Elena Kagan Nomination: White House Talking Points

The first White House talking points on Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination are making the rounds just minutes after she was formally nominated by the president.

And in an effort to grease the wheels for her confirmation, the administration is choosing to emphasize the Solicitor General's "trailblazer" life story and her empathy with the struggles of ordinary people (though the word "empathy" -- so toxic during the last SCOTUS fight -- is never actually used).

A Democratic source passed along to the Huffington Post Monday morning talking points that go directly at the early Republican charge that Kagan is the product of elitist institutions. The document stressed that Kagan has worked routinely on everyday issues -- in various legal pursuits -- and even points to her lineage to make the case that she is of a a distinctly average (if not blue-collar) upbringing.

"Elena's father was a housing lawyer devoted to the rights of tenants," according to the talking points. "Her mother was a public school teacher committed to helping her students realize."

The document also stresses Kagan's impeccable academic and legal qualifications and her ability to bridge partisan divides. But the emphasis on her understanding of how the law impacts "ordinary people's lives" gives a strong sense of where the White House sees the confirmation battle heading.

THE TALKING POINTS ARE PASTED BELOW:

Talking Points: Solicitor General Elena Kagan

Regarded as One of the Nation's Leading Legal Minds

Widely regarded as one of the nation's leading legal minds, Solicitor General Elena Kagan has forged a path-breaking career in the law and in government service, distinguishing herself throughout by her penetrating intellect, unwavering integrity, sound judgment and prodigious work ethic.

A Trailblazer throughout Her Career in Public Service and Academia

She was the first woman to serve as Dean in Harvard Law School's 186-year old history. And she was the first woman to serve as Solicitor General - the lawyer who represents the United States Government before the Supreme Court. Of the 111 justices who have served on the Supreme Court, only three have been women. Kagan would be the fourth, and this Fall, for the first time in history, three women would take their seats on our nation's highest court.

Lawyer and Scholar Who Understands the Impact of Law on Ordinary People's Lives

As an academic, her scholarship focused on issues ranging from freedom of speech to government policy making - issues with a profound effect on our daily lives. As a White House lawyer and policy aide, she played lead role in working with Democrats and Republicans on legislation to prevent tobacco companies from targeting children with deceptive advertising practices and addictive products. As a law school Dean, she turned a fractious institution into a united one, and inspired students to use their legal training to serve their communities. And as Solicitor General, she has defended before the Supreme Court Congress's efforts to protect shareholders' rights, to implement bipartisan campaign finance reform, and to preserve the national security interests of the United States.

Leader who Inspires the Confidence and Support of Democrats and Republicans

With an unparalleled ability to bring together people of different backgrounds and beliefs, she has earned praise across the political spectrum for her fair-mindedness, even-handedness, and insistence that all views deserve a respectful hearing. Every Solicitor General over the last quarter century - Democrats and Republicans - wrote a letter of support for her nomination as Solicitor General, noting her "brilliant intellect," "candor," and the "high regard in which she is held by persons of a wide variety of political and social views." And her nomination to the Supreme Court is receiving similarly wide support from members of the legal community across the ideological spectrum.

A Product of a Family that Prized Education and Service to Others

Elena's father was a housing lawyer devoted to the rights of tenants. Her mother was a public school teacher committed to helping her students realize their potential. They sent Elena to an all-girls public high-school where she learned that she could achieve any goal she sought. Following in her parents' footsteps, Elena became a lawyer like her father, using her legal training to serve others, and a beloved teacher like her mother, inspiring the next generation of students to use their legal training to improve lives and communities.

Comments

[NoSandwiches]

09:59 PM on 05/10/2010

Pleased that women are being nominated/confirmed. They tend to live longer, be better at working with others (less ego) and more empathy.

[SvrWx]

08:29 PM on 05/10/2010

I was listening to Randi Rhodes earlier today and she was talking in-depth about this nomination...she also interviewed a civil Liberties Lawyer and the conclusion they came to is that there isn't much to judge this lady on...she hasn't written alot even in academia although she came out in the mid 90's with a paper that is eye opening in regards to her views on the 1st amendment. He also stated that although she argued for the administration on the United Citizens 1st amendment issue, she appears to have disagreed with it and favors unlimited money being used in elections. If I'm wrong, anyone please correct me

[The Cause Endures]

08:37 PM on 05/10/2010

In all honesty, I thought that the limitation on corporate expenditures should remain. But having since read the opinion and read posts by the former head of the ACLU (itself a corporation), I'm not as adamantly against it as I was. Disclosure is still required, contribution limits remain in place, and there is nothing preventing progressive corporations from advocating their point of view. Could work out for the best, surprisingly.

[SvrWx]

08:56 PM on 05/10/2010

Do you have any links especially from the ACLU where they discuss it. I'd love to read up on it.

[jclaireburke]

10:23 PM on 05/10/2010

Face it, most corporations are not progressive and as far as unions being able to contribute, it's a drop in the bucket compared with Big Oil and Banks. Corporations are not people, period.

[The Cause Endures]

08:27 PM on 05/10/2010

One day, historians will look back at the judiciary branch and ask why such a sophisticated society insisted on kidding themselves in submitting to any rule of law couched in fluid terms of "fundamentality" and "reasonableness."

[Alexander2791]

08:24 PM on 05/10/2010

AS JONATHAN TUREY JUST OPINED ON KEITH OLBERMANN SHOW, this is childish and naive to think that E Kagan will be able to change any of the conservative minds on the court. The majority of decisions (including validation of Bush as winner of the elections) over the past 9 years have been conservative and against the interest of the average and poor citizens. Kagan will only ensure up to some extent that the court will still have 5 to 4 decisions in the conservative directions.

