• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Supreme Court justices have had experience being a judge at some point?

Should Supreme Court Justices have had experience as judges?


  • Total voters
    64
I am against Kagan because she is catholic. If she is confirmed we will have 6 catholic supremes. This scares me.

So we should prevent a nomination because of someone's faith? The Catholic justices weren't appointed because they were Catholic, they were appointed and happened to be Catholic. What scares me would be the government barring someone from a position because of their religion.
 
So we should prevent a nomination because of someone's faith? The Catholic justices weren't appointed because they were Catholic, they were appointed and happened to be Catholic. What scares me would be the government barring someone from a position because of their religion.

I've never heard of a supreme who was an atheist. What about their beliefs?
 
I've never heard of a supreme who was an atheist. What about their beliefs?

So your theory is that various presidents have considered appointing atheists to the court, but declined to do so because they were insufficiently religious?
 
So your theory is that various presidents have considered appointing atheists to the court, but declined to do so because they were insufficiently religious?

Yes, but it is impossible to prove. But you must admit that the score card is a compelling factor in my theory.
 
I am against Kagan because she is catholic. If she is confirmed we will have 6 catholic supremes. This scares me.

1. She's Jewish. (*gasp* Oh noes, we'll have 4 Jews on the Court. They might rule that the United States is now subject to Israeli law. :roll:)
2. The Constitution explicitly says that no religious test shall be required to hold office.
 
Last edited:
So we are looking at an anti-military, gay, jew, with no direct experience getting nominated to the Supreme Court.

Is this the frigging Land of Opportunity, or what...???!!!





.
 
So we are looking at an anti-military, gay, jew, with no direct experience getting nominated to the Supreme Court.

Is this the frigging Land of Opportunity, or what...???!!!



.

No doubt.

Misinformed, homophobes, Anti-Semites are free to post ignorant statements on internet forums.

And you get to wave the flag while making those statements--that's freedom baby!!
 
So we are looking at an anti-military, gay, jew, with no direct experience getting nominated to the Supreme Court.

Is this the frigging Land of Opportunity, or what...???!!!





.

well given she was nominated by a anti military muslim kenyan with no real experience in either the real world or politics WTF do you expect:mrgreen:
 
So we are looking at an anti-military, gay, jew, with no direct experience getting nominated to the Supreme Court.

Is this the frigging Land of Opportunity, or what...???!!!





.

May the curse of the Golems be upon you, my son.:shock:
 
So we are looking at an anti-military, gay, jew, with no direct experience getting nominated to the Supreme Court.

Is this the frigging Land of Opportunity, or what...???!!!





.

Before we get to over the top...

Being against a military policy is not anti-military. I am against DADT too.

There is to the best of my knowledge no proof she is gay, and a friend of hers has called her strait(or so it was reported on TV today). Her orientation is also entirely irrelevant.

Her religious beliefs are entirely irrelevant unless there is evidence they would effect her rulings.

She has about as much experience as roughly 1/3 of the justices in our history have had.

Do you have any problems with anything actually affecting her ability to do the job properly, or just hysterics?
 
Before we get to over the top...

Being against a military policy is not anti-military. I am against DADT too.

There is to the best of my knowledge no proof she is gay, and a friend of hers has called her strait(or so it was reported on TV today). Her orientation is also entirely irrelevant.

Her religious beliefs are entirely irrelevant unless there is evidence they would effect her rulings.

She has about as much experience as roughly 1/3 of the justices in our history have had.

Do you have any problems with anything actually affecting her ability to do the job properly, or just hysterics?

Hysterics? Precious. ;)

Actually am a big fan of the Jews. It's an Israeli/bible thingy. Am pretty neutral on the whole gay issue/topic. The evidence on Kagan being gay seems to be leaning that way. Whether that would have an impact on her decision making, couldn't really say. As far as the anti-military, her "policy position" on the Army recruiters being taken to the Supreme Court (and btw..losing 8-0) would suggest to me she may have some deep rooted dislike. Just a guess...no proof.

She likely will be confirmed. And she may turn out to be a fine judge. But she does have a somewhat unconventional profile compared to other modern day selections.

hence, Land of Opportunity, eh...???!!


.
 
Oh, I thought "she" was a man in drag. She is really a she - by birth?

Oh no, do we have another two years of people demanding to see her (or his) birth certificate?
 
He the leader of the conservative judicial movement? Where can I see their platform? Are there meetings and yearly dues? I don't recognize nor accept your assertion of some judicial conservative movement obviously.

Oh dear God in Heaven, spare me from the completely uninformed!!

Do you realize how seldom I pray? As in never. You've driven me to it.

No, I will admit that there is no formal encompassing conservative judicial movement, like a club with members and a treasurer and chairman. Your Brilliance has cowed me!! You've Got Me!! :roll:

If you need me to inform you about Scalia's position among Constitutional thinkers, his influence and the respect afforded to him ... well, it just says all that need be said, really. Unless you're just doing a really good job of playing dumb.
 
Oh no, do we have another two years of people demanding to see her (or his) birth certificate?

While you might be interested enough... I tend to leave cross dressers alone.
 
No, I will admit that there is no formal encompassing conservative judicial movement, like a club with members and a treasurer and chairman. Your Brilliance has cowed me!! You've Got Me!! :roll:

You're attempt at ad hominem by creating a fictional group and membership to make a half assed point was a farce only an infant could appreciate. :yawn: Tell me again why Scalia's the leader of the judicial conservative activist wing of some Republican movement and I'll dig up some Bilderburg nonsense ... or just fall asleep. Either or.

If you need me to inform you about Scalia's position among Constitutional thinkers, his influence and the respect afforded to him ... well, it just says all that need be said, really. Unless you're just doing a really good job of playing dumb.
If you haven't noticed yet, I don't give Scalia's opinion outside of the law any more credence than anyone else's opinion. What part of that is eluding you?

Still - SCOTUS judges should have 1+ or better years on the bench. Tell me if you need me to clarify that again for you.
 
Back
Top Bottom