Elena Kagan, Supreme Court Nominee: Who Is She?

Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination marks the culmination of an illustrious career in both academia and government. Before serving as the Solicitor General of the United States in her current capacity, Kagan held a number of high-profile positions, most notably, within the Clinton Administration and subsequently as Dean of Harvard Law School.

The timeline below captures a number of the highlights and turning points of that career:

1 of 15

1960: Born

1 of 16

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

Born in Manhattan, New York City to Gloria and Robert Kagan. Her mother was a teacher at Hunter College Elementary School, her father was a lawyer. The family lived in an apartment in the Upper West Side. Both of her parents are deceased, but Kagan has two brothers -- Marc and Irving -- who are both social studies teachers in New York. Kagan was raised Jewish.

7 Ways To Get Yourself Detained Indefinitely

Dick Cheney Raising Money For Mitt Romney's Campaign

Bristol Palin: I'm No Victim

gadgets/slideshows/218103/slide_218103_830691_small.jpg

Andy Gipson, Mississippi GOP Lawmaker: Gays Are Still Sinners, But I Don't Want Them Dead

Sarah Palin: Jeremiah Wright Is Fair Game (VIDEO)

Scott Walker Recall Leaders Prep Final Push In Effort To Regain Momentum

Born in Manhattan, New York City to Gloria and Robert Kagan. Her mother was a teacher at Hunter College Elementary School, her father was a lawyer. The family lived in an apartment in the Upper West Side. Both of her parents are deceased, but Kagan has two brothers -- Marc and Irving -- who are both social studies teachers in New York. Kagan was raised Jewish.

comments(213)

Total comments: 213 | Post a Comment

1 of 16

This Event

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Important

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Top Developments

loading...

Top Developments

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[bbarrick]

12:21 PM on 05/29/2010

Can someone explain to me how she became Dean of two prestigious law schools and Solicitor General of the US without taking positions on anything? What has this woman got? If she's a pragmatic liberal I'm fine with that but how do you tell?

[georgecarlin1776]

07:13 PM on 05/11/2010

She is not a progressive or a liberal and will push the court further to the right but what do you expect from an administration pretending to be on our side when they want money but screwing us over EVERY chance they get. Kagan helped give immunity for the Saudi Royal Family against suits filed by 911 families. So 911 families aren't our priority yet we have two wars and a almost completed police/surveillance state in their name? Orwellian and disgusting that WE have allowed this.

[SuperBenFranklin]

10:28 AM on 05/11/2010

It is too bad the nominee is another childless person. There is just too much real world experience you get from raising kids. If you don't level up like that, you are pretty much stuck in "college mode", you've never really had responsibilities and therefore have a limited outlook on how life works.

I do hope she is gay though, at least that would add to the mix of things.

[lyingdognews]

06:54 AM on 05/11/2010

Is there no justice in this world?...

LINK BETWEEN TIGER WOODS AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINEE ELENA KAGAN DISMISSED BY WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON, DC — Tiger Woods is reported to have had 21 mistresses. Could Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan be number 22?

[...]

Full story: http://lyingdognews.net/?p=2341

[cascot]

05:21 AM on 05/11/2010

Why is it that the Dems pick intelligent women that could be passed off as a man AND not a good looking man at that, I mean, come on, aren't there any Dem/Lib faces out there that show beauty AND intelligence?

[ewekalane]

07:45 AM on 05/11/2010

you my friend is an idiot!

[mbsq]

03:22 AM on 05/11/2010

Sounds good to me. She's a progressive at heart, judging from her biography. She's apparently brilliant and good at technical issues. She's a consensus builder rather than a warrior. Sounds effing good to me.

[Carolab]

12:24 AM on 05/11/2010

From what I just read, she supports the "unitary executive" or as she refers to it "presidential administration".

Oh oh.

[PhilipTaylor]

12:46 AM on 05/11/2010

The general principle that the President controls the entire executive branch was originally rather innocuous, but extreme forms of the theory have developed. John Dean explains: "In its most extreme form, unitary executive theory can mean that neither Congress nor the federal courts can tell the President what to do or how to do it, particularly regarding national security matter."

Wikipedia

[Carolab]

12:59 AM on 05/11/2010

The Regulatory State, The Unitary Executive And Civil Libertarians

how can we have faith in regulation and does Presidential control over the regulatory agencies breed confidence and accountability?

Kagan, Dellinger and I all believe it does. And we believe that this is the traditional progressive view of the question.

This is why I read with some amusement Matt Yglesias's tipping of Dellinger's article as "Walter Dellinger says Elena Kagan is too a civil libertarian." Well, yes, but Dellinger's more important point is that Kagan is a progressive on the question of Presidential power over the Executive Branch.

This is a question quite apart from the issue of whether Kagan is a civil libertarian.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/4/17/91333/3632

Apparently, we are to view this as a "progressive" point of view (think FDR).

[Carolab]

01:00 AM on 05/11/2010

More from above from TalkLeft and Big Tent Democrat's post there:

Walter Dellinger's piece on Elena Kagan (it reaches similar conclusions to my own piece) raises important questions for progressives regarding a desire for a strong regulatory state while at the same time fearing a strong President. Dellinger writes:

Kagan's 2001 Harvard Law Review article "Presidential Administration[]" [. . .] does not endorse anything remotely like the Bush-Cheney view of broad presidential power to evade laws passed by Congress. [. . .] Kagan's views on the president's power to direct the executive branch are in fact fully consistent with the positions taken by Justice Stevens. [. . .]

