Another Chick Added To The Supreme Court

The Central Scrutinizer · 9th May 2010, 10:41 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/...ex.html?hpt=T1

The Fool · 9th May 2010, 10:53 PM

cool, I just ordered the "scotus girls" calendar.

KingMerv00 · 9th May 2010, 11:20 PM

Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience.

lionking · 9th May 2010, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience.

Maybe not judicial experience in the narrow definition of the term, but someone with Solicitor General experience would seem eminently qualified.

thaiboxerken · 9th May 2010, 11:37 PM

Demonization in 5......4.....3.....2....

lionking · 9th May 2010, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Demonization in 5......4.....3.....2....

Okay, I'll start. She must be a socialist. Hasn't she been employed by government?

cienaños · 10th May 2010, 12:42 AM

Come on, she's a prostitute for crying out loud.

Brainster · 10th May 2010, 01:51 AM

She went to Yale or something. She must be acceptable.

Cain · 10th May 2010, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Demonization in 5......4.....3.....2....

Very brave to nominate the first transgender. What's happened to America?

http://chanceseales.files.wordpress....ena-kagan1.jpg

rustypouch · 10th May 2010, 04:20 AM

The only thing I have to add is that Elena Kagan is an anagram of An Anal Geek.

Carry on.

Darth Rotor · 10th May 2010, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience.

That's two of us. Bush had a lady he appointed who had no bench experience, not sure how her resume and this latest "chick" compare, but I was grateful when she was taken off the list.

Scrut: if she's a chick, I'm a Chippendales dancer ...

@ rusty: awesome post.

WildCat · 10th May 2010, 05:33 AM

Kagan... sounds Jewish. Clearly a puppet of the Israel lobby and the NWO.

Brown · 10th May 2010, 05:41 AM

I am curious whether any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask her, directly or indirectly, about her sexual orientation.

I am not curious about her sexual orientation, mind you; I am curious as to whether any of the Senators will have the stunningly bad taste to bring up the issue in a public hearing.

Darth Rotor · 10th May 2010, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by Brown

I am curious whether any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask her, directly or indirectly, about her sexual orientation.

I am not curious about her sexual orientation, mind you; I am curious as to whether any of the Senators will have the stunningly bad taste to bring up the issue in a public hearing.

Aren't we past that?

KingMerv00 · 10th May 2010, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Aren't we past that?

We? Yes.

They? ....

Peephole · 10th May 2010, 06:41 AM

Terrible choice.

daredelvis · 10th May 2010, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience.

Her and that looser Earl Warren.

Judicial experience she would have had if the Senate would have voted on her when Clinton nominated her for the bench. Solicitor General... How would that qualify one for the Supreme Court? Bah!

Daredelvis

The Central Scrutinizer · 10th May 2010, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Brown

I am curious whether any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask her, directly or indirectly, about her sexual orientation.

I think you can count on it.

Originally Posted by Brown

I am not curious about her sexual orientation, mind you; I am curious as to whether any of the Senators will have the stunningly bad taste to bring up the issue in a public hearing.

A bit of googling hints that she is a lesbian. We'll see.

The Central Scrutinizer · 10th May 2010, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Kagan... sounds Jewish. Clearly a puppet of the Israel lobby and the NWO.

The Federal Reserve just breathed a sigh of relief.

The Central Scrutinizer · 10th May 2010, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Peephole

Terrible choice.

Translation: A fantastic choice

The Central Scrutinizer · 10th May 2010, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience.

I think I read/heard somewhere a few weeks ago that the "requirement" for prior judicial experience really only came about in the last 50 years or so. I'll have to try to remember where I saw that.

GreNME · 10th May 2010, 07:31 AM

I'm not worried about her somewhat activist past-- I can understand people who have strongly-held beliefs, and even while I disagreed philosophically I could respect that when (for example) Alito was nominated.

I'm not going to play the "experience" game-- listening to the Right bitch about experience while defending Sarah "Quitter" Palin is dissonant enough and distracting from actual qualification assessments.

No one should be worried about her sexual orientation-- if a dumbass senator brings it up, I wish she would make a remark to the effect of "no, senator, I have never asked who placed a hair on my Coca-Cola can."

However...

