Why Progressives Should Like the Elena Kagan Nomination

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan should please progressives

June 21, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (5)

Josh Gottheimer, a 2004 graduate of Harvard Law School, was a special assistant to the president and speechwriter for President Bill Clinton.

On April 9th, the day Justice Stevens announced his retirement, President Obama outlined the qualities and characteristics he would be looking for in his next appointee to the Supreme Court: "I will seek someone … with similar qualities—an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law, and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people. It will also be someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."

Unsurprisingly, at the time, many on the left swiftly drew up their list of favorites and of those they were less enthusiastic about. They were quick to categorize those on the White House's short list—and to evaluate who would best represent the "voices of ordinary citizens." Before the facts were even on the table, they had drawn their own conclusions; they had especially done so about the president's soon-to-be nominee, Elena Kagan.

This was ironic given Kagan's accomplishments—she was a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, a law professor at Chicago and Harvard, and now solicitor general. She also had the pragmatic policy and political skills: domestic policy director in the Clinton White House, associate White House counsel, and the first woman dean of Harvard Law School. 

[See a slide show of members of the Supreme Court.]

Now, it was true that Kagan had never been a judge, so there wasn't a volume of her decisions for folks to leaf through—and this understandably made some nervous.

But now that we're three months down the road, and that we've had a chance to get to know the president's nominee, I'm hoping that those early naysayers have come two see things: First, as much as we'd like to, you just can't put people into neat ideological boxes—some of their preconceived notions were off-base. Second, Elena Kagan is a progressive who has spent her career in the law and in politics as a champion for "the voices of ordinary citizens."

As any good lawyer would do, particularly with the confirmation hearings on the horizon, it's worth reviewing the evidence at hand.

First, Kagan has already distinguished herself as an aggressive advocate for campaign finance reform. The first case Kagan argued as solicitor general was Citizens United v. Federal Elections Committee, arguably the most important case in recent judicial history and ground zero for political speech. It was one of the many cases Obama referenced when he said back in April, "In a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens." In one fell swoop, the Court upended decades of campaign finance laws that kept corporations and their unlimited financial resources out of the political process. Kagan argued that if Roberts and the other conservative justices had their way, which they ultimately did, the voice of the ordinary American would simply be overpowered by the deep pockets of corporate America. This issue is not going away anytime soon. In one way or another, it will be before the Court in the coming years and the next justice will play a critical role in the outcome.

Second, dating back to her time in the Clinton White House, Kagan has understood how to utilize the political process to help ordinary Americans. She recognizes the power of the law and government to help—or to harm—"the daily lives of the American people." Wearing her West Wing hat as associate White House counsel and then as deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council, Kagan was a persuasive advisor for the President's agenda, whether it was campaign finance, education, tobacco, or health care reform. We worked together in the White House, so I can tell you first-hand, Kagan understands the intersection between the legal, political, and real worlds. 

[See a collection of editorial cartoons about the Kagan nomination.]

Third, Kagan has long been a champion of public interest law. At Harvard, she recognized that there simply weren't enough law students going into public service, particularly those coming out of the top schools. Kagan wanted to change that. She instituted the largest expansion in public interest funding and curriculum in the school's history—the most generous in the nation. Kagan's "Public Service Initiative" included a tuition waiver for third-year students who pledged to spend five years working either for nonprofit organizations or the government.

Tags:
John Paul Stevens,
Elena Kagan,
Woodrow Wilson,
Harvard University,
Harvard Law School,
Bill Clinton,
Supreme Court,
Democratic Party,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"She brought in faculty from the left and the right" -- gee, real diversity there! -- but not a single African American. And where was she when habeus corpus was discarded by Bush Junior? Not a word on that from her... So, why should "progressives" like her? If progressives assume a lesbian has to be progressive, they are making a gigantic mistake.

JC of MN 4:48PM June 22, 2010

Maybe not Democrats who aren't Green-Socialists, pro=abortion Rad-Fems, Obamatrons, or those who are logical enough to understand the legal and moral flaws inherent in the idea of judicial whimsy as the guiding force of a nation.

R.L. SCHAEFER of CA 10:35PM June 21, 2010

Exclusively for political campaigns we need a federal TV system, with free time to ALL CANDIDATES. It will be bulky at first but can be perfected. Our existing NPR includes religious content so it is not at all satisfactory for campaigns.The Court needs more members.. at least 21, with a minimum of half of them being female. I want a lesbian & a gay man on the Court, and as many atheists as possible. FDR tried to enlarge the Court but was trapped by its ultra-conservative majority. A vital decision was Roe v Wade, 1973. It forced our civil government to stop enforcing church law that bans abortion. Since then, Americans have been using our precious Constitutional right to decide how many children we want, if any. Civil government still enforces church law banning suicide but it must be legalized. People in agony need relief from pain. Church laws criminalizing abortion & suicide exist to create, keep & increase church income. If it is not aborted, a conception can live to be a tither--replacing those who die or lose faith. Suicided corpses can't tithe. If they try to repeal Roe, it must be defended as the right of American women to be MOBILE, to GO WHERE WE WANT TO GO, including abortion providers.

auradawn veirs of CA 6:29PM June 21, 2010

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Obamacare Opponents Have to Keep Pushing Repeal

The way to repeal Obamacare is to hasten its ugly results.

Can Obama's Berlin Speech Match John F. Kennedy's and Ronald Reagan's?

The two famous Berlin speeches almost never were.

Reform Conservatives Need to Tackle Unemployment and Jobs

"Reform conservatives" are doing good work, but need to think about the ills of long-term unemployment.

If Background Checks are Good Enough for Guns, They're Good Enough for Jobs

Employers need to be able to consider all factors before making a hire.

NSA Leaker Edward Snowden Is Neither a Whistle-Blower Nor a Civil Disobeyer

Resisters who break a law must accept that they may be arrested and have a duty to submit to punishment.

Obama Should Bring Small Business Owners on His Trip to Africa

This country needs a national reality show.

Syria, Israel and the Obama Administration's Absentee Foreign Policy

Creating a mess you are going to leave for someone else to clean up is not a good way to manage U.S. foreign policy.

advertisement