Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

"Kagan Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions"

"Kagan Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions": This article appears today in The New York Times. Yesterday's newspaper, meanwhile, contained an article headlined "Serenity of Harvard Club Unruffled by Court Hearing."

The Washington Post reports today that "Kagan makes bipartisan appeal in Supreme Court confirmation hearings." Dana Milbank's "Washington Sketch" column is headlined "The dodgy Miss Kagan." And Stephanie J. Jones has an op-ed entitled "Thurgood Marshall's legacy deserves cheers, not sneers."

James Oliphant of The Los Angeles Times reports that "Kagan's accuracy questioned during confirmation hearing; Tense moments arise on the Supreme Court nominee's first full day of testimony during inquiries on military recruiting at Harvard Law School; Gun rights and national security policy are also discussed."

USA Today contains a front page article headlined "Kagan, senator spar on military; Views of Harvard policy produce heat at hearing."

The Wall Street Journal reports that "Kagan Fends Off Republican Challenges."

David Lightman and Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers report that "Kagan pushes back on GOP questioning."

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that "At hearings, Elena Kagan defends approach to military recruiting; In her testimony before senators Tuesday, Elena Kagan suggested that her policy when she was dean at Harvard Law School did not impose a hardship on military recruiters there."

The Associated Press has articles headlined "Kagan to hide sharp wit at confirmation hearing"; "Kagan hearings a short course in Legalese 101"; and "Republicans resurrect Marshall as target."

And David Ingram of The National Law Journal reports that "On Day 2, Kagan Tries to Appease Republicans."

Full post as published by How Appealing on June 30, 2010 (boomark / email).