The Online Fight to Define Elena Kagan (VIDEO)

And so it begins -- the online war to define Elena Kagan, whom President Obama nominated early Monday to be the 112th justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

She is not the first SCOTUS nominee to be vetted by the online public in our blogging, Facebooking, tweeting, YouTubing times. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic on the court, carried that distinction. But the Obama of July 2009, when Sotomayor was nominated, is not the Obama of 2010, when the president's polling numbers have significantly lowered and Democrats have lost their "super-majority" in the Senate. In other words, Kagan's confirmation is not as definite as Sotomayor's. The GOP, especially Senate Republicans, will take advantage of that.

Enter the YouTube channel called RepublicanSCOTUS, which was created last month and features video clips of Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The channel currently has 10 videos. Expect more to be added as pundits and pols line the cable shows. Already Kagan is a trending topic on Twitter, and will be for days to come. Facebook groups will inevitably be created. And we'll see what kinds of videos YouTubers in particular -- and the online masses in general -- will post relating to Kagan.

On a related note, we wonder, is Kagan YouTube-friendly? In a video clip making the rounds, Kagan is an advocate of allowing cameras inside the Supreme Court. Is Kagan also in favor of allowing hearings to be streamed live online, as we've argued in this space?

 

Comments

[Amalek]

08:20 AM on 05/11/2010

The Republicans have already lost the competition to define her. They have waited too long (24 hours so far) to have any meaningful effect on public opinion. I think they decided to sit this fight out.

[henrypapillon]

08:16 AM on 05/11/2010

Somebody please give her a makeover. I know she is probably sharper than heck, but appearance is an essential part of your image and she could use some help there.I know I'll get flack on this, but it is a reality, even whether I personally could give a rip. I personally am not going to be one of the ones voting her up or down. It has been standard fare in the past few appointment processes to manage these people and even dress them for these hearings. Here is where that really has a chance to help. For one the hair, number 2, I have yet to see her in an outfit that didn't look discordant.

[curiousasheck]

11:13 AM on 05/11/2010

He could have selected a superficial drone that lives in the gym and tanning salons and talks incessantly about upgrading cars and boobs, and attends one of the over 800 AA, NA, etc. meetings held daily. Then home to watch "The Real World" and "Gray's Anatomy".

[42skidoo]

12:25 AM on 05/11/2010

I see that the "one wing loons" are on their way, good news is that they are already flying in circles. With the constant cry of "no no, no", on anything brought forth for debate and consideration, that "right wing" makes their opposition arguments a conversation that just keeps coming back to the same negative point, "no no no". Elena Kagan appears to be very qualifiead to serve on the Suprene Court so let us see the questions flow.

[cascot]

11:30 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.

[celere]

01:16 AM on 05/11/2010

"Media figures have advanced the myth that judicial experience is a pre-requisite for a Supreme Court justice. In fact, two of the last four previous chief justices -- William Rehnquist and Earl Warren -- had no judicial experience when first nominated to the Court by Republican presidents. Neither did other famous justices, including Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis, and John Marshall, known as the "Great Chief Justice."

Rehnquist, Warren, Frankfurter, Brandeis, and Marshall are far from alone. Indeed, according to Findlaw.com's Supreme Court Center, 40 of the 111 Supreme Court justices had no judicial experience when they were first nominated."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005100018

[Amalek]

08:21 AM on 05/11/2010

Ya nailed the fool. Fanned.

[LeftLeanWing]

02:35 AM on 05/11/2010

you are wrong......

The constitution does not state that judicial experience is a prerequisite.....

Judging in the Supreme Court is less like the Courts we are most familiar with...
It's more of a Forum where arguments are made on issues and these 9 justices determine the outcome. There is no JURY and no "If the Gloves don't fit you must Acquit"

So I vehemently Disagree.

[cascot]

03:47 AM on 05/11/2010

no, but common sense does...

[cascot]

06:25 PM on 05/11/2010

So you're saying that having prior experience in a job is NOT a big plus in being able to accomplish a job well? I think MOST companies would disagee... Oh, that's right, this is the government we're talking about!!! Obama has done such a great job! lol lol