Elena Kagan. Nominee for the SCOTUS.

I don’t know.

And that’s just the thing. None of us really know. Lots of searching around for information and there just isn’t a whole lot to go on. However, in just the 24 hours since the announcement more has been dug up and I’m sure more will continue to be dug up. Now, by “dug up” I’m not talking about dirt and tabloid sensational crap. I’m talking matters of substance, those things that really matter in terms of her sitting on the highest bench in the land.

The good folks at The Volokh Conspiracy have been writing furiously about her.

My take at this point? Well… Stevens is going to retire, you can’t stop that nor tell the man to not retire when he wants to retire. So that means the current administration is going to nominate someone, and that means I’m not going to get a candidate whom I would consider ideal. Nothing can be done to get “who I want” so the best I can hope for us someone who “sucks least”. Also remember that replacing a liberal with a liberal doesn’t stir things up too much.

From what I can read about Kagan so far, she actually doesn’t seem too bad — certainly there could be worse. I mean, again she’s not ideal in my mind, but one important impression I get about her is an actual willingness to listen to and consider opposing and alternative viewpoints. She’s no “wise Latina” and thank God for that, because that sort of “open-minded” behavior only serves a narrow few. So that Kagan appears to be actually willing to listen and consider, and could actually interpret the law like this job would require. That would be novel, wouldn’t it?

But then, I read stuff like this:

First, let me point out that this should make the teabaggers shudder.  She’s going to back Obama’s ability to control the Executive Branch– the FCC, health care regulators, to name two examples of why Obama may want her on the court.  Healthcare mandate Unconstitutional?  Unlikely with Kagan on the court (if it would ever get that far- which it wouldn’t).  More likely, Obama’s FCC protecting net neutrality: …only “the President has the ability to effect comprehensive, coherent change in administrative policymaking”

So, if she’s going to be such an executive branch backer, how will she then behave when a Republican is holding that office? Because it’s fair to reason that, if she did end up on the bench, sometime in her lifetime a non-Democrat/Liberal will be President. Will she remain consistent in her interpretation of the law?

These are just my initial impressions. So far, Kagan doesn’t come across like an ideal but I know I won’t get that. She doesn’t seem the worst of the bunch. But in the end, the devil will be in the details and we’ll see how things play out.

Updated: Of course, one big question on my mind has been gun rights. Her answers on that are well… not horrible, but kinda fabricated due to the context of the questioning. So via Uncle we have a link to a lot of documents from Kagan that discuss a host of her stances on things. (I’ll have to read it later, don’t have time right now). And David Codrea has more. David echos some of my sentiments on her:

By way of comparison, her position appears practically identical to that of “conservative Justice” Antonin Scalia. Yes, it falls far short of “shall not be infringed,” and I don’t think she’s going to be answering my Gun Rights Questionnaire any time soon, but I’m wondering if there is any Obama nominee—or any nominee a Republican would offer up, for that matter—who would give better answers.