From what I've read she's apparently authored some defenses of extended executive power, and for the same reasons I opposed any extensions to executive power (or, as Cheney liked to invoke, "privilege") in the last administration I find that if Kagen is defending such positions then I would have a problem with her in the SCOTUS. However, I've not dug too deeply into her history on the subject yet. This would, however, be one of the few topics that would be enough for me to oppose her nomination.

Darth Rotor · 10th May 2010, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

I'm not going to play the "experience" game-- listening to the Right bitch about experience while defending Sarah "Quitter" Palin is dissonant enough and distracting from actual qualification assessments.

That's a rather poor comparison, between an elected official and a judge (potentially) appointed for life.

It is experience as a justice that has some people, in varying sides of the political center in this discussion, voicing reservations.

Palin, like her or not, had the executive branch experience of governorship, for whatever that's worth on a resume. Other governors were considered and didn't seem to have her "Q" factor for elective politics.

Kagan isn't in that game: elective politics.

DR

Brown · 10th May 2010, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I think I read/heard somewhere a few weeks ago that the "requirement" for prior judicial experience really only came about in the last 50 years or so. I'll have to try to remember where I saw that.

Strictly speaking, judicial experience is not a requirement for a position on the Supreme Court bench.

Neither is a law degree.

NoZed Avenger · 10th May 2010, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Brown

Strictly speaking, judicial experience is not a requirement for a position on the Supreme Court bench.

Neither is a law degree.

True. Regardless, though, her experience as Soliciter General seems adequate -- comparable to Rehnquist, probably (I am only going by memory; I can't say that for certain). I don't think Powell had any experience as a sitting judge, either.

She seems to be a fairly consistent, liberal-leaning pick with sufficient background to show she's qualified. All in all, I haven't seen anything to indicate she isn't qualified.

I have been somewhat mystified by the reaction not on the right, but on the felt -- Greenwald for example, though there were a couple others, as well. Some on the left have compared her to Harriet Miers, which does not appear to be a fair comparison at all, experience-wise. Have you seen any of that and/or have any explanation for it?

(I'll try to root around for the Greenwald link I saw Friday or Saturday, but not sure where I read it).

marksman · 10th May 2010, 09:25 AM

She was Dean of Harvard Law School and she has served as Solicitor General. She's got the requisite amount of smarts and/or experience. And by all accounts she is indeed smart enough for the job.

Judicial experience is not a prerequisite. (Heck, you don't have to be a lawyer, though I can't remember if any non-lawyer's ever been appointed to the Supreme Court.)

William Rehnquist clerked for the Supreme Court, was in in private practice for 13 years, and an assistant attorney general for three years, before becoming Nixon's nominee to the Supreme Court.

Elena Kagan clerked for the Supreme Court, was in private practice for maybe a year or two, and then became a law professor at University of Chicago Law School. Within 4 years, she was tenured. She then worked at the Clinton White House Counsel's Office for three years, before going to Harvard Law School. She became dean in 2003, where she served for seven years.

She's plenty qualified. Will she be confirmed? That's going to be a political decision, not one based on qualifications. I think she will be.

daredelvis · 10th May 2010, 09:42 AM

[couch]Earl Warren[/cough] Arguments about a lack of experience are pure partisan hackery.

Daredelvis

KingMerv00 · 10th May 2010, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by daredelvis

Her and that looser Earl Warren.

Judicial experience she would have had if the Senate would have voted on her when Clinton nominated her for the bench. Solicitor General... How would that qualify one for the Supreme Court? Bah!

Daredelvis

I'm not saying judicial experience is an absolute necessity to be a good justice. I just think that there are plenty of qualified people out there. It seems like a no brainer to pick someone who has been a judge before. I mean, why WOULDN'T you?

Brown · 10th May 2010, 09:45 AM

Most of the appointees to the Supreme Court in recent memory had some experience sitting on the bench. That said, some have had very little experience on the bench before going to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas are notable examples. Both had experience in federal practice, but little bench experience. Roberts (like Kagan) had briefed and argued many cases to the High Court.

Retired Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter were principally state judges (although Souter spent a few months as a federal judge).

