- Description
A look at President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan. We talk to Walter Dellinger, a Washington appellate lawyer and former solicitor general under the Clinton administration and Sean Wilentz from Princeton University
- Keywords:
- politics
- United States
- Us
- Supreme Court
- Kagan
- Obama
In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/11005
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
writersblock25 11/12/2011 01:58 PM Report
Thank you for posting this, Charlie Rose, LLC.
Rxmiller 05/17/2010 11:53 PM Report
It is really sad that she is a slam dunk just like Geithner where everyone fears asking real questions and transparancy is just a thing of the past.
I don't blame Charlie for not asking the really serious questions because the present political climate reminds me of the Nixon era where questions about authority were not tolerated.
robdverity 05/11/2010 04:12 PM Report
As a depraved atheist, the religious makeup of the court is depressing. Judgment and religion are too incompatible, and in my view impossible. The (strenuously applied) fatuousness required of religions ipso facto excludes reasoning and sound judgment.
bfcm 05/11/2010 02:47 PM Report
Did any one catch the irony Charlie's comment when Walter Dellinger mentions that Elena Kagan listens to what other people have to say? Dellinger wants to go on but Charlie interrupts him with laughter and says that the fact that Dellinger has to point that out shows you how many people don't listen.
REMant 05/11/2010 12:07 PM Report
While it would be nice to have more intelligence on the court since it has suffered greatly in that respect in the past, she is another somewhat noisome unmarried woman, another New Yorker, another non-Protestant, another Clintonian, another Princetonian, and another graduate of Harvard Law School, as well as, another typically Democratic constituent. It seems her career has primarily been tied to Democratic Party patronage, like Geithner and Summers, who appointed her Harvard Law dean. If she has not been a judge, it has not been for lack of trying. She was also employed by Goldman Sachs, somewhat suspiciously, from 2005-2008. She will be replacing the only Protestant, and if confirmed, the Court will comprise six Catholics and three Jews. I disagree with the idea that she is not an ideologue, and I suspect she is not much of a republican. On the whole it appears she is exactly what the body does not need. If the president feels otherwise, the party faithful may actually want to think twice about her.