New Justice Chosen?

[Boxlicker101]

It is not official, and this thread may be jumping the gun:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

I see the Big O has chosen somebody with a Harvard background and no judicial experience. It might or might not work out alright. She certainly looks like a tough cookie.

ETA: Apparently the last justice to serve on SCOTUS and have no other judicial experience was Earl Warren.

 

[TE999]

It is not official, and this thread may be jumping the gun:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

I see the Big O has chosen somebody with a Harvard background and no judicial experience. It might or might not work out alright. She certainly looks like a tough cookie.

NBC has said she's the one, so I guess it's official. Her track record, completely administrative, shows her to be center-left politically. Whatever her qualifications, she's another PC appointee to the court, a spoiler against the 'conservatively dominated' majority and a point scored for the female vote.

 

[ishtat]

NBC has said she's the one, so I guess it's official. Her track record, completely administrative, shows her to be center-left politically. Whatever her qualifications, she's another PC appointee to the court, a spoiler against the 'conservatively dominated' majority and a point scored for the female vote.

This must rate as one of the most stupid comments I have ever read. She is a brilliant lawyer, period.

I am conservative myself on many issues but I can at least recognise talent.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This must rate as one of the most stupid comments I have ever read. She is a brilliant lawyer, period.

I am conservative myself on many issues but I can at least recognise talent.

She may be a brilliant lawyer; I wouldn't know. I am not a court groupie. However, there is a big difference between a brilliant lawyer and a brilliant jurist. I am not bad-mouthing (or bad-keyboarding) the lady. She may turn out to be one of the greatest of all time, for all anybody knows.

 

[DeeZire]

Here's a portion of an essay on Kagan that appeared at Huff. (OMG! Don't look Box!) From the author's characterization, she sounds like exactly what the court needs right now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-case-for-kagan_b_551511.html

Her most important work over the past two decades has been in contexts where she has had to move people to see things as she did. And through that experience, she has developed a sixth sense for the strategy of an argument. She matches that insight with a toughness that can get what she wants done. That doesn't mean triangulating. It doesn't mean "compromise." It means finding a way to move others to the answer you believe is right.

This is the single feature the liberal side of this conservative court lacks most. Even Justice Stevens was too quick to run off to a corner to write his universally brilliant dissents from insane majorities. Breyer too too often seems content in his law professor way to write an opinion that sounds good when read aloud to himself, but in light of the evolving jurisprudence of the Court, is tone deaf to the view of others. Too many of our progressive colleagues swing for the bleachers of history, rather than victories now. Too many are content with simply knowing that their liberal law professor friends are busy praising their opinions in constitutional law classes rather than fighting to find a way to split the ideologues on the right with their own principles and rhetoric.

Again, I'm not talking about triangulating. The point is not that we need someone who knows how best to compromise. The point instead is that we need a justice with the energy and strength to use the legal materials provided by the other side to advance the right answer.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

She may be doomed because of what happened to Bennett in Utah the other day.

The GOP now knows that the Teabaggers have teeth, and rather than stir them up more they may obstruct any SCOTUS candidate until after the election.

 

[Liar]

From what I've seen, she's less contoversial than Sotomayor, why really wasn't all that controversial to begin with.

There will be hearing theatre, of course. Enough to get some fundraisin' done for all the comittee Senatards.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Doesnt matter, the GOP will appease the gods by blocking her. Too close to election time.

 

[TE999]

This must rate as one of the most stupid comments I have ever read. She is a brilliant lawyer, period.

I am conservative myself on many issues but I can at least recognise talent.

Isn't 'brilliant lawyer' an oxymoron?

When an appointee is chosen over several other candidates with judicial experience, it's safe to say she's a PC appointee. Read her 'judicial history' if you get the chance, oh wait, there is none.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If I could, I would delete the question mark from the thread title. She has now been officially nominated.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

But is she lesbian?

 

[DeeZire]

Isn't 'brilliant lawyer' an oxymoron?

No

When an appointee is chosen over several other candidates with judicial experience, it's safe to say she's a PC appointee. Read her 'judicial history' if you get the chance, oh wait, there is none.

Over 1/3 of Supreme Court Justices had no judicial experience prior to their appointment.

Media figures have advanced the myth that judicial experience is a pre-requisite for a Supreme Court justice. In fact, two of the last four previous chief justices -- William Rehnquist and Earl Warren -- had no judicial experience when first nominated to the Court by Republican presidents. Neither did other famous justices, including Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis, and John Marshall, known as the "Great Chief Justice."

Rehnquist, Warren, Frankfurter, Brandeis, and Marshall are far from alone. Indeed, according to Findlaw.com's Supreme Court Center, 40 of the 111 Supreme Court justices had no judicial experience when they were first nominated.

The complete list of 40 is here.
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

 

[Huckleman2000]

Isn't 'brilliant lawyer' an oxymoron?

