This post may contain affiliate links and Corporette® may earn commissions for purchases made through links in this post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Our daily TPS reports suggest one piece of work-appropriate attire in a range of prices.
Happy Monday! Today, we are digging this Marc by Marc Jacobs jacket. The double-buttoned trench is a classic look, but this strikes us as a colorful, fresh take on it. We particularly love the way the lines of the windowpane are slightly furry (alpaca, we're guessing). Gorgeous. Alas, you probably won't get much wear out of it until September — but that's probably also why it's such a great price: was $728, now $364 at Bergdorf Goodman (sizes 2-8 only). Windowpane Long Coat
bluebook
Hmm it looks like a winter cabin curtain, or cowboy shirt, can’t make up my mind.
But can we talk about Elena Kagan being nominated for the Supreme Court? I’m just so excited that there’ll be three women on the Court! I hope the confirmation process isn’t too painful.
AIMS
I think the best part of the nomination is that no one is even talking about the fact that she is a woman — it’s almost a non-issue.
K
Personally, I’m hoping that she will singlehandedly eliminate the antiquated notion that women shouldn’t wear pants in court – if Elena Kagan does it, so can the rest of us!
bluebook
That’s sort of what I think about Michelle Obama and sleeveless tops/dresses (also hose). But yes!
Lucy
She wore a skirt suit today for the confirmation!!!!!!! Not a great sign.
Anonymous
Really? Front page paper in my town is “For the first time in history, Court may have three women…”
AIMS
I think that’s certainly an angle, but it’s not the main focus of the story. For so long, it’s been “wow – a lady on the SC! Can it be done!?”
Now it’s more like, “the SC will have 3 ladies, and let’s talk about whether the fact that she’s got no judicial experience will help or hurt her.”
Obviously, gender is still part of this story but it no longer feels like “the story.” Even with Sotomayor, a lot of the narrative was that the president needs to nominate a woman, a hispanic woman if possible (to kill two birds with one stone), and I think that this media-imposed narrative was a bit of a disservice to Justice Sotomayor’s genuinely tremendous accomplishments. With Elena Kagan, I am not getting the vibe that her nomination had anything at all to do with her gender (no one has yet suggested that Obama just really wanted 3 women on the Court). I think that in and of itself, it’s a sign of progress that this is not the central focus with this nomination. Obviously we can take other issues with the fact that all the Justices now are either the product of Yale or Harvard, etc., but I think that at least for the moment the gender aspect is not really here nor there on this one.
Anonymous
yeah, I guess my point was that while *I* agree with you, Im not sure joe public does. To many outside our profession, it is the story.
Shayna
Disagree — Forbes’ Work in Progress Blog which is all about women in business basically just babbled about how great it is to have three women without any reference to her qualifications.
Legally Brunette
I’m excited about it as well and I really like the fact that she wasn’t a former judge — it gives an interesting mix to the court.
Purpleviolet
Having voted for Obama, I can’t figure out why he didn’t nominate Diane Wood, one of the brightest jurists on the bench. Still waiting for change . . .
AIMS
I was very disappointed in Diane Wood not being nominated as well. Oh well.
AEK
I was hoping for Judge Wood, too. I hope the lesson isn’t that having a well-documented and principled judicial record is a liability as compared to someone who doesn’t have a paper trail.
AIMS
AEK — I think that, sadly, that’s exactly the lesson. The ideal nominee will soon be just a blank canvas.
divaliscious11
Purple – AGE
Not that she was to old, but I think he is looking at the relatively young age of the more recent conservative justices and is looking for some counterbalance with the ability to get some seniority. If I remember, mahority decision writing is often assigned by seniority when the chief justice is not in the majority.
I am also a fan of vigorous dissent writing. some of the best law we have in this country started in dissent.
Midwest Chick
Right, whereas Kagan will probably have a stroke by the time she reaches Wood’s age.
S
Elena Kagan will be easier to get confirmed with less pain. She has already been thru it once recently, so as objections are raised now, it is easy to question why they were not an issue previously. I agree Wood would be a great addition, but I think would require more political capital to get thru with mid term elections in Nov….
jojo
I think S is exactly right. This pick is all about political expediency.
Midwest Chick
I am extremely upset with the Kagan pick, and it has little to do with my being a former student of Wood’s.
Obama will NOT get my vote or goodwill from this day forward.
anon
Well then what does it have to do with? I like Judge Wood lots, but find it hard to believe that anyone who likes Judge Wood would really hate Elena Kagan.
s-k-s
He’s not there just to please you, and you alone. There are multiple people with qualifications for the court who Obama could have picked. Judge Wood was highly qualified, and I would have been happy if he picked her, but lets not go crazy here. Will voting for a far more conservative person next time around achieve better results?
Kagan was kind of the wimpy centrist pick, yes, but its a midterm election year, he used up a lot of political capital with healthcare, and he really just needs to get someone nominated. Kind of stucks, but such is the story of politics.
divaliscious11
That’s presumptious, your comment about the stroke. Judge Wood would have been awesome, but she would not have been my first pick either. Your making some unflattering assumptions, presumably about soon to be Justice Kagan’s weight, which is probably inappropriate. Overweight does not, in and of itself, mean unheakthy, just as thin does not, in and of itself, mean healthy. I think is fine to be disappointed in the pick, but its not as if he had 10 finalists and some were unqualified… He had a great slate to choose from. Do you think Judge Wood would have been on John McCain’s or Palin’s slate? (Adding Palin, not as a slur to her but just acknowledging that McCain is not a spring chicken and the pressures of the Presidency could have would his clock a little tighter)
a
interesting mix? yeah, maybe if this wasn’t the supreme court.
K
Pretty, but I have to say, I’m a little skeptical about the blend.
TB
Ha! I know you’re talking about the jacket, but I like reading your comment as if it were about Kagan’s appointment…
Delta Sierra
TB – funny.
Anon.
I like the fact that Kagan is a woman, but that’s about all I like. Would like to be able to say something more positive about her besides that, but can’t. It’s a shame.
CMF
I’m just not sure about the no judicial experience. As challenging as being a dean is as a job, I don’t think it prepares you for the SJC
3L
She’s no longer a dean, but the Solicitor General.
CMF
Obviously, but she’s only been SG for a year. I was talking about just a lot of her recent experience is as a dean.
RR
Sure, because all she has done is be a dean….
I think being the highest appellate lawyer for the country is at least some experience for arguing before the highest appellate court. Rehnquist had also never sat as a judge before he was appointed….
divaliscious11
I like the fact that she han’t been a judge. Its not a job requirement, and Judges get a bit isolated from reality. As Solicitor General she is trying and/or reviewing cases that impact peoples real lives which I think the current court could use. She wasn’t my first choice in the ten or so “finalists” but I think she brings a different perspective to the bench without any diminishment of academic or intellectual rigor.
Its a crapshoot with any candidate without judicial experience, but she certainly wouldn’t be the first non-judge. Sometimes you get a great judge, like John Marshall, Louis Brandeis or Louis Powell, of the times you a William Renquist…..
AEK
Agreed to a point. Having a non-judge would be great if we got the benefit of the perspective of a practicing lawyer, preferably one with experience in the areas most frequently before the Court. Frankly, being an academic like Kagan is not that different from being a judge in the sense of being divorced from the “real world.” And the SG’s office is as ivory tower as it gets, too. Not that the intelligence and ability to handle the most high-level issues should be thought of as a liability, not at all. But if you think “real world” or practice experience would be valuable on the court, I’m not sure how Kagan scratches that itch.
divaliscious11
While I agree that the SG office, and to some extent academia are not the same as practicing in the cummunity legal aid office (and I’d dispute that to some extent given some of the outrage around legal clinics and their impact), it is a lot closer than sitting on an appellate bench. In the SG’s office, you are arguing before the SC, as well as reviewing cases for amicus input etc…
The reality is that we aren’t likely to ever get the local practitioner, so if we can get someone who has at least had access to relevant legal issues that impact people’s lives and how these issues impact living beings, versus corporations, this may be as close as we come realistically. I’m not sure how we classify frequency before the court – once they decide, it generally takes a generation for the court to revisit the issue, even if its controversial. I like V’s idea of having someone who comes from a criminal defense background, but they aren’t likely to ever get through unless the Dems get another 60 seat majority, because it seems anyone who does other than white collar criminal defense is branded screaming liberal, constitutional right be dam***
v
It’s pretty recent, though, that most SCOTUS nominees have been judges first. I think it’d be generally good to have people who had taken other paths. (Personally, I’d love the next appointment to be someone with some significant criminal defense experience.)
