There you go.
I don’t think (on a very facile analysis so far) that there is the same information sending quality to that. I don’t think the reasoning I put forward would be applicable to it, though if you can see a way, I’d be interested to hear it.
Feinstein’s objection to Estrada wasn’t simply that he had no judicial experience, it’s that his lack of judicial experience combined with several other factors made it difficult to judge him as a potential judge. This was explicit in her comment. It’s quite possible that she does feel there’s enough to judge Kagan on, so the objection may not apply here. Maybe if Estrada had the same experience to Kagan does, she wouldn’t have objected.
Or maybe she’s just less concerned about Kagan’s experience because Kagan was nominated by a Democratic president. If so, what difference does it really make? Comments in a confirmation hearing aren’t some kind of binding precedent, and I don’t see any reason why a Senator’s perspective on a nominee’s experience shouldn’t be influenced by their opinion on whether that nominee would be the sort of Justice they’d like to see on the bench. Senators certainly aren’t elected based on their ability to be impartial.
Let me put it another way: Maybe Feinstein finds lack of judicial experience refreshing only in nominees whom she perceives as liberal. So she’s being honest in saying she found it refreshing in Kagan’s case, and concerning in Estrada’s case. Sure, it’s displaying her political bias. But so what? Since when are U.S. Senators expected to be free of political bias? If Feinstein were a judge, maybe I’d see why it matters, but she’s not.
For what it’s worth, Kagan herself seems to have nothing but praise for Estrada.
But you agree (I imagine) that she would be very unlikely to say what you’ve said: “Yes, I found it refreshing in Kagan’s case, but that’s because I am politically biased - since when are senators supposed to be free of bias, anyway?”
So we have the odd situation that you seem to be countenancing, with approval, an attitude that she herself wouldn’t dare reveal.
No, because Feinstein’s comments and the hypothetical Smith comments aren’t analogous.
Smith’s original comments are a clear and explicit denunciation of the filibuster. Feinstein’s comments were not a clear and explicit denunciation of Estrada; she implied, but did not say, that he was not qualified. She also specifically noted that his lack of judicial experience was not dispositive.
If Senator Smith, while in the majority, called the filibuster a tool of last resort (for example), and then in the minority participated in consecutive filibusters, then yes, I think the same reasoning could be applied.
Actually, the Letson decision was decided 45 years prior to this - and did address corporate citizenship. Also - as corporations were a feature of economic life even prior to the Founding, they figured in common law.
Corporate personhood timleline http://www.ratical.org/corporations/ToPRaP.html Great site. See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=129&invol=26 A little irony. The RR “lost” the case but for the price of 3 hogs, $24, corporations became people.
Before the civil war, corporations were very tightly regulated by the states.
Yeah, I suppose that’s true. There’s something weird in the culture of politics where politicians can and frequently do openly display their political bias, and yet they feel they have to adopt a pretense of impartiality. Personally, I think that’s kind of stupid (I mean really, who are they kidding), but in any case it’s far from unique to Sen. Feinstein.
I think it’s for the best. She seems to me to have the smarts, the temperament and the potential for coalition-building that should stand her in good stead on the Supreme Court. May she rule with wisdom, discernment and humility for many years to come.
I guess Orly Taitz will have to wait for another turn of the Great SCOTUS Wheel for her seat.
Let’s see, now the oldest justices of the SCOTUS are Scalia (74), Kennedy (74), Ginsburg (77) and Breyer (71) . . .
Death Pool, anyone? 
Hold on, let me send a Deep Dish Meat Lovers Pizza to Scalia’s office. One of these a day should work nicely.
Despite the medical care available, I think Thomas (62) is cruising for an early stroke or heart attack. Not sure why, just something pings my radar whenever I see him move. Or sit there quietly. Scalia, contrawise, will never, ever, ever retire, and he’ll hang on forever.
Unless he has an unexpected encounter with sunlight or holy water or . . .
Hey, Lobohan! Make sure there’s plenty of garlic on that pizza!
Supposedly he does not plan to hang around for the rest of his life, but that stuff is always based on rumors and who knows how it will play out in practice. It’s unlikely he or Thomas would willingly retire while Obama is president, and Roberts and Alito aren’t going anywhere. Kennedy says he won’t retire during Obama’s first term. Obama has already replaced two of the members of the liberal wing and he’s likely to get another nomination by 2012. But barring ill health and surprises the current balance of the court is likely to stay the same for a long time into the future, and it’s even more likely that even if Obama does get to replace a conservative with a liberal, a lot of decisions will vacillate from 5-4 to 4-5 depending on the timing of retirements and things like that.
I wonder how this works . . . I’m sure it’s not the case that when a justice of the SCOTUS dies or retires, the POTUS suddenly thinks, “Hm. I wonder whom I should appoint?” Presumably he’s got a list of pre-vetted potential nominees at hand at all times. But who compiles and keeps that list?
It’s become the practice in recent years for lists to be maintained by both the White House Counsel and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. The lists can be tweaked, and names added or taken off, depending upon the timing, politics and demographics of the particular vacancy, as well as the preferences of the President. See Jeffrey Toobin’s The Nine for an excellent look at the process of filling Supreme Court vacancies nowadays (and lots of other good stuff too).