As a matter of policy, moreover, Kagan writes that she sees presidential supervision of federal agencies "as a mechanism to achieve progressive goals" in areas such as environmental protection. [. . . ] The Bush-Cheney view of executive power was wrong not because it asserted that the president could direct administrative agencies to achieve policy goals. It was wrong because it allowed for the president to ignore decisions made by Congress and assert unilateral power to violate duly enacted laws. That is a view of presidential power that Kagan expressly rejects.

[thinkingguy100]

12:19 AM on 05/11/2010

guess you have to have studied at harvard to become a Supreme Court judge

[cascot]

11:35 PM on 05/10/2010

She may be a nice person, she may be very intelligent, BUT if she has had NO experience as a judge, SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED! Actually, a Supreme Court nominee should have SEVERAL years of judgeship. Maybe she is a great lawyer, but sitting in judgement is a whole new ballgame.
But why doesn't her nomination surprise me? Obama isn't qualified to be president, so he doesn't give much credit to experience...and look at the failure of his admin. so far. Only 4% of his Administration actually held REAL jobs, so it doesn't seem a priority.

[Carolab]

01:03 AM on 05/11/2010

Lincoln learned a lot of "political experience" and yet became one of our greatest presidents.

http://abrahamlincolnblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/abraham-lincolns-political-experience.html

I don't think the "experience" argument holds water. The thing that matters is point of view.

[Carolab]

01:11 AM on 05/11/2010

I mean he *LACKED* it when he became president, but learned it on the job.

[cascot]

02:42 AM on 05/11/2010

Times were different then (not very much president to pour through).. Lincoln studied law on his own to become a lawyer for his times and his advanced training would take place in the courtroom. At that point, a client can change lawyers if he/she doesn't feel they're being represented well. Not so with a judge. You are STUCK with the judge you get. That is WHY WHOM can be a judge should be a very strict process; the client CANNOT change their judge in normal cases. Being a Lawyer is one animal. Being a judge is an animal that goes through an evolutionary process that should not be skipped, to become someone better prepared to sit judgement on laws unbiased.

[ChicagoSuz]

01:11 AM on 05/11/2010

FYI - she would be the 41st Justice that was not a Judge prior to becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

[LoveisintheStars]

10:31 PM on 05/10/2010

Lady looks like a DUDE.

[Carolab]

01:11 AM on 05/11/2010

Not important.

[StopSexismNow]

03:22 AM on 05/11/2010

grow up

[MoreFreedom]

09:50 PM on 05/10/2010

Liberals should oppose Kagen because she's against free speech and prefers that government decide what speech is allowed. Per http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Kagan-Speech-is-free-if-government-decides-it-has--93309159.html, "...in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: 'Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.' In other words the government decides. Britain outlawed speech against King George's abuses of the colonists of America. That's what "societal costs" are. We may find that speech that criticizes government to be against the law with Kagen.

[2bad]

08:19 AM on 05/11/2010

Let the paranoia and copy/pasting of far-right talking points begin!!!!

[lainey]

08:43 PM on 05/10/2010

I love that her views are still an enigma, even to friends,for this tells me that she can be objective. The problems with our courts--lower, appeal, etc.--is that too many judges bring their own biases into the court room and do a disservice to those involved. Having been in court for the first time at age 42 for a foster child, I was shocked at just what a joke it was. The lawyers were ill-informed on the matters before them and the judge had made up her mind before testimony began. And she didn't try to hide it either. I was sure that I was on "Candid Camera" yet unfortunately, there was nothing funny about it. The judge and the lawyers were jokers and the child was lost in their inability to see the facts. I thought the one place emotions had a mandatory removal process was the courts, but I was wrong. I like the fact that Ms. Kagan is smart enough to do her job as a lawyer, which in turn, will make her great at being a judge.

[Jack Crack]

05:56 PM on 05/10/2010

The USA needs an aggressive campaign of getting more females into all aspects of government, this lady looks like the bomb. Lets get another 2 gals so a female has the deciding vote on SCOTUS. It's time for a bit of female perspective on the constitution and I think it would be really good for all Americans (especially the boys).

[RedRat]

05:43 PM on 05/10/2010

Finally, someone who is a Constitutional scholar. The requirement for day to day courtroom experience is really not all that necessary for the Supreme Court. If we had a Supreme Court that spent time on courtroom procedures, the court would spend years deciding minutia in case in place of Constitutional merit. Courtroom procedures are for the Appeals courts to figure out.

[DougSmith]

05:28 PM on 05/10/2010

50 years old. Was born in New York City on April 28, 1960
Currently serves as the Obama administration's solicitor general
Won Senate confirmation to that post by a 61-31 vote on March 19, 2009
Dean of Harvard's Law School, 2003 -2009
Law professor, Harvard, 1999-2003 (visiting professor, 1999-2001; professor, 2001-2003)
Deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council in the Clinton White House, 1997-1999
Associate counsel to President Clinton, 1995-1996
Law professor, University of Chicago, 1991-1995
Attorney in private practice, Williams & Connolly in DC, 1989-1991
Clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1988
Clerked for D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Abner Mikva, 1986-1987
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1986
Oxford, Worcester College, M. Phil., 1983
Princeton University, A.B. (history), 1981

[Eurotransplant]

09:07 AM on 05/15/2010

Doug,

and don't forget another entry

Goldman-Sachs advisroy Council 2005-2008