Shayna
It’s pretty recent, though, that most SCOTUS nominees have been judges first. I think it’d be generally good to have people who had taken other paths. (Personally, I’d love the next appointment to be someone with some significant criminal defense experience.)
Emily I
I have actually given the concept of the “ivory tower” versus “real world” a lot of thought. It seems to me that at least a little distance from the “real world” is desirable in the context of a reviewing court – I think it helps to keep the fundamental principles we hold so dear intact. You know what they say: bad facts make bad law. A person who is more focused on the academic aspects of the law may avoid the trap of trying to cut the trial judge too much slack, which could result in the watering down of search and seizure rules, for instance.
At the same time, I agree that having previous experience on the bench shouldn’t disqualify a good candidate, and I would have liked to see Diane Wood as a SCOTUS justice.
jojo
yeeeaah I don’t know…the current Court has gone out of its way to contort a lot of issues into “academic” ones, and in recent terms, it’s strongly resisted weighing on “real world” issues that could give some guidance to those of us who, you know, practice law. Not to mention citizens.
I think jurists make better jurists. SCOTUS has too few of them, certainly too few who served as trial judges. I don’t love the Kagan pick but we all knew it was going to be her based on the media/industry buzz, right?
legallyblind
It’s sad that we are not looking for the best jurist, legal mind, experience, etc. These days, all that matters is ticking off a box to appease the politically correct (and I’m a democratic..) You, arguably, get to tick two boxes with Kagan, just like Sotomayor. We lose credibility this way.
anon
legallyblind — what’s the other box? I know there were rumors around that she was a lesbian. In addition to being none of anyone’s business, I believe it has also been firmly denied. Just assuming that a Harvard law dean and Solicitor General of the US is appointed to SCOTUS simply because of box checking seems dicey to me.
Kimbo
Anon, I obviously don’t know for certain, but I’m guessing “the other box” is the “not a judge” box.
housecounsel
Hate the coat.
As for the nominee, I have to say as a soccer-mom Republican with decidedly left-leaning views on many social issues, I am really enjoying NOT being stressed out over who the president nominates for the Supreme Court. I had a stressful eight years back there.
Purpleviolet
Republican leaning left on social issues? Sounds Libertarian to me!
dee
ha! as a pretty liberal democrat, i feel the exact same way. maybe this is what obama meant when he talked about reaching across the aisle: the ability to nominate SC justices that both democrat and republican women can agree on.
GOPWoman
Republican woman here with moderate tendancies. I don’t agree Kagan is the person I want on the SC. I love that there might be three women on the court, but I would prefer at least a more centrist woman at least. We do exist.
divaliscious11
I’d think we have to define centrist, if that is the case, and in recent political cycles each side’s definition of the center continues to move further and further towards the left or right, depending on their own space on the political spectrum, because very few, on either side, are willing to admit that their views may be remotely extremist. Everyone thinks they are eminently reasonable.
AIMS
Okay, I may be the only one that saw this, but Andy Rooney on 60 minutes did his little comment about this yesterday. We all think we are the ‘reasonable, average American’ here.
v
I’ve always thought that if I were a Republican I’d have been pissed off by Bush’s implication that he couldn’t find a more qualified conservative woman than Harriet Miers.
That said, I adore Kagan, but I think she’s about as centrist as could be expected from a Democratic president. Elections have consequences, etc. etc.
JJ
v, as a Conservative (and thus, Republican voting) female lawyer, I can tell you that I was pissed off by the implication that Harriet Miers was the most qualified he could find. Apparently by “find” he meant “when I scanned the three people standing in front of me at the time.”
