Is Elena Kagan Too Inexperienced?

President Barack Obama meets with Solicitor General Elena Kagan in the Oval Office last month. Obama nominated Kagan for the Supreme Court on Monday. | White House photo/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4594663321/">Pete Souza</a> (<a href="http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml">Government Work</a>)

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


So President Obama is set to announce today that Solicitor General Elena Kagan will be his next Supreme Court nominee. The choice doesn’t come as much surprise given all the court chatter last week, though it will be the first time since 1972 that a president has nominated someone with exactly zero judicial experience. That’s a pretty big deal, and Republicans are no doubt about to bludgeon Kagan with her inexperience. Kagan, for her part, has recently given them some help in that department.

When Obama tapped Kagan as solicitor general, she was the rare lawyer to take the job who had never actually argued a Supreme Court case. Then, as now, critics said she was too inexperienced for the position. Last month, Kagan seems to have confirmed that there was some merit to that early criticism. Kagan’s first Supreme Court appearance came just last fall in the critical Citizens United case. She lost big time when the court decided to allow unlimited corporate money to slosh into federal elections. But last month, in a tribute to Justice Anthony Kennedy at Georgetown University, Kagan revealed that she was indeed out of her depth when she stepped up to the podium that day to defend campaign finance regulation–and that Kennedy saved her from looking like an idiot.  Tony Mauro at Legal Times reported last month:

Kagan told the Georgetown audience that the [Kennedy] had “a bit of a bad habit,” namely that he asks advocates about cases that are not mentioned anywhere in the briefs for the case. Kennedy did just that in Citizens United when he asked Kagan whether something she had just said was “inconsistent with the whole line of cases that began with Thornhill v. Alabama and Coates v. Cincinnati.” Perhaps many advocates know those cases, Kagan said, but “I at any rate did not.” She added, “There was a look of panic on my face.”

Without knowing for sure, Kagan said she believes that Kennedy “saw in the flash of an instant that … I really had no clue” about the cases he was asking her about. Instead of waiting for her painful reply, Kennedy quickly went on to explain the Thornhill line of cases — which relate to facial challenges to statutes under the First Amendment — with enough detail that Kagan was able to recover and answer the question. Kennedy’s kind rescue, Kagan said, showed that the justice had “sensitivity to my plight” and confirmed his “fundamental decency and abiding humanity.”

Kagan’s admission had the legal blogs afire with speculation about whether she really ought to be nominated to a post that does, after all, require justices to know a lot of cases that won’t be in the briefs before them. Still, critics made similar arguments about Kagan when Obama tapped her as SG, and aside from her spectacular loss in Citizens United, she seems to have gotten up to speed fairly quickly. But this time, Kagan has given her opponents some rich material, in her own words, to make a case against her that has nothing to do with the usual partisan social issues that tend to bog down Supreme Court nomination fights. In a way, I appreciate her forthright admission about her shortcomings, but at the same time, I do have to wonder what she was thinking when she made that speech not even two weeks ago. It’s not like she didn’t know she was on Obama’s short list. Disclosing ignorance of a body of law that many first year associates could have recognized was not, perhaps, very judicious on Kagan’s part.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest