Talk:Elena Kagan

Emphasizing that she had never argued a case before a court

The addition of the bolded text to the lead, "In 2009, Kagan became the first female solicitor general of the United States, despite the fact that she had never previous argued a case before any court." appears to put undue emphasis on this aspect and suggest she was unqualified (when her qualifications at the time was being a Harvard Law School professor). If this is to be included in the lead, it should at the very least drop the argumentative "despite the fact" and change it to "At the time", but I still think this is undue for the lead and misleadingly suggests incompetence to the readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

God forbid anyone suggest incompetence regarding a liberal figure. Wikipedia at it again. 166.181.86.9 (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding Category Abortion

given the current state of the Supreme Court (July 2022) and the recent rulings affecting abortion I am adding Category:Abortion. I believe adding this category will be uncontroversial.

-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Undone. Please see Talk:Ketanji_Brown_Jackson#Adding_Category_Abortion for centralized discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges. Endwise (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The opening sentence in Kagan's article should reflect her status as a jurist and legal scholar. At present, it only mentions that she's a lawyer. While not inaccurate, making an amendment to reflect the aforementioned would bring this article in line with those of other Supreme Court justices and jurists on lower courts. Pchristiandobson (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Polarizes America?

I think it's interesting to note that 26 states provided two senators who approved Kagan's nomination, while 13 states provided no senators. Are the Supreme Court nominations usually this polarized? 73.55.138.35 (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a more general polarization, in that fewer states elect two Senators of different parties, a phenomenon that used to be more prevalent in the Solid South. For example, Susan Collins of Maine is the only currently-serving Republican Senator from the six New England states (who also send two Independents who caucus with the Democrats). On the other hand, there are no Democratic Senators from the formerly Solid Democratic Deep South. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2024

Please remove this phrase:

Her friend Jeffrey Toobin recalls that Kagan

and replace it with this:

Her friend Jeffrey Toobin recalled that Kagan

The source is from 2010. He probably still recalls this, but there's no 100% guarantee that he does; however, it's certain that he recalled it in 2010. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)