GOPWoman
I was perturbed by the Harriet Miers nomination. Sometimes I think that people of both parties fall into the trap of checking off boxes. Woman? Check. Meets minimal requirements? Check. Falls into an acceptable ideological range? Check. All done, no need to look further to find the best person for the job. If you have your mind set on nominating a woman, awesome, but find the best woman, just as you would find the best man, for the job.
KZ
kind of like how if I was a Republican voter, I’d be pissed off at John McCain for not being able to find a more qualified woman than Sarah Palin? Yea. I can see that. I do find it exceptionally annoying when politicians, left and right, just seem like they’re picking on one or two criteria.
I haven’t decided what I think about Kagan yet, but politically it’s probably a good choice–the last thing the democrats need is a nasty confirmation battle that goes through the entire summer, and she seems less contentious than some other options.
Shayna
Agree — Not a Republican (or a Democrat… stuck in the middle, and voting by issue), but she was hardly who I would want as the ‘best’ !
AIMS
GOPWoman — if it makes you feel any better/more reassured about Kagan, as a somewhat liberal leaning woman, I am not at all comfortable with Kagan taking Stevens’ place so maybe she will quite the ‘center’ after all — she is certainly no gift to the left, Upper West Side childhood or not.
Eponine
I’m conservative/Libertarian, and I think Kagan is a best-case scenario. Not crazy about her stated deference to the executive branch, but in general she’s a much better pick than, say Diane Wood. She’s not going to swing further left than JPS. Since the ideological balance of the court will be unaffected, and she’s far more moderate than the other leading contender, I don’t know why people are upset. Did they expect Obama to nominate Janice Rogers Brown?
Eponine
Oh, also not crazy about her stance on civil liberties vis-a-vis the war on terror. I do like that she, as SG, has seemed very capable of separating personal ideology from legal reasoning.
v
I thought SCOTUSblog made a pretty compelling case that concerns about her executive power opinions have been overstated.
R
What IS Kagan if she is not centrist?!
Emily I
Don’t care for the coat…love the other discussion, though!
What2WearWhere
Totally agree with you and the lively discussion and think the coat is a little heavy for the spring. Here are some light toppers http://www.what2wearwhere.com/blog/post/2010/4/5/What-to-Wear-Hot-Toppers.aspx
A.
I am allergic to alpaca (and angora), is anyone else? Lamb/sheep wool is no problem, but with both angora and alpaca I break out in a ridiculous rash.
JJ
I’m allergic to angora (never tried alpaca). It’s bad enough that if I walk by an angora sweater in a store, I’ll get into a sneezing fit and my eyes will start watering.
Unfortunately, I didn’t figure out the allergic connection until I attempted wearing angora sweaters a few times in undergrad.
Shayna
Oh that’s painful… I found out I was allergic to lambswool in high school – I’ll never forget how red and hive-y I was — and neither will anyone else thanks to the yearbook pictures taken that day :-(
75
That coat would be perfect for right now in many places – and I love it! I think you can wear it in San Francisco all summer long, also Portland Maine and maybe Portland, OR. Imagine grabbing Marc J. for that price! I would have walked out the door with that on my back this morning if I owned it.
Delta Sierra
Sorry, Kat, but I sincerely haaate this coat. The cut is harmless enough, but that scraggy fabric, do not want.
I’m not an American (although am living in U.S. as a resident alien not allowed to vote and it took 7 years just to get a green card and would take a further 10 years to achieve citizenship and am therefore paying tax without representation, just saying) and am glad to read Corporettians’ comments about Ms. Kagan, as it puzzles me that she sounds liberal sometimes and conservative others. Thus, the centrist tag, I guess. Ok. Prefer flaming liberals, myself, though.
bluebook
Why so long to be a citizen? If you have a green card through any way other than marriage, I thought you could apply to be a citizen after 5 years, then normally the process would be 1-2 years. If you got your green card by marriage you can apply to be a citizen earlier, just 3 years after you got your temporary green card by marriage. I agree that these things shouldn’t take this long, but if you already have a green card, it shouldn’t be 10 years….
Delta Sierra
Hubs is a Canadian citizen, I’m a U.K. citizen with landed immigrant status in Canada, which seems to have made it all more involved than for people with different starting points than we have. Also, we arrived very soon after 9/11, at which point the whole immigration dept. slowed down considerably <- masterpiece of understatement. Our immigration lawyer says that for citizenship we'd be looking at 10 years start to finish, now that we have green cards. But we plan to retire back to Canada within the next ten years, and so are not applying for citizenship. The no-vote thing bothers me idealistically, especially seeing as how you guys had a revolution about it. But in practice I have no problem paying taxes, since, y'know, it allows me to have good police, firemen, paved roads, etc. etc. We pay the same overall tax here as we did in Canada, more or less, so having to pay extra for health coverage takes a little getting used to.
Sorry, didn't mean to thread-jack.
v
For what it’s worth, us citizens who are residents of the District of Columbia are in the exact same boat.
Delta Sierra
v – I’ve read about that. Odd.
PG
Delta, your story could be mine! Though I had no idea that these circumstances lead to delayed citizenship! We just applied for ours. We are hoping that it does not take 10 years and just a few months like our other friends. Would you mind emailing me separately the details of why your attorney said it might take 10 yrs? My email is – [email protected].
I also was miffed at not being able to vote in the past landmark election.
Strangely, when I first came here, I thought that all republicans are dogmatic christian conservatives and was resolved to be a Democrat. Now I would describe myself as fiscally republican and socially mainly democrat although some democrats are too left leaning for my taste.
txclerk
Even if the process seems daunting, I would encourage you to go through it if you want to be a U.S. citizen and desire to live in the US long-term. Working in a federal court, I’ve realized even more how important citizenship is. Seriously consider it. There are many agencies, clinics, and non-profits that can help you — some pro bono. If not, more power to you. Thank you for paying your taxes. And I suppose it is fair* because you do use and reap the benefits of the same public services as the rest of us, but I would be upset too if I couldn’t vote and had to pay. :)
*Our tax system is broken. Fair is relative.
Dasha
I am in a position similar to Delta Sierra. Have been on an H-1B visa for six years (preceded by a stint as an F-1 student), finally got my citizenship two and a half years ago and I am literally counting the days until I can apply for my citizenship (June 2011!). For me, it’s not only the ability to vote but also the ability to work for various governmental agencies who only hire US citizens.
Plus, even as a green card holder, I am tired of CIS agents asking me at the border every time I enter the US as to where I am going, how long I have been in the US, etc. I look forward to the day when I can simply tell them to get lost and not be afraid of being denied entry.
divaliscious11
Dasha…CIS are the last people who should be told to get lost. They can make your life miserable. I tell people all the time, tell the regualr police to leave you alone, you may be okay, but the proper response to customs is yes sir or no ma’am….
PG
I also have no problem with CIS agents asking me questions. It is their job and I like to see them doing it.
NY
Aren’t you going to get questions going into most countries you are not a citizen of? I mean honestly, I’m sure you are tired of it but if your not a citizen of a country, of course they are going to ask you some routine questions .
NY
you’re* whoops
Dasha
Answering regular questions, I have little problem with. I do have a problem, however, with being treated with suspicion, often ignorance and outright xenophobia (having lived in the US for almost 15 years!) I know that things have changed since 9/11, but the CIS does not have to treat everyone as a potential terrorist suspect.
Delta Sierra
Dasha – border anxiety, I hear you.
Glamour
Love Marc…. and it’s so smart to buy on sale, but is this something you’ll love come next autumn?
xo
glamalert.com/glambassador
Ri
Spotted: spam on the usually oh so elite corporette blog. What does this mean for Blair and Chuck?
xoxo, gossip girl
Cat
ha!
Glam, try leaving a comment that’s a little more involved than a line on a Glamour magazine cover and maybe I’d be more inclined to click through…
lo
Kat! Please, stop posting from this person. We all hate it.
75
Less than three years.
Sarah MC
75 – no way you could wear this coat all summer long in Portland, Maine! It is very humid there, with temps in the 70s and 80s.
I think the coat is cute but could easily veer into lumberjack territory if not styled just right.
bluebook
Yes!! That’s exactly what I was looking for. Missing a hatchet/ax. :)
Carrie
I love the discussion.
