On Monday, May 10, President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, filling the position being vacated by Justice John Paul Stevens. The nomination spurred on comments over Kagan’s professional qualifications and personal life. Kagan, who has been criticized for a lack of courtroom experience, stands to be the third woman in the court and its third Jewish justice.Among opponents of Kagan’s nomination, the absence of years in the courts has been a chief concern. Brandon J. Weichert, vice president of the DePaul College Republicans (DCR), criticized the President’s decision as a disappointment. “There were several more qualified judges mentioned on Obama’s shortlist for replacements. Until Kagan’s appointment as Solicitor General, she had never argued a case at trial. She is one of the most inexperienced candidates to date,” Weichert said.

Elisabeth Baluh, the Communications Director of the DCR felt that Kagan’s qualifications for the appointment have not been effectively explained. “Obama is unable to articulate hardcore facts or reasons to the American people for his decision-making processes,” Baluh said.

Andrea D. Lyon, Center for Justice in Capital Cases, and Professor from the DePaul University College of Law defended Kagan’s nomination despite criticisms of inexperience. “There are other skills which are important to have on the Supreme Court and she has them-teaching, writing, policy related work, her solicitor general work and being dean of a law school which requires great organization and consensus building skills,” Lyon said.

Annie Schmidt, President of the DePaul College Democrats, echoed Lyon’s defenses. “She is an extremely brilliant person,” said Schmidt. “You cannot teach something if you don’t know it that well.”

Both opponents and supporters of the nomination, admit that the choice of Kagan is largely based on political factors rather than professional.

Steven H. Resnicoff, Law Professor and Co-Director of the DePaul College of Law Center for Jewish Law and Judaic Studies felt that given Kagan’s political convictions, she was a logical choice for President Obama.

“There are plenty of people with sufficient intellectual power for the position and more than enough of these even possess the requisite personal integrity,”Resnicoff said. “Key considerations, however, include whether the choice will promote the president’spolitical agendaand promote his own re-electability. Kagan does both.”

With “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” high on the President’s agenda, Kapan’s positions on the repeal has drawn attention.”She is ideologically consistent with President Obama and, as a relatively young woman, could promote that ideology for many years,” Resnicoff said.

“By choosing Kagan, the President shores up his political from support from constituencies that are important to him, such as the gay and lesbian community,” Rescnicoff added.

The political connection with the President has drawn fire and as well as support for Kagan.”The only part about Elena Kagan’s career that makes her worthy of being a Supreme Court nominee by President Obama is that the president knows her personally,” Weichert said. “Given that the seat being vacated was held by a left-leaning judge, it’s only natural to assume a Democratic President would nominate another person who leaned left.”

“Her past decisions as Dean of Harvard are what’s most troubling,” he continued. “She banned military recruiters from the campus just because she didn’t like the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy even though knowing that she couldn’t legally do this since Harvard accepts money from the government.”

Weichert added, “As a law professor she understood this and chose to act not as a responsible dean, rather, as an activist.”

For many, the choice of another female justice is a significant social accomplishment, profession and politics aside. “The court has a history of being 96.3% male and I think being a younger woman gives a new and different perspective” Schmidt said.