Chiefs Justice Earl Warren and William Rehnquist were not judges before going to the Court. Rehnquist (like Kagan) represented the interests of the United States before the High Court. But Warren was an entirely different breed: he was a career politician who had been serving as the Governor of California.

Brown · 10th May 2010, 09:58 AM

To follow up on a previous post: one of the things that seems to be important for a Supreme Court nomination is clerkship.

Chief Justice Roberts clerked for then-Associate Justice Rehnquist, and also for a federal appellate judge.
Justice Stevens clerked for Justice Wiley Rutledge.
Justice Ginsburg clerked for a federal district court judge.
Justice Breyer served as a law clerk to Justice Arthur Goldberg.
Justice Alito was a clerk to a federal appellate judge.

Elena Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall and federal appellate judge Abner Mikva (who PORTRAYED a supreme court justice in the movie Dave).

Clerkship is one of the best educations there is about what it is like to be a judge. You can see how cases are presented and how they are decided. You analyze briefs and (depending upon the style of the judge you serve) you draft opinions and orders.

marksman · 10th May 2010, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

It seems like a no brainer to pick someone who has been a judge before. I mean, why WOULDN'T you?

First of all, being an appellate judge and a trial judge are different things. A trial judge spends much of his time dealing with courtroom procedure, reviewing evidence, and handling the daily workings of testimony, which is something appellate judges do not do. So there's a slight difference in skill sets. But trial judges do analyze and interpret the law. I certainly wouldn't say a trial judge is a bad choice for Supreme Court.

Second, you want someone you know can analyze the law and pick apart legal arguments to determine what is properly stated and not stated. There's no reason to choose an appellate judge over a litigator with an equivalent amount of appellate experience. Similarly, a law professor engages in the same process of review and dissertation as an appellate judge. So a well-published law professor would also make a good candidate.

The one skill that an appellate judge has that a litigator, or a professor, or a trial judge, may not is the ability to make consensus. Appellate judges work on panels and need to persuade their fellow jurists to join in their decision. That's the difference between a majority and a dissenting opinion. But that's only one small factor to be considered when appointing a judge.

There's no need to limit the applicant pool to sitting appellate judges.

From a political standpoint, a sitting judge has one big drawback -- a long history of reported decisions that can be picked apart.

Ziggurat · 10th May 2010, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by marksman

She was Dean of Harvard Law School

Yeah, about that... her track record as dean is not exactly spotless. She kicked military recruiters off her campus, and when Congress passed the Solomon Amendment to keep her (and other law schools) from doing so, the AALS sued. She helped file an amicus brief in support support of the suit. The end result? Unanimous rejection by the Supreme Court. How could she have so misread the constitutional issues involved that she would take the wrong side on an issue that gained a unanimous SC decision? And what does it say about her capacity to be an effective SC judge? Did she not know the suit was doomed and that the brief she signed was crap? Or did she know but decide to sign anyway, because it was politically expedient to do so?

Brown · 10th May 2010, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by marksman

First of all, being an appellate judge and a trial judge are different things. A trial judge spends much of his time dealing with courtroom procedure, reviewing evidence, and handling the daily workings of testimony, which is something appellate judges do not do. So there's a slight difference in skill sets. But trial judges do analyze and interpret the law. I certainly wouldn't say a trial judge is a bad choice for Supreme Court.

Second, you want someone you know can analyze the law and pick apart legal arguments to determine what is properly stated and not stated. There's no reason to choose an appellate judge over a litigator with an equivalent amount of appellate experience. Similarly, a law professor engages in the same process of review and dissertation as an appellate judge. So a well-published law professor would also make a good candidate.

The one skill that an appellate judge has that a litigator, or a professor, or a trial judge, may not is the ability to make consensus. Appellate judges work on panels and need to persuade their fellow jurists to join in their decision. That's the difference between a majority and a dissenting opinion. But that's only one small factor to be considered when appointing a judge.

There's no need to limit the applicant pool to sitting appellate judges.

From a political standpoint, a sitting judge has one big drawback -- a long history of reported decisions that can be picked apart.

On the whole, I think this is well said.

I would have one reservation when dealing with law professors nominated for the bench (and this reservation would apply to Kagan): How realistic are the professor's views?