I’m pretty keen on the nominee too. I understand that she’s the right person for the current climate. Judge Wood would be a great pick, but she’s a pick for a time when the POTUS has a little more clout.
As for the coat, it’s more controversial. I like it and it suits my style, but my style tends to be a little on the funky side.
Delta Sierra
I love funky. Care to share online sources? Thanks.
A
The coat is frumptastic!
Shayna
The jacket is horrible…
Furry stripes? I can only ask if those are made from Muppet fur!
And who buys such an obviously trendy jacket now, months ahead of when you know what will be ‘in’ and ‘out’ in your area in the fall (I know there are fashion shows now, but let’s face it, it’s the distilled version that’s sold in your area that usually defines ‘in’ or ‘out’)
On Kagan – the fact that the only good thing I’ve heard about her is “there will be three women on the bench” annoys the heck out of me – your gender, skin color, hair color, etc., are not thing that we work towards, or indicators of our ability to make some of the most important and widely impacting decisions in the country! (And yes, I had big issues with Sotomayer’s “wise latina” remark)
divaliscious11
I’d say look a litle more and you’ ll find loathing, indifference, resolution and fandom, pretty much as you would with any other appointee.
However, I disagree with you on your comments related to gender and race, to the extent you characterize them as not important, or relevant. I think there is no minimum educational and intellectual qualification threshold that these characteristics should overcome, but once you have a slate of equally qualified candidates, then I DO think it is important to be judge by a judiciary, like a jury, of your peers. And for far to many years, that has not been the case for women or minorities, to their personal detriment. You are absolutely correct saying that these are not the things we work towards, but they are also the things we have struggled against. Generally, the issues granted cert by the SC are issues that have broad impact in the country, issues of first impression and issues raising questions of constitutionality. I think its important to have a court representative of the people for whom it is establishing the law of the land.
And if the President was merely going for a 2-fer or checking boxes, he’d have gone with Judge Williams or Judge Sears. I personally hope Judge Sears gets a good look at the next vacancy and would have been thrilled if been selected. I would have loved if Cass Sunstein had been selected, but so much of his writings could have been distorted and taken out of context to the point that one of the nations eminent constitutional scholars would have had an arduous struggle getting confirmed.
There really is value in having different perspectives and life experiences on the highest court of the land.
Frump
First, the coat- it looks like Marcy J. raided the extra props closet from Braveheart and made a coat out of a discarded fabric shard he found. I think it’s much to bold in a bad way and definitely would not stand the test of time, but I suppose if one had copious amounts of money to burn…
Second, regarding Ms. Kagan, I think it’s a bit ironic that out of all the comments, nobody has mentioned her opinions or interpretations towards the constitution, which, in theory, should be the most important evaluative criteria of a judge on the SCOTUS. From what I understand, she doesn’t seem to have much precedent for establishing any kind of record regarding her demonstrative support of upholding constitutional principles, therefore I have trouble understanding how people could laud her nomination while ignoring such an obvious and potentially fundamental problem.
But then again, I suppose I can’t necessarily expect such commentary, as it seems as if nominations have really drifted far away from picking nominees based on their commitments to upholding the constitution and laws and much more about fulfilling political tick marks and advancing distinctly partisan agendas
divaliscious11
Frump,
Ideally, the Supreme Court nominee should not have a predisposed opinion toward any issue that should come before the court. the case presented should be decided on its merits and underlying questions/legal issue which brought it before the court in the first place.
As a law professor, she does have a body of work to gain insight into her thought process and how she approaches legal questions. As a non-jurist, what she doesn’t have is a body of opinions that can be taken as sound-bites, although that has not stopped some opponents from sound-biting her law review tribute to Justice Marshall.
