Genetically I'm good to go on the cancer front.  There it's only the heart disease or memory loss that can get me.

and in all the subsequent exams they found nothing.
its like at a certain age some genetic switch is flipped and the thing starts and if you catch it in time you are golden.  if you do not . . .

It's almost getting to the point at which when the govt declares a war on something it's almost code for a poorly conceived, misguided, effort involving a massive funneling of funds to the wrong people.

So many truly outstanding people out there who ought to be considered that it boggles the mind that Obama would want to put someone of such mediocrity into a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

No, being Dean of Harvard Law School is not a mediocre position.  Being Solicitor General is not a mediocre position.

But consider, from Glenn:

(1) Earlier this week, Law Professor Paul Campos took a thorough and extremely critical look at Elena Kagan's career, and will have an even more critical assessment later today in The New Republic.

(2) Linda Monk, who previously endorsed Kagan at The Huffington Post, rescinded that endorsement upon further consideration.

From the Paul Campos link:

Yesterday, I read everything Elena Kagan has ever published. It didn't take long: in the nearly 20 years since Kagan became a law professor, she's published very little academic scholarship--three law review articles, along with a couple of shorter essays and two brief book reviews. Somehow, Kagan got tenure at Chicago in 1995 on the basis of a single article in The Supreme Court Review--a scholarly journal edited by Chicago's own faculty--and a short essay in the school's law review. She then worked in the Clinton administration for several years before joining Harvard as a visiting professor of law in 1999. While there she published two articles, but since receiving tenure from Harvard in 2001 (and becoming dean of the law school in 2003) she has published nothing. (While it's true law school deans often do little scholarly writing during their terms, Kagan is remarkable both for how little she did in the dozen years prior to becoming Harvard's dean, and for never having written anything intended for a more general audience, either before or after taking that position.)

Kagan's handful of publications touch on topics like regulating offensive speech, analyzing legislative motivations for speech regulations, and evaluating the process of administrative law-making. But on the vast majority of issues before the Court, Kagan has no stated opinion. Her scholarship provides no clues regarding how she would rule on such crucial contemporary issues as the scope of the president's power in wartime, the legality of torture, or the ability of Congress to rein in campaign spending by corporations. (Of course cynics have noted that today Supreme Court nominees are often better off not having an extensive "paper trail" regarding their views on controversial legal issues. Who would have guessed it would be possible to retain this virtue while obtaining tenure at two of the nation's top law schools?)

At least in theory Kagan could compensate somewhat for the slenderness of her academic resume through the quality of her work. But if Kagan is a brilliant legal scholar, the evidence must be lurking somewhere other than in her publications. Kagan's scholarly writings are lifeless, dull, and eminently forgettable. They are, on the whole, cautious academic exercises in the sort of banal on-the-other-handing whose prime virtue is that it's unlikely to offend anyone in a position of power.

[snip]

Besides her law-school career, Kagan's resume consists of four years in the Clinton White House, where she was Associate White House Counsel--a full rung down from Harriet Miers' position in the Bush White House--and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council, and six years as the dean of Harvard's law school. (Last year, Obama chose her as his solicitor general).

Apparently her main accomplishment as dean at Harvard was raising a lot of money, which, given that it's the Harvard Law School, sounds roughly as impressive as managing to sell a lot of pot at a Grateful Dead concert. (She's also been given credit for improving the collegial atmosphere at the school, a.k.a., getting a bunch of egomaniacs to engage in less backstabbing, which anyone familiar with law school faculties can attest is not a negligible accomplishment. Whether it's a sufficient basis for putting somebody on the Supreme Court is another matter.)

As speculation swirls about candidates on U.S. President Barack Obama's list to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, administration officials have confirmed that at least one of the president's top picks is a former State Supreme Court justice who would be the first black woman to sit on the country's high court. Former Georgia Supreme Court Justice Leah Ward Sears, an expert in family law and the first black woman to serve as a State Supreme Court chief justice, was on the liberal Democratic president's short list last year. A member of the liberal American Constitution Society, she is also a friend of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.

Capt Howdy: You think those old white Republican Senators looked like a$$holes up against Sotomayor last year? Imagine watching them spending the summer pandering to the teabagger/birther/Tenther wing of their party and attack the first black woman ever nominated to the Court

When the court overturned Georgia's antisodomy law in 1998, Chief Justice Sears's concurring opinion enraged the religious right but struck the libertarian overtones that scholars say have defined her tenure. "To allow the moral indignation of a majority (or, even worse, a loud and/or radical minority) to justify criminalizing private consensual conduct," she wrote, "would be a strike against freedoms paid for and preserved by our forefathers."

BTW - The article from ABC states that the authorities are claiming LT assaulted the girl - doesn't mean that's ABC's position.

There, the former Giants linebacker sexually assaulted the girl and paid her $300, which she gave to Davis, according to authorities.

Confronted later by arresting officers, Taylor said he "met with a female" that cops identified as the teenager and after "engaging in sex acts" paid her "$300 in cash."

In fact, you have no problem with affording yourself the authority to convict the girl of prostitution -- on the basis of Taylor's say-so that he paid her $300.