At 10 a.m., eastern, today, President Obama is expected to announce that he is nominating Solicitor General Elana Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. While I do not have strong feelings about Kagan, I do believe in providing context to major news events, and hopefully that is what I can accomplish in this article. Here goes:
If you want to beat Kagan, I believe the best line of attack is going to incorporate some combination of her never being judge, having previous connections to Obama, and having more recent connections to Goldman Sachs. Even if you want to defeat her for more ideologically-oriented, left-wing reasons, the core of opposition to her will be Republican, and the opposition will need to at least somewhat be on the same page.
Personally, I don't anticipate doing much in regards to this fight. There may well be reasons to worry about Kagan, but ultimately they seem vague. In fact, Greenwald's case against Kagan is grounded in the vagary surrounding Kagan, given how sparse her views are, how Kagan was largely silent during the Bush years, and how there are candidates with much clearer records. Further, while Kagan is likely further to the right than Stevens, perhaps even significantly so, but I have no confidence that Kagan's defeat would lead to President Obama nominating someone like Diane Wood.
Vagary just isn't enough for me to man the barricades. I will keep an eye out, but there are plenty of fights to choose from these days, I am not very excited about this one either way.