There are some law professors out there who may be super-smart but may also have completely unrealistic views about how the law operates (or how it ought to operate). I have encountered law professors who believed that they should teach the way the law OUGHT to be, rather than how it IS. I have encountered professors who can quote legal theory backwards and forwards but who cannot understand why people behave in the ways that they do. I have encountered professors who felt that their idea of a legal framework was as close to ideal as possible, when in reality it would be unworkable. And I have encountered some professors who were really well-informed about their particular field of study (say, taxes or bankruptcy or criminal law), but didn't know beans about any other field of study.

marksman · 10th May 2010, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yeah, about that... her track record as dean is not exactly spotless

I didn't say it was spotless. I just said it indicates she has the qualifications for the job. Whether positions she took during that job indicate she should not be confirmed despite her qualifications is a political decision for the Senate to make.

As Brown said, there are professors who are very smart, look great on paper, but have no idea how the law impacts real people in the real world. Maybe Kagan is one of those people. Maybe she's not. If she is, that would be a good reason to reject her nomination.

daredelvis · 10th May 2010, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by marksman

As Brown said, there are professors who are very smart, look great on paper, but have no idea how the law impacts real people in the real world. Maybe Kagan is one of those people. Maybe she's not. If she is, that would be a good reason to reject her nomination.

I'm sure this is true, but it could also be said for many judges, even some sitting on the Supreme Court.

Daredelvis

marksman · 10th May 2010, 10:41 AM

Also true.

eeyore1954 · 10th May 2010, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Maybe not judicial experience in the narrow definition of the term, but someone with Solicitor General experience would seem eminently qualified.

Why? And how much experience has she had on that job? Do you believe being appointed to a position and holding it for a little over a year make you eminently qualified?

Obviously she is an intelligent person not just anyone can be Dean of Harvard Law School

Alferd_Packer · 10th May 2010, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Kagan... sounds Jewish. Clearly a puppet of the Israel lobby and the NWO.

She is.

That would be three of them.

Accidental Martyr · 10th May 2010, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Brown

I am curious whether any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask her, directly or indirectly, about her sexual orientation.

I am not curious about her sexual orientation, mind you; I am curious as to whether any of the Senators will have the stunningly bad taste to bring up the issue in a public hearing.

American Family Association Demands To Know If Elena Kagan Is Gay; Says That Would Disqualify Her
http://www.alan.com/2010/05/10/ameri...squalify-hera/

quote: "A refusal to answer is a tacit admission of guilt."
"We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of
important civic responsibility."

KingMerv00 · 10th May 2010, 12:33 PM

I heard that if she is confirmed, the Supreme Court will have zero Protestants for the first time in history.

9th May 2010, 10:41 PM	#1
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,275	Another Chick Added To The Supreme Court http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/...ex.html?hpt=T1
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

9th May 2010, 10:53 PM	#2
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	cool, I just ordered the "scotus girls" calendar.
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

9th May 2010, 11:20 PM	#3
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

9th May 2010, 11:24 PM	#4
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,652	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience. Maybe not judicial experience in the narrow definition of the term, but someone with Solicitor General experience would seem eminently qualified.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

9th May 2010, 11:37 PM	#5
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Demonization in 5......4.....3.....2....
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

9th May 2010, 11:51 PM	#6
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,652	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Demonization in 5......4.....3.....2.... Okay, I'll start. She must be a socialist. Hasn't she been employed by government?
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

10th May 2010, 12:42 AM	#7
cienaños Banned Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,364	Come on, she's a prostitute for crying out loud.

10th May 2010, 01:51 AM	#8
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,427	She went to Yale or something. She must be acceptable.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

10th May 2010, 02:04 AM	#9
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,937	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Demonization in 5......4.....3.....2.... Very brave to nominate the first transgender. What's happened to America? http://chanceseales.files.wordpress....ena-kagan1.jpg
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

10th May 2010, 04:20 AM	#10
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Belfort Posts: 5,125	The only thing I have to add is that Elena Kagan is an anagram of An Anal Geek. Carry on.

10th May 2010, 04:57 AM	#11
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience. That's two of us. Bush had a lady he appointed who had no bench experience, not sure how her resume and this latest "chick" compare, but I was grateful when she was taken off the list. Scrut: if she's a chick, I'm a Chippendales dancer ... @ rusty: awesome post.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

10th May 2010, 05:33 AM	#12
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,019	Kagan... sounds Jewish. Clearly a puppet of the Israel lobby and the NWO.

