LOST IN THE SHUFFLE – AT 8:46 P.M. ET:  Lost amidst such stories as Chelsea's wedding and the Earth-shattering saga of Shirley Sherrod (remember?), there's the little matter of the confirmation vote on Elena Kagan.  The result is preordained, but it's important for Republicans to put up a good fight, if only to educate the public.

The more I look at Kagan's record, the more uneasy I am about sending her to the high court.  She's a political figure whose service to the law was primarily her deanship at the Harvard Law School, an administrative post.  She has made no great contribution to legal thinking and has never been a judge.  She is certainly scholarly and personable, but that isn't enough.  From The Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—The full Senate began debating Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, with Republicans continuing to say she was a political nominee who would seek to advance a liberal agenda.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 in favor of Ms. Kagan last month and there is little doubt she will be confirmed when the full Senate votes, likely on Thursday. Already, five Republicans have declared they will vote for her, ensuring she will have more than the 60 votes required to close off debate on her nomination.

But the majority of Republicans are expected to oppose her, citing what they describe as her lack of qualifications and other reasons.

Republican criticism of Ms. Kagan has centered around her policy work in the Clinton White House and her decision to limit military recruiters' access to Harvard Law School students because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) said Tuesday on the Senate floor that she lacks "real world" experience and would be tempted to engage in "political spin" from the high court.

COMMENT:  I'm afraid Sessions is correct.  We always hope to be pleasantly surprised by Supreme Court judges, and very occasionally we are, but usually the surprise is in the other direction.  I would not vote to confirm her as I think her agenda is political, not judicial, but I'm willing to write her a fan letter if I'm proved wrong.

August 3, 2010