[citizen1787]

07:17 PM on 05/10/2010

Why is geography and regional representation never brought up in the Supreme Court nomination process?

The western US is known for being more independent and populist politically, yet this is not represented on the court.

Of the nine current Justices only two were born west of the Mississippi and none of them went to law school out west. Is the curriculum and instruction at all western US law schools inferior to institutions in the East? or just the connections?

Currently, the Midwest has two Justices, one is retiring and it looks like his replacement will be someone from New York who went to Harvard.

Also, why are there no Americans of asian descent on the Supreme Court? Has one ever been nominated? and no atheists? and why is not one protestant christian on the court in a country where protestantism is the majority faith?

John Roberts- b. Indiana, went to Harvard law.

John Paul Stevens- b. Illinois, went to U. of Chicago BA and Northwestern Law.

Antonin Scalia- b. New Jersey, went to Georgetown BA and Harvard Law.

Anthony Kennedy- b. California, went to Stanford BA, the London School of Economics and Harvard Law

Clarence Thomas- b. Georgia, went to Holy Cross(Mass.) BA, Yale law.

Ruth Ginsburg- b. New York, went to Cornell BA, Columbia law.

Stephen Breyer- b. California, went to Stanford BA, Harvard law.

Samuel Alito- b. New Jersey, went to Princeton BA, Yale law.

[DenverJJ]

06:49 PM on 05/10/2010

TO GOP:
You have a more important things to do than slow the confirmation of Kagan. We don't need the drama. A long hearing will create a news cycle about legal points behind financial reform cases after Great Depression and that's gonna be bad for you guys.
DenverJJ

[Boopsie2008]

03:02 PM on 05/10/2010

Funny, an Ivy League education for a Republican means he or she is smart. But for a Democrat, it suddenly means "elitist."

[Alexander2791]

08:27 PM on 05/10/2010

It is because democrats are weak and meek and let the Repubs define the terms of the dialogue. I hope someone will just aggressively argue your point repeatedly (ad libitum).

[Eris23]

01:08 PM on 05/10/2010

"A Democratic source passed along to the Huffington Post Monday morning talking points that go directly at the early Republican charge that Kagan is the product of elitist institutions."

What's funny though is that this is exactly what she is. I'm not talking about it being because she went to Harvard. It is very difficult to get nominated to the Supreme Court without being connected to elitist institutions. However, given that Kagan is a candidate who has absolutely no experience as a Judge, her position on the Supreme Court will very much be the product of an elitist institution, as nothing else could have gotten her there.

[Beegood]

01:34 PM on 05/10/2010

When republican's charge that she is a "product of elitist instituitions", they don't mean that as a compliment. It is an implication that she merely a product of far left institutions. We all know what an "elitist" is in Republispeak.

[Eris23]

01:41 PM on 05/10/2010

Yeah, but what does it matter? I'm not suggesting it as a positive. It's "elitist" in that this is nothing but politics which has landed her a possible job for which she simply has no record to demonstrate she is qualified. Other candidates, or current members of the Supreme Court, can at least show that they did have experience as a Judge. She cannot. Thus, her job performance cannot even be humored as what got her the consideration. Only political connects can which, in the end, would very much make her the product of an elitist institution in the role, as other better qualified people have been ignored for not being as close to that institution.

[Liz DeBagara]

02:49 PM on 05/10/2010

That's why it's so brilliant that Republicans have attacked the credibility of any elite institution as being far-left out-of-touch and socialist-leaning. It's a direct result of the way Democrats used our credibility with academia to garner support post-New-Deal. The Republicans realized they didn't have to do what we did, and find the greatest minds of our generation to support the legitimacy of our policy positions. They could just claim that the greatest minds were biased.

Now Dems are stuck trying to argue, on the one hand, 'She's qualified because she's been vetted by these elite institutions..." and at the very same time, "These elite institutions shouldn't disqualify her from the public discourse."

[Eris23]

03:24 PM on 05/10/2010

Hehe. Meanwhile, none of it would have even been necessary had he chosen someone with a history of decisions from the bench.

[jamilk99]

12:08 PM on 05/10/2010

What exactly is her "real life experience?" I'm not knocking her. I just don't really know much about her and I don't think that being the Dean of Harvard Law School is exactly "real life experience."

[Beegood]

01:38 PM on 05/10/2010

What about -
"And she was the first woman to serve as Solicitor General - the lawyer who represents the United States Government before the Supreme Court."

Sounds like real life experience to me.

[Eris23]

02:28 PM on 05/10/2010

As an attorney, your job is to represent the interests of your client. Thus, it's not a good indicator of how one will be once a judge.

Seriously, you'd prefer someone with no record over someone who has one?

[jamilk99]

06:48 PM on 05/10/2010

She hasn't even held the job for a year. Besides, it's a political appointment. She oversees a staff of attorneys who are the ones actually appearing before the Supreme Court to represent the government. If she's tried some cases as Solicitor General or in any other capacity, it would be nice to know what kind of cases they were.

[CessnaDriver]

02:27 PM on 05/10/2010

Clarence Thomas was never a lawyer, heard one case as a "judge" but had no published opinions, never wrote a legal paper, got a law license only because he got extra points for affirmative action, but suddenly he became one of the 9 best lawyers in America?

[Eris23]

02:41 PM on 05/10/2010

He also got a number of well deserved "not qualified" ratings from the ABA when he was nominated to the USSC.

[jamilk99]

06:50 PM on 05/10/2010

No fan of his. I don't care for examples of other judges with little experience. I'm simply wondering if anyone can point to some legal work she has performed.