Kagan and Race: Playing Politics and Wasting a Law Degree

Yesterday's New York Times carried another in a series of stories that made my heart sink. This time the paper reported on Elena Kagan's views on policy matters under debate in the Clinton White House, where she worked as a deputy to the president's domestic policy advisor. The Times reported that she was a centrist on matters of race, and battled on behalf of middling sorts of views on race-related policies.

Two thoughts sprang to mind as I read this: First, what in the world is a young lawyer doing trying to set social policy? Second, why in the world would anyone think that political infighting in the White House as a policy wonk would be suitable experience for a potential Supreme Court justice? When Kagan wasn't playing politico she was trying to play philosopher king: neither role is the lawyer's role. Why is there no chapter in her biography about her role as a lawyer serving ordinary people?

I ask for the umpteenth time: Why not have a trial lawyer on the Supreme Court?

My office is located not far from the Yale Law School. So although I am not a graduate of the school, I hear a good deal about what goes on there. The school boasts silently that it is a training ground for future judges. I suspect the same conceit animates Harvard. Graduates of the nation's premiere law schools have an uncanny way of occupying the law's positions of power and prestige: They jump from the top of one pyramid to another.

But the overwhelming majority of Americans, and lawyers, do not view the world from atop a mountain. Most of us struggle in valleys shadowed by need, despondency and struggle. The life of an ordinary American is not one of privilege, but of struggle. What do they teach about that at Harvard and Yale?

Elena Kagan is about as suited to become a justice of the Supreme Court as I am to teach a course on ballroom dancing: All I know about Fred Astaire's and Ginger Roger's moves are they look smooth and please the eye. But I can't dance. I don't even aspire to learn how to dance; elegance escapes me.

There is nothing about a decent law school education that should prepare one to be a policymaker. When I see young Turks from Harvard and Yale sitting in seats of power in Washington I sigh in despair. In law school, you learn legal doctrine, how to write briefs, perhaps even how to argue. A legal education is about learning to represent the interests of others. A lawyer who spends three years in law school and graduates with a policy orientation and agenda all his or her own didn't need a law school education to form those views. A lawyer learns first to serve others, to take another's point of view, another's interests, as his or her own.

So when I see that Kagan spent time as a young lawyer in the trenches of some ideological warfare advancing her own idiosyncratic viewpoints that tells me only that she knows little about what lawyers do. When I step into the well of a court to defend a man accused of murder, I have not suddenly concluded that killing people is good. I use the law to serve the client's interests, not as a means of advancing my own.

A working trial lawyer's days are bounded by the interests and needs of his clients. The law is a not a vision of the good life, it is simply a set of tools used to serve those concrete interests of people with cases or controversies. Practicing lawyers read cases not as cryptic pieces of social philosophy, but as doctrinal decisions about issues that matter to their clients. The current tendency for the court to write long and tendentious decisions on every conceivable topic is a reflection of judges playing at moral and political philosophy, a job they are ill-suited by education to play. Hence, the tedious rumblings of Antonin Scalia, a zealot without portfolio.

Confirmation hearings shouldn't be about the cryptic philosophy of nominees. They should be about whether a nominee is a capable jurist, one who has a feel for the law's conflicts, and the tools the law uses to solve them. I have yet to see that Elena Kagan is much more than a legally-trained bureaucrat. We have a court chock full of these wordbags. We don't need another.

Rather than trolling through the detritus and trash bins of a career wasted playing politics, we ought to be looking at a nominee's legal briefs, arguments and trial transcripts. Does a potential judge comprehend how conflict is managed? It would be refreshing to have a hearing that wasn't reduced to reading tea leaves, but was instead focused on court records.

What the nation needs now is a trial lawyer on the Supreme Court. Instead, we get another politician with a law degree. How long, Mr. President, how long must we wait to see a trial lawyer on the court?

Comments: (4)

  • Note: This blogsite will not extend the margins to...
    Note: This blogsite will not extend the margins to allow excessively long web addresses. I discovered this a couple of months ago. So, Ray, try to figure out some other way to post this address. I'm interested. Maybe you can break it into two parts which can be cut and pasted together by the recipient/reader.
    I believe the U.S.S.C. is an archaic, moribund institution, and the least effective branch of govt. I believe it needs to be reformulated and re-constituted from bottom to top. The need is urgent--which urgency is unrecognized by the population-at-large--if we are to maintain some semblance of order and sanity in the republic.
    Remember: Bush #43 was elected by the Supreme Court, packed in favor of the declared winner, and NOT the American people. What is the point in going to the polls if the Supreme Court is going to nullify or ignore your vote? Many, many questions. Few answers.
    Posted on June 17, 2010 at 7:31 am by William Doriss
  • Here is an excellent article that concludes that t...
    Here is an excellent article that concludes that the U.S. Supreme Court has turned hostile to litigation by authorizing, in some instances, the pre-discovery dismissal of cases. Like you, the author notes that most of the justices come to the court with no background in affirmative civil litigation.
    Posted on June 17, 2010 at 7:06 am by Ray Sipsa
  • Good post Norm. Why not a trial lawyer on the Sup...
    Good post Norm. Why not a trial lawyer on the Supreme Court?
    Posted on June 17, 2010 at 2:29 am by Ray Sipsa
  • Elena Kagan never kicked the can! She played ball,...
    Elena Kagan never kicked the can! She played ball, but it was 'soft' ball (not hard-ball) and that was most probabably, no-doubt, a photo-op. Chicago, I believe. Once again, excellent! The Supreme Court these days is supremely irrelevant, so what's the use? You can fight City Hall, but you cannot fight the Supreme Court. Or did I get it backwards?!?
    I fight both, without any guns and without the aid of any 'attorney'. How smart is that?
    The 2nd Amendment is looking more and more attractive, day by day, as that Tea Party lady running against Reid in Idaho has been broadcasting. We are a long way from Idaho, but are we really? Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming may be coming to New York and Washington! Wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air? Don't look back, the Western and Rocky Mountain states might be gainin on ya!
    U.S. Senate: Vote No on Elena Kagan for U.S.S.C. Vote for an experienced trial attorney, preferably that unheard-of public defender in New Britain, CT. The one from working-class Michigan. What was his name? Gerry Darrow?!?
    Posted on June 16, 2010 at 12:32 pm by William Doriss

Add a Comment

Display with comment:
Won't show with comment:
Number of states in the U.S.
*Comment must be approved and then will show on page.
© Norm Pattis is represented by Elite Lawyer Management, managing agents for Exceptional American Lawyers
Media & Speaker booking [hidden email]