I’d ask “How do you define upholding the constitution?” I mean that sounds very good, but what do you mean? Do you want someone who purports to be a strict constructionist? If so, should all those nice amendments giving women the right to vote and restoring Black their other 2/5 of personhood be stricken? And oh, my, who, pray tell is the commander-in-chief of the Air Force and where is all that money coming from??? Or do you mean upholding the intent of the words as a living breathing document whose original form was flawed (as clearly admitted by several of its signers) but a good start in getting us toward the freedoms so many of us enjoy unconsciously? Do you acknowledge that the social mores of our country have changed since the writing and signing of the document? (Caveat – I am assuming you are not one of those “give us back our country” people – which always make me wonder what Native Americans think of that phrase.) And why bother with the Article V, dictating how to change the constitution, if they’d got it exactly right the first time (but note, they forbade changing the 1st/4rth amendments). Anyhoo, my point is that the constitution, for all its glorious intention, was an imperfect document both then and now
(despite what Nino Scalia thinks) so we should all be careful when hitching up to the “ability to interpret the constitution argument.
(ok, so my hit the lotto dream job because I don’t have bills etc…. is to do con law seminars…lol)
C2
Based on your last couple of comments, save me a seat at your seminar. Great points.
Also, I have to say how impressed I am at the civility of this discussion by everyone involved. I wonder if we’ve set an internet record for consecutive blog comments of a political nature *not* turning ad hominem or racist.
Frump
We are likely coming from different perspectives if you have such little faith in Justice Scalia, so I don’t want to make too much of an argument over this, but I will say this. I believe that with SCOTUS justices, there should be at the very least a clear and established precedent to their thought processes behind defending or altering principles accounted for in the constitution. There should be a track record, again at the least, of interpretations that point to how the person has based their legal decisions within a constitutional framework, so for example-how has the person viewed the constitution (more static vs. ‘living and breathing’) and how has that affected their rulings, how has the person applied previous precedents, laws, or constitutional statues in making decisions, how literally does the person interpret what is written, etc.
These are all critical elements to know about a nominee, and I am not sure people can really say they know that about Ms. Kagan. Perhaps vaguely we might be able to deduce conclusions of this sort from some of her academic work, but if there is no truly direct precedent in order to establish how she will uphold and interpret constitutional principles, how can we truly have faith in her ability to do so in the most important judicial context of the country?
Clearly we’re probably going to have to agree to disagree here, but I feel the right questions regarding her have not really been asked, and too many are focused on the more distinctly political benefits to her appointment. I don’t really believe in legislating from the bench in the sense that I don’t believe one’s direct partisan agenda should be driving the kinds of decisions being made. In other words, I do not believe it is correct for SCOTUS justices to be deciding cases based on their own political compass or the types of political changes they would personally favor the implementation of. Of course, political persuasions often relate to how judges may interpret the constitution, but in my opinion, this is different than judges ruling distinctly based on their partisan agenda and not on stricter, constitutional evidence.
In my opinion, I am not sure I have enough evidence to be convinced Ms. Kagan won’t necessarily be ruling more based on her political agenda, and I think these are the kinds of questions that people should at least be asking about her, as opposed to being so focused on things about her like her gender, or whatnot.
divaliscious11
I think that even though we likely have different political perspectives, I do agree that those are the questions to ask… during the confirmation process. Asking for specific rulings on specific sets of facts does a disservice, because no nominee is going to answer them – It’s a dead question if you answer or if you don’t, and it ends up being a time waster.
I don’t know that actual judging is quite that hard. True it requires rigorous intellect, but having clerked on a pretty hot appellate bench, I think judging is the easy part. Its the intellectual rigor of processing the precedent, the arguments, and the gaps in the arguments, understanding the true legal issue/question that need addressing and the facilty at asking or raising the salient factual and legal questions to give visibility to the full scope of each strengths and weakness that requires the ‘chops’. If you can get it all laid out in the course of briefings and oral arguments, the end decision is usually right there. The problems lie when you try to contort the facts/law to reach the decision you want….
Thanks for having a rational discussion about this…
houda
I love Trench coats, but somehow something about this particular model makes it look boxy…I wouldn’t want to risk wearing it unless I am very thin (which is not the case) so I’d pass.
LInLondon
I’ve got to say, even buried under the Kagan chat, that I have had an absolutely, ridiculously bad experience with Marc by Marc Jacobs in the past few months. I bought a $200 wallet in January and in a few weeks’ time the patent leather on the outside started peeling off. Their customer service has been completely unresponsive and I’ve emailed (politely, of course) several times.
I would recommend against buying anything from this brand, the quality is lousy and the service is, amazingly, worse.