"With the Advice and Consent..."

Seeing as how this is my first post, I think a bit of background may be required. I don't consider myself a true Democrat or Republican. If I had to label myself, I'd say that I was a "Libertarian-Constitutionalist." I generally vote Republican because they tend to be a bit closer to my political values. (At least they've historically claimed to be so.) I'm a registered Republican because Florida is a closed primary state. If not registered for a party, I don't have a vote in a primary. It is a sad fact of our two-party system that either a "D" or an "R" is going to win any given election so my vote tends to be for what I see as the lesser of two evils. I do not hesitate to admit that I have serious issues with both parties. I thought that GWB's second term was an unmitigated fiasco and that McCain was a horrendous choice to headline the 2008 ticket.

That being said... ELENA KAGAN

To the victor goes the spoils. Whether you like his choice or not, the President is allowed to nominate anyone he wants to the high Court. The Senate confirmation process was designed merely to ensure that any nominee met minimal qualifications for the position. There is no requirement that a nominee have ever been a judge or even a lawyer. In fact, the only reason the Senate has a voice at all in the process was to placate those during our founding who were arguing about the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches. As written, it seems that the Senate is only an extra set of eyes to make sure a nominee hasn't been getting their Ed Gein on for the last 20 or so years.

President Obama has the right to the nominee of his choice -- Elena Kagan or even the "Hello" guy at WalMart. If you don't like it, suck it up, run for President, win, and nominate whoever you want if there's a vacant seat on the bench.

However... HYPOCRISY

Nothing chaps my hind quarters more than politicos with a pulpit who feign outrage over a set of facts or circumstances that they were fine with when their side of the aisle agreed with the potential outcome. As I stated above, I see nothing wrong (unless she's been all Gein-y) with Elena Kagan regardless of her legal experience, writings, etc. If she's who the President wants, she's who he gets. But the same mouthpieces who are singing her praises are the ones who were throwing fits at GWB's nomination of Harriet Miers to assume the seat vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor.

The overwhelming opposition to Miers was fueled by her lack of of judicial experience and dearth of writings. After a comparison of the professional histories of Kagan and Miers, there is a good argument that Miers has more experience in the legal realm than does Kagan. Where is the outrage now? That is what I find particularly irksome. Personally, I am/was concerned with the experience levels of both of these nominees. But that is not my decision to make -- nor is it Sen. Coburn's or Sen. Leahy's. It is the President's and the President's alone. My stance will not change for a liberal or a conservative seat.

Predicting the future... HYPOCRISY PART DEUX?

"The problem is not that the Bork hearings have set a pattern for all others; the problem is that they have not."

Those were words written by Elena Kagan Confirmation Messes, Old and New, U. Chi. L. Rev. 919-942 at 942 (Spring, 1995). The Bork confirmation hearings were the first where the nominee was grilled on specific issues and stances. Bork, who had perhaps more writings than any other nominee before or since, was called on day after day to defend or explain positions he had previously taken. His answers and recorded positions were his downfall. Since then, nominees have done everything possible to avoid giving a straight answer to any issue-based question. The last thing a nominee wants is to be "Borked." Ms. Kagan has been less than enthralled with the Milquetoast-ish responses since then. Since we have minimal writings and no judicial opinions from her, if any confirmation were to elicit substantive responses, this should be it -- especially considering that is exactly what Ms. Kagan has yearned for in others' hearings. Let's see if she sticks to her guns or bows to the wishes of her handlers.

Because the media won't leave it alone... IS SHE OR ISN'T SHE - THE "L" WORD?

Who freakin' cares? It truly makes no difference at all. Whatever legal activity two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of our business. Not my business, yours, nor anyone's on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Most certainly none of the media's business. If she is, and decides to come out, that's her choice. If she is as straight as the day is long, it is still up to her on when/where/if she wants to discuss it. Let it go already. A person is not a cause, a statement, or an abomination -- no matter which side of the issue you're on.

Let's get through this nomination process and get our popcorn ready for First Monday.