When an appointee is chosen over several other candidates with judicial experience, it's safe to say she's a PC appointee. Read her 'judicial history' if you get the chance, oh wait, there is none.

You have a way of taking stupid talking points and making them sound...well, still pretty stupid.

 

[xssve]

But is she lesbian?

Hermaphrodite, I'm hearing.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hermaphrodite, I'm hearing.

And she banned the military from Harvard becuz of their homosexual policy.

She's toast.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

No



Over 1/3 of Supreme Court Justices had no judicial experience prior to their appointment.



The complete list of 40 is here.
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

Not only have over 1/3 had no prior judicial experience, some other recent nominees have had scant experience. Chief Justice Roberts had only two years of experience, and Justice Clarence Thomas had only one year on the bench.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

And she banned the military from Harvard becuz of their homosexual policy.

She's toast.

She has already been confirmed by the Senate for her appointment as Solicitor General. That history is already on record, and it was not enough to stop her first confirmation. She will be confirmed before the Fall Term begins.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

She has already been confirmed by the Senate for her appointment as Solicitor General. That history is already on record, and it was not enough to stop her first confirmation. She will be confirmed before the Fall Term begins.

Recall that Robert Bork was Solicitor General when his nomination to SCOTUS was rejected.

I suspect she's a throw-away like Harriet Miers.

 

[TE999]

This will not be the slam-dunk for Obeyme as first thought. The Left thinks she's not liberal enough, the Right is opposed to several decisions she's made in her career like banning military recruiters from Yale's campus and her lack of judicial experience.

She may well be confirmed, but this will be a bruising fight...and being relatively close to November this may come back to haunt the Dems up for re-election.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Recall that Robert Bork was Solicitor General when his nomination to SCOTUS was rejected.

I suspect she's a throw-away like Harriet Miers.

Kagan's credentials more closely resemble Chief Justice Roberts' than Meirs', who was not widely respected in the legal community.

Bork was qualified. He was rejected because he was a contentious ideologue with a long track record of divisive positions. Kagan's record does not reveal an ideological commitment.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

This will not be the slam-dunk for Obeyme as first thought. The Left thinks she's not liberal enough, the Right is opposed to several decisions she's made in her career like banning military recruiters from Yale's campus and her lack of judicial experience.

She may well be confirmed, but this will be a bruising fight...and being relatively close to November this may come back to haunt the Dems up for re-election.

She may be a wonderful human being for all I know; but she also brings other issues besides no judicial experience and her attitude about the military's gay policy.

She'd be the 3rd Jew on the Court. The 3rd New Yorker. And the 9th Ivy League graduate.

Back in the 1800s judges came from distinct regions.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Kagan's credentials more closely resemble Cheif Justice Roberts' than Meirs', who was not widely respected in the legal community.

Bork was qualified. He was rejected because he was a contentious ideologue with a long track record of divisive positions. Kagan's record does not reveal an ideological commitment.

Bork was rejected because he advocated freedom of association. That is, he wrote a brief asserting that you dont have to welcome niggers and wetbacks and trailer trash into your private club if you dont wanna.

 

[bronzeage]

Recall that Robert Bork was Solicitor General when his nomination to SCOTUS was rejected.

I suspect she's a throw-away like Harriet Miers.

Harriet wasn't a throw-away. James Dobson told GW that Harriet was chosen by God.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

This will not be the slam-dunk for Obeyme as first thought. The Left thinks she's not liberal enough, the Right is opposed to several decisions she's made in her career like banning military recruiters from Yale's campus and her lack of judicial experience.

She may well be confirmed, but this will be a bruising fight...and being relatively close to November this may come back to haunt the Dems up for re-election.

There will be little more than token oposition to her appointment. Granted, the left would prefer a more ideological appointment, but they are not going to hold her up and damage the President.

A few ideologues on the right will oppose her, but they will not be numerous enough to slow her confirmation.

The military recruiters flak at Harvard will prove to be no issue at all, once the facts are widely understood. She did not ban military recruiters from the law school. Harvard law school banned military recruiters from its campus starting in 1979. In the 1990's, the law school compromised and allowed them on campus through the student run Veterans Association. Kagan did not become Dean until 2003. In 2002, her predecessor backed down and let recruiters into the placement office. Kagan did the same thing when she took over in 2003. She criticized "Don't ask, don't tell," but she honored the policy in place regarding military recruiters. http://www.slate.com/id/2253497/

The military recruiters flap will disappear before hearings begin this summer.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

She may be a wonderful human being for all I know; but she also brings other issues besides no judicial experience and her attitude about the military's gay policy.

She'd be the 3rd Jew on the Court. The 3rd New Yorker. And the 9th Ivy League graduate.

Back in the 1800s judges came from distinct regions.

Your fond recollections of the 1800s notwithstanding, Ivy League graduates are generally held in high-esteem by the legal community (who will evaluate, recommend and testify) and other educated Americans, including the 100 Senators who will cast their votes.