|
|
Elena Kagan on Principles & Values |
When Justice Kagan was confirmed to the Court, there was some surprise at the sheer number of recusals in her first Term. (Indeed, before her nomination and confirmation, some Court watchers had even suggested that the prospect of widespread recusals might be a reason not to nominate her to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens.) In that Term, which ran from Oct. 2010 through June 2011, the Court issued full, signed opinions after briefing and oral argument in 75 cases. Justice Kagan sat out 28 of those cases, just over 1/3 of the total. But two of the cases from which she was recused ended with the Court deadlocked four to four after briefing and oral argument; in such cases, it does not issue an opinion but instead simply affirms the ruling of the lower court.
Kagan clerked for Judge Abner Mikva of the D.C. Circuit, then for Justice Thurgood Marshall in the Court's 1987 Term. Upon completing her clerkship, in 1988, Kagan went to work as an associate at Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C.
In 1991, Kagan joined the law faculty of the University of Chicago. She principally taught administrative and constitutional law. During this period, she met Barack Obama, who was also teaching at the law school.
In 1999, Kagan returned to academia, accepting a position on the law faculty at Harvard (initially as visiting professor, and then as a permanent member of the faculty). In 2003, she was named the dean of the law school, succeeding Bob Clark, as well as the Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law.
In 1995, Kagan joined the Clinton Administration. Initially, she served as Associate White House Counsel. In 1997, she was named Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council.
In 1999, President Clinton nominated Kagan for a judgeship on the D.C. Circuit. She never received a hearing, however. In 2003, she was named the dean of the Harvard law school.
President Obama nominated Kagan to serve as his first Solicitor General, and she was confirmed in 2009 by a vote of 61-31.
Summary of lawsuit, Dec. 7:: The 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities including:
Supreme Court Order, Dec. 11: The State of Texas's motion is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Texas Tribune analysis, Dec. 11:: Trump--and Republicans across the country--had pinned their hopes on the Texas suit. In a series of tweets, Trump called it "the big one" and later added, "it is very strong, ALL CRITERIA MET." If the court had heard the case, Sen. Ted Cruz said he would have argued it, at the request of Trump.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas indicated they would have allowed Texas to bring the case but said they would "not grant other relief." In a series of tweets after the ruling, Trump raged against the decision, which he called "a disgraceful miscarriage of justice."