10th May 2010, 05:41 AM	#13
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,150	I am curious whether any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask her, directly or indirectly, about her sexual orientation. I am not curious about her sexual orientation, mind you; I am curious as to whether any of the Senators will have the stunningly bad taste to bring up the issue in a public hearing.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

10th May 2010, 05:45 AM	#14
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	Originally Posted by Brown I am curious whether any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask her, directly or indirectly, about her sexual orientation. I am not curious about her sexual orientation, mind you; I am curious as to whether any of the Senators will have the stunningly bad taste to bring up the issue in a public hearing. Aren't we past that?
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

10th May 2010, 05:46 AM	#15
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Aren't we past that? We? Yes. They? ....
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

10th May 2010, 06:41 AM	#16
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,245	Terrible choice.
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,245	__________________ 911science

10th May 2010, 07:07 AM	#17
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,867	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience. Her and that looser Earl Warren. Judicial experience she would have had if the Senate would have voted on her when Clinton nominated her for the bench. Solicitor General... How would that qualify one for the Supreme Court? Bah! Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

10th May 2010, 07:20 AM	#18
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,275	Originally Posted by Brown I am curious whether any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask her, directly or indirectly, about her sexual orientation. I think you can count on it. Originally Posted by Brown I am not curious about her sexual orientation, mind you; I am curious as to whether any of the Senators will have the stunningly bad taste to bring up the issue in a public hearing. A bit of googling hints that she is a lesbian. We'll see.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

10th May 2010, 07:21 AM	#19
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,275	Originally Posted by WildCat Kagan... sounds Jewish. Clearly a puppet of the Israel lobby and the NWO. The Federal Reserve just breathed a sigh of relief.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

10th May 2010, 07:23 AM	#20
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,275	Originally Posted by Peephole Terrible choice. Translation: A fantastic choice
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

10th May 2010, 07:26 AM	#21
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,275	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Chick or no, I'm not sure I like the fact she has no judicial experience. I think I read/heard somewhere a few weeks ago that the "requirement" for prior judicial experience really only came about in the last 50 years or so. I'll have to try to remember where I saw that.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

10th May 2010, 07:31 AM	#22
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	I'm not worried about her somewhat activist past-- I can understand people who have strongly-held beliefs, and even while I disagreed philosophically I could respect that when (for example) Alito was nominated. I'm not going to play the "experience" game-- listening to the Right bitch about experience while defending Sarah "Quitter" Palin is dissonant enough and distracting from actual qualification assessments. No one should be worried about her sexual orientation-- if a dumbass senator brings it up, I wish she would make a remark to the effect of "no, senator, I have never asked who placed a hair on my Coca-Cola can." However... From what I've read she's apparently authored some defenses of extended executive power, and for the same reasons I opposed any extensions to executive power (or, as Cheney liked to invoke, "privilege") in the last administration I find that if Kagen is defending such positions then I would have a problem with her in the SCOTUS. However, I've not dug too deeply into her history on the subject yet. This would, however, be one of the few topics that would be enough for me to oppose her nomination.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

10th May 2010, 07:35 AM	#23
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	Originally Posted by GreNME I'm not going to play the "experience" game-- listening to the Right bitch about experience while defending Sarah "Quitter" Palin is dissonant enough and distracting from actual qualification assessments. That's a rather poor comparison, between an elected official and a judge (potentially) appointed for life. It is experience as a justice that has some people, in varying sides of the political center in this discussion, voicing reservations. Palin, like her or not, had the executive branch experience of governorship, for whatever that's worth on a resume. Other governors were considered and didn't seem to have her "Q" factor for elective politics. Kagan isn't in that game: elective politics. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

10th May 2010, 08:25 AM	#24
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,150	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer I think I read/heard somewhere a few weeks ago that the "requirement" for prior judicial experience really only came about in the last 50 years or so. I'll have to try to remember where I saw that. Strictly speaking, judicial experience is not a requirement for a position on the Supreme Court bench. Neither is a law degree.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

10th May 2010, 08:32 AM	#25
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by Brown Strictly speaking, judicial experience is not a requirement for a position on the Supreme Court bench. Neither is a law degree. True. Regardless, though, her experience as Soliciter General seems adequate -- comparable to Rehnquist, probably (I am only going by memory; I can't say that for certain). I don't think Powell had any experience as a sitting judge, either. She seems to be a fairly consistent, liberal-leaning pick with sufficient background to show she's qualified. All in all, I haven't seen anything to indicate she isn't qualified. I have been somewhat mystified by the reaction not on the right, but on the felt -- Greenwald for example, though there were a couple others, as well. Some on the left have compared her to Harriet Miers, which does not appear to be a fair comparison at all, experience-wise. Have you seen any of that and/or have any explanation for it? (I'll try to root around for the Greenwald link I saw Friday or Saturday, but not sure where I read it).
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

10th May 2010, 09:25 AM	#26
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 5,003	She was Dean of Harvard Law School and she has served as Solicitor General. She's got the requisite amount of smarts and/or experience. And by all accounts she is indeed smart enough for the job. Judicial experience is not a prerequisite. (Heck, you don't have to be a lawyer, though I can't remember if any non-lawyer's ever been appointed to the Supreme Court.) William Rehnquist clerked for the Supreme Court, was in in private practice for 13 years, and an assistant attorney general for three years, before becoming Nixon's nominee to the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan clerked for the Supreme Court, was in private practice for maybe a year or two, and then became a law professor at University of Chicago Law School. Within 4 years, she was tenured. She then worked at the Clinton White House Counsel's Office for three years, before going to Harvard Law School. She became dean in 2003, where she served for seven years. She's plenty qualified. Will she be confirmed? That's going to be a political decision, not one based on qualifications. I think she will be.

10th May 2010, 09:42 AM	#27
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,867	[couch]Earl Warren[/cough] Arguments about a lack of experience are pure partisan hackery. Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

10th May 2010, 09:44 AM	#28
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by daredelvis Her and that looser Earl Warren. Judicial experience she would have had if the Senate would have voted on her when Clinton nominated her for the bench. Solicitor General... How would that qualify one for the Supreme Court? Bah! Daredelvis I'm not saying judicial experience is an absolute necessity to be a good justice. I just think that there are plenty of qualified people out there. It seems like a no brainer to pick someone who has been a judge before. I mean, why WOULDN'T you?
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

10th May 2010, 09:45 AM	#29
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,150	Most of the appointees to the Supreme Court in recent memory had some experience sitting on the bench. That said, some have had very little experience on the bench before going to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas are notable examples. Both had experience in federal practice, but little bench experience. Roberts (like Kagan) had briefed and argued many cases to the High Court. Retired Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter were principally state judges (although Souter spent a few months as a federal judge). Chiefs Justice Earl Warren and William Rehnquist were not judges before going to the Court. Rehnquist (like Kagan) represented the interests of the United States before the High Court. But Warren was an entirely different breed: he was a career politician who had been serving as the Governor of California.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

10th May 2010, 09:58 AM	#30
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,150	To follow up on a previous post: one of the things that seems to be important for a Supreme Court nomination is clerkship. Chief Justice Roberts clerked for then-Associate Justice Rehnquist, and also for a federal appellate judge. Justice Stevens clerked for Justice Wiley Rutledge. Justice Ginsburg clerked for a federal district court judge. Justice Breyer served as a law clerk to Justice Arthur Goldberg. Justice Alito was a clerk to a federal appellate judge. Elena Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall and federal appellate judge Abner Mikva (who PORTRAYED a supreme court justice in the movie Dave). Clerkship is one of the best educations there is about what it is like to be a judge. You can see how cases are presented and how they are decided. You analyze briefs and (depending upon the style of the judge you serve) you draft opinions and orders.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

