages to each event, or will they simply write a few sentences that describe the temporary loss of respect for the opinions of others and civil discourse?


Posted by: pam8 | August 6, 2010 12:31 PM

I'm relieved that Kagan is not Catholic. Already 6 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices are Catholic. Given the Catholic Church's positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, birth control, stem cell research, etc., it surprises me the presence of a Catholic supermajority on the Court isn't more of a concern for people.

Posted by: bpai_99 | August 6, 2010 12:45 PM

Kagan will make a fine SCJ. Sessions,McConnell and all the god 'ole white boys are upset because they are watching the glass ceiling crack before their squinty little eyes that have trouble looking at the US in any other way than the rear view mirror.
I really don't care if Kagan is a lesbian. I'm sure I'd smile at the good 'ole boys rats if she were -HA!I really don't care what her religion is ....guess some of those old white boys will have to get real jobs like the rest of us now!!

Posted by: 10bestfan | August 6, 2010 12:53 PM

Living in Houston, I can honestly say, after having read all of the comments posted re:Kagan's nomination, that it is not gun packing, pickup driving Texans, who are overly opinionated, it is the people who live in the district or have lived in the district, who are the most overly opinionated, pain in the neck, individuals in the United States.
I doubt seriously if you would know whether to scratch your watch or wind your butt day to day.

I doubt seriously if any of you have ever read the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Hamilton and Jay influenced Madison when he was drafting the Bill of Rights.
I suggest each of you read this book, and know something about the United States and the hopes dreams and aspirations of those who founded this country. And learn what limits the founding fathers wanted to place upon the government.

Posted by: jfregus | August 6, 2010 1:36 PM

A judge is like a baseball umpire; a person who should remain neutral while calling "balls and strikes". If the judge (or umpire) ignores the rules and starts to favor one team, then he or she is no longer being neutral nor being fair.

Kagan is more of an "end justifies the means" sort of person, at least from what I can tell, and will likely not call "balls and strikes", but will favor one side or the other in a case, depending upon her personal views.

Therefore, I think it was unwise to nominate her.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | August 6, 2010 2:12 PM

I just hope she's sympathetic to people like me too, otherwise we're in trouble.
Since we no longer really need a legislature to make our laws why not just shut down Congress and save the money? The Supreme Politboro could use the savings to expand its apparatchik and -- Presto! -- citizens' paradise here we come.
Posted by: politbureau | August 6, 2010 12:15 AM
____________________________________
"people like you"? Do you mean raging paranoid fascists? I hope she's not sympathetic to fringe lunatics.

Posted by: luridone | August 6, 2010 2:38 PM

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called Kagan "someone who has worked tirelessly to advance a political agenda."

-- And Justice Roberts and, most particularly, Justice Alito have NOT? Please refer to Dr. Krauthammer's absurd column this morning displaying remarkable amnesia about the 8 years of the Cheney-Bush presidency and the "unitary Executive" philosophy promulgated by Samuel Alito.

Posted by: edallan | August 6, 2010 2:41 PM

A judge is like a baseball umpire; a person who should remain neutral while calling "balls and strikes". If the judge (or umpire) ignores the rules and starts to favor one team, then he or she is no longer being neutral nor being fair.
Kagan is more of an "end justifies the means" sort of person, at least from what I can tell, and will likely not call "balls and strikes", but will favor one side or the other in a case, depending upon her personal views.
Therefore, I think it was unwise to nominate her.
Posted by: RealTexan1 | August 6, 2010 2:12 PM
_____________________________
That's a gross oversimplification of the role of a judge, particularly when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. The definition of the strike zone is far, far more specific than the parameters of the Constitution.

And your belief that she will favor one side over another based on her personal views is completely unsubstantiated supposition on your part. Everybody thought that Earl Warren was going to be a typical conservative Republican on the SCOTUS.

Posted by: luridone | August 6, 2010 2:42 PM

Living in Houston, I can honestly say, after having read all of the comments posted re:Kagan's nomination, that it is not gun packing, pickup driving Texans, who are overly opinionated, it is the people who live in the district or have lived in the district, who are the most overly opinionated, pain in the neck, individuals in the United States.
I doubt seriously if you would know whether to scratch your watch or wind your butt day to day.
I doubt seriously if any of you have ever read the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Hamilton and Jay influenced Madison when he was drafting the Bill of Rights.
I suggest each of you read this book, and know something about the United States and the hopes dreams and aspirations of those who founded this country. And learn what limits the founding fathers wanted to place upon the government.
Posted by: jfregus | August 6, 2010 1:36 PM
________________________
Well, I HAVE read the Federalist Papers, and you have to recognize that Hamilton and Madison, for all the cross-pollination that occurred, had significantly different views on the scope of the Federal Government's authority.

BTW, my watch is battery-powered, so I don't have to scratch it.

Posted by: luridone | August 6, 2010 2:55 PM

I do not trust her to stick by what she said in the confirmation process.
Sotomayer said Heller was settled law, then turned around and agreed with Bryer that it was a rong decision in his discent in McDonald.
Kagan said the same thing....
Her background, like Sotomayer and Obama, is tied to be living in La-La Land places like Manhattan, Chicago, Inside the Beltway, and Harvard. She believes that government - particularly national - power is the solution is the way to go...
Posted by: GHF_LRLTD | August 6, 2010 7:08 AM
_________________________________
And yet it's okay that Roberts lied about his belief in the rule of stare decisis?

Posted by: luridone | August 6, 2010 3:04 PM

I haven't heard anything to convince me she's not. Granted, I didn't hear much to convince me she'd be the best, but it's not like this court is doing great as is.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | August 6, 2010 4:25 PM

To all the Kagan haters: are you angry that on any day that she's smarter than you in so many ways? Are you angry that she was a superior choice to Bush's lame attempt with Harriet Miers? Are you angry that she knew what she wanted to be at an early age when thousands of us do not have that clear vision? Are you angry that she's not a mommy with a litter of kids to prove that she's heterosexual or family oriented? You're showing your stupidity by being a hater and also, she's not anti-military. Harvard, her former employer, had an anti-discrimination policy that she was following. Smart people make dumb, educated people mean and angry. Yea for Kagan!

Posted by: ariesgirl4 | August 6, 2010 5:38 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company