Experienced yes. Must also have their field of expertise in Constitutional Law.
Damn, you guys are right on cue. I just saw Colbert tonight and this thread was up just 40 minutes later. :roflAs you know, Obama has nominated Elena Kagan for Supreme Court Justice. Here's a portion of the article from politico...
As solicitor general, Kagan serves as the nation’s top lawyer arguing cases before the high court. Yet Kagan is highly unusual in one way – she has never been a judge. It’s the first time in nearly four decades that someone would join the court, if confirmed, without any prior judicial experience. The last to do so was William Rehnquist, who went on to become chief justice.
Read more: President Obama to Senate: Act fast - Josh Gerstein and Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com
Do you think Supreme Court Justices should have experience being a judge before being appointed as a Supreme Judge for life?
Looks like James Gandolfini with makeup.I think as long as they were in a job where they demonstrate that they understand the law and its application, they are qualified. If someone is the government's top representative at the SC, that's good enough I think.
Frankly, I am more disturbed by the fact that she looks like a man in drag.
What do you have against softball... or are you just a sexist and think it should be an all male endeavor? :roll:Kagan's an experienced softball player:roll:
See what is happening to the wall street journal since Murdoch took over?
Softball question - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
What do you have against softball... or are you just a sexist and think it should be an all male endeavor? :roll:
.
You said that history has shown that justices without bench experience have turned out to be good justices, but you still don't agree with appointing people without bench experience. My question is why? What exactly is the benefit of bench experience, as it relates to a SCOTUS nominee?
Oh, but it is. You didn't say anything more brilliant than he did about the matter. So, when I am weighing who is more convincing, I'd have to say him. Hands down. Because of who he is. And, who you're not.
Still irrelevant.Again? Scalia says the exact opposite.
You've made no reasonable or substantiated argument to support your position to begin with. Just stated your opinion, really.
Since we are "here" and not "elsewhere" