The Supreme Court’s latest rulings and confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-06-29/supreme-court%E2%80%99s-latest-rulings-and-confirmation-hearings-elena-kagan
Elena Kagan, seen here in October 2008 as Dean of Harvard Law School, addressing students in a town hall meeting about the changes to the Harvard Law School grading system as part of major curricular reforms that were finalized during her tenure as dean.
Harvard Law Record via Flickr
The Supreme Court wraps up its session, and the Senate opens hearings on nominee Elena Kagan. Insights into the court's latest rulings and prospects for a Kagan confirmation.
Guests
Sarah Wilson
Litigation Partner with Covington and Burling, LLP. She served in the Clinton White House Counsel’s Office where she was the Senior Counsel for Nominations.
Patricia Millett
co-heads Akin Gump’s Supreme Court practice and has argued 28 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tony Mauro
Supreme Court Correspondent for the National Law Journal and ALM.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Once again "conservatism" shows that it really has no principles. Their stated aversion to Federal Power over the states gores out the window immediately as soon as guns are at issue! I am sure they would argue against a Federal right to restrict guns yet the conservative court asserts the Federal right to demand gun rights in the states. Unbelievable the hypocrisy by these non-conservative conservatives!
Great Show - Critical Subject
What was the court thinking by leaving so much open to interpretation.
This is a sad day in the history of the USA. How do we insure our safety?
I think we should allow only wepons that were available at the time the law was written.
I pray for our safety. Thank you for timely topics.
Frank V.
Fairfield, Ohio
What was the conservative opinion on the case about the Christian club not allowing gays--how did they justify the club wanting to take the school's money but still being able to discriminate? It seems like all the decisions are divided 4 to 5 or 5 to 4 and therefore primarily political.
I believe the process for confirming or hearing a Supreme Court Justice should be as 'organic' and flexible as possible. Only then will we learn about these people in their truest sense. As soon as the process becomes codified into a formal system, then there will arise a set formula, a playbook if you will, by which these justices are confirmed, which will take all of the meaning out of the process. No formalized system in the world of hearings can avoid the human political gamesmanship which develops around it.