10th May 2010, 09:59 AM	#31
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 5,003	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 It seems like a no brainer to pick someone who has been a judge before. I mean, why WOULDN'T you? First of all, being an appellate judge and a trial judge are different things. A trial judge spends much of his time dealing with courtroom procedure, reviewing evidence, and handling the daily workings of testimony, which is something appellate judges do not do. So there's a slight difference in skill sets. But trial judges do analyze and interpret the law. I certainly wouldn't say a trial judge is a bad choice for Supreme Court. Second, you want someone you know can analyze the law and pick apart legal arguments to determine what is properly stated and not stated. There's no reason to choose an appellate judge over a litigator with an equivalent amount of appellate experience. Similarly, a law professor engages in the same process of review and dissertation as an appellate judge. So a well-published law professor would also make a good candidate. The one skill that an appellate judge has that a litigator, or a professor, or a trial judge, may not is the ability to make consensus. Appellate judges work on panels and need to persuade their fellow jurists to join in their decision. That's the difference between a majority and a dissenting opinion. But that's only one small factor to be considered when appointing a judge. There's no need to limit the applicant pool to sitting appellate judges. From a political standpoint, a sitting judge has one big drawback -- a long history of reported decisions that can be picked apart.

10th May 2010, 10:12 AM	#32
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,195	Originally Posted by marksman She was Dean of Harvard Law School Yeah, about that... her track record as dean is not exactly spotless. She kicked military recruiters off her campus, and when Congress passed the Solomon Amendment to keep her (and other law schools) from doing so, the AALS sued. She helped file an amicus brief in support support of the suit. The end result? Unanimous rejection by the Supreme Court. How could she have so misread the constitutional issues involved that she would take the wrong side on an issue that gained a unanimous SC decision? And what does it say about her capacity to be an effective SC judge? Did she not know the suit was doomed and that the brief she signed was crap? Or did she know but decide to sign anyway, because it was politically expedient to do so?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th May 2010, 10:14 AM	#33
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,150	Originally Posted by marksman First of all, being an appellate judge and a trial judge are different things. A trial judge spends much of his time dealing with courtroom procedure, reviewing evidence, and handling the daily workings of testimony, which is something appellate judges do not do. So there's a slight difference in skill sets. But trial judges do analyze and interpret the law. I certainly wouldn't say a trial judge is a bad choice for Supreme Court. Second, you want someone you know can analyze the law and pick apart legal arguments to determine what is properly stated and not stated. There's no reason to choose an appellate judge over a litigator with an equivalent amount of appellate experience. Similarly, a law professor engages in the same process of review and dissertation as an appellate judge. So a well-published law professor would also make a good candidate. The one skill that an appellate judge has that a litigator, or a professor, or a trial judge, may not is the ability to make consensus. Appellate judges work on panels and need to persuade their fellow jurists to join in their decision. That's the difference between a majority and a dissenting opinion. But that's only one small factor to be considered when appointing a judge. There's no need to limit the applicant pool to sitting appellate judges. From a political standpoint, a sitting judge has one big drawback -- a long history of reported decisions that can be picked apart. On the whole, I think this is well said. I would have one reservation when dealing with law professors nominated for the bench (and this reservation would apply to Kagan): How realistic are the professor's views? There are some law professors out there who may be super-smart but may also have completely unrealistic views about how the law operates (or how it ought to operate). I have encountered law professors who believed that they should teach the way the law OUGHT to be, rather than how it IS. I have encountered professors who can quote legal theory backwards and forwards but who cannot understand why people behave in the ways that they do. I have encountered professors who felt that their idea of a legal framework was as close to ideal as possible, when in reality it would be unworkable. And I have encountered some professors who were really well-informed about their particular field of study (say, taxes or bankruptcy or criminal law), but didn't know beans about any other field of study.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

10th May 2010, 10:32 AM	#34
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 5,003	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Yeah, about that... her track record as dean is not exactly spotless I didn't say it was spotless. I just said it indicates she has the qualifications for the job. Whether positions she took during that job indicate she should not be confirmed despite her qualifications is a political decision for the Senate to make. As Brown said, there are professors who are very smart, look great on paper, but have no idea how the law impacts real people in the real world. Maybe Kagan is one of those people. Maybe she's not. If she is, that would be a good reason to reject her nomination.

10th May 2010, 10:38 AM	#35
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,867	Originally Posted by marksman As Brown said, there are professors who are very smart, look great on paper, but have no idea how the law impacts real people in the real world. Maybe Kagan is one of those people. Maybe she's not. If she is, that would be a good reason to reject her nomination. I'm sure this is true, but it could also be said for many judges, even some sitting on the Supreme Court. Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez