Kagan in Context: Shafting Progressive Values

[Blackflag]

You already admitted you have no opinion. So why are you here? Just to bust my balls?

Go read "huffington post" and get your opinion.

[Blackflag]

The thing I'm having difficulty with is the woman's experience as a judge.

Dude, she has virtually no legal experience. I'm not hung up on having a judge. Like Rehnquist spent his career as a prosecutor and never a judge. That's cool.

But this lady is the least qualified person on the Court I can think of. I can't remember anybody this lame. Like I said in the previous thread that some cocksucker deleted - this is like Harriet Myers.

This lady isn't qualified to handle a dogbite case - let alone be a judge - let alone a Supreme Court Justice. WTF.

[MAX]

The thing I'm having difficulty with is the woman's experience as a judge. OK, Dean of Harvard Law School sounds pretty impressive, but I understand that before that she only served as a clerk. Now I get that she has a bunch of degrees, but doesn't practical application of this knowledge have to be displayed someplace? I mean otherwise, doesn't this more or less make her a theorist?

Think about this...a person goes to broadcasting school to learn about being a baseball announcer. Having studied the game for years, this person then learns what is expected in the art of calling play by play. After getting a few jobs working for some minor league teams, the announcer gets hired to broadcast Yankees games. Now, is that any reason for the manager of the Yankees to hire the announcer as a first baseman?

I really find that to be an excellent analogy Craig and I also agree.

However, why in the fuck did you have to include the rotten skankmees in your post?

[chefcraig]

However, why in the fuck did you have to include the rotten skankmees in your post?

Mainly because when thinking of soullessly corrupt and evil empires, they were the first team that sprang to mind.

[bueno bob]

Of course it does. How could it not?

But fucking come up with your own opinions one way or the other, people. Don't just xerox somebody else's.

That article doesn't even scratch the surface why she sucks.

Lemme guess - you gave her a "Thumbs Down" and we should "Discuss", right?

[bueno bob]

The thing I'm having difficulty with is the woman's experience as a judge. OK, Dean of Harvard Law School sounds pretty impressive, but I understand that before that she only served as a clerk. Now I get that she has a bunch of degrees, but doesn't practical application of this knowledge have to be displayed someplace? I mean otherwise, doesn't this more or less make her a theorist?

William Rehnquist, who was appointed to the Court by President Nixon in 1971, and he didn't have any judicial experience. Rehnquist had been a law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson (in addition to being an assistant U.S. attorney general). Lewis Powell was another Nixon appointee, who had been president of the American Bar Association and was also the President of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He didn't have any, either.

Out of the nine justices named by Roosevelt, Douglas, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson and Byrnes all lacked judicial experience also. It's not uncommon.

[Blackflag]

William Rehnquist, who was appointed to the Court by President Nixon in 1971, and he didn't have any judicial experience. Rehnquist had been a law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson (in addition to being an assistant U.S. attorney general). Lewis Powell was another Nixon appointee, who had been president of the American Bar Association and was also the President of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He didn't have any, either.

Out of the nine justices named by Roosevelt, Douglas, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson and Byrnes all lacked judicial experience also. It's not uncommon.

As I said above - lacking judicial experience is not a problem. Lacking legal experience is a problem.


This is just blatant cronyism. She's part of the clique, so she got appointed. She wasn't qualified to be solicitor general, and she's definitely not qualified for this.

Add to that her stance on military recruiting, lack of any record one way or the other, and her stance on enemy combatants, and it's a horrible pick.

[FORD]

Opie Roberts was appointed "Chief Justice" by the Chimp after a whole two years on the bench. His "legal experience" prior to that appointment was as a BCE lawyer playing second banana to Ken Starr, Ted Olson, James Baker and the rest of that crowd.

[Blackflag]

Opie Roberts was appointed "Chief Justice" by the Chimp after a whole two years on the bench. His "legal experience" prior to that appointment was as a BCE lawyer playing second banana to Ken Starr, Ted Olson, James Baker and the rest of that crowd.

Before he was a judge for two years, he was in private practice for 15 years. Before that, he was a lawyer for the government for 5 years, including an assistant U.S. attorney.

And it would be impossible for him to be "second banana" to Starr or Olson, when they worked for the government and he was in private practice.

There may be various reasons to dislike him, but lack of experience isn't one of them.

Dumbass.

[chefcraig]

William Rehnquist, who was appointed to the Court by President Nixon in 1971, and he didn't have any judicial experience. Rehnquist had been a law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson (in addition to being an assistant U.S. attorney general). Lewis Powell was another Nixon appointee, who had been president of the American Bar Association and was also the President of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He didn't have any, either.

Out of the nine justices named by Roosevelt, Douglas, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson and Byrnes all lacked judicial experience also. It's not uncommon.

First off, thanks for the insight. I was unaware that the seat of supreme justice in the U.S. was so open to such a low threshold of judicial experience. I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly did not know that the seating was held to such non-judiciary levels. Yet the initiate practice still strikes me as haphazard in nature. I maintain that it's like giving the controls to a complicated railroad system to the hands of a teen aged kid that happened to run an H.O. scale model train system that ran in circles in his basement for a few years. I seriously do not believe that the highest court in the land should be benched by people looking to get "on the job" experience.

[Blackflag]

To be fair, Bob named 7 justices out of 111. I wouldn't call that common.

[FORD]

. I maintain that it's like giving the controls to a complicated railroad system to the hands of a teen aged kid that happened to run an H.O. scale model train system that ran in circles in his basement for a few years. .

Or a monkey.....

[conmee]

Brethren and Sistren,

I knew Charlie Weis would land on his feet, but not sure he's a good choice for the highest court in the land...unless an offensive coordinator in drag is good for democracy...

Discuss.

That is all.

Icon via iPhone

[BigBadBrian]

The thing I'm having difficulty with is the woman's experience as a judge. OK, Dean of Harvard Law School sounds pretty impressive, but I understand that before that she only served as a clerk. Now I get that she has a bunch of degrees, but doesn't practical application of this knowledge have to be displayed someplace? I mean otherwise, doesn't this more or less make her a theorist?

Agreed. I believe a SCOTUS appointee should have Federal judicial experience. Kagan does not, but neither did Rehnquist.

I'll have to read more about her to form an opinion. Therein lies another problem: she has had relatively few papers or articles published.

Right now, she's probably as good a candidate as any. I reserve the right to change my mind, however.

[Nickdfresh]

Of course it does. How could it not?

But fucking come up with your own opinions one way or the other, people. Don't just xerox somebody else's.

That article doesn't even scratch the surface why she sucks.

Then why don't you "scratch the surface" and offer something more than your typical two lines of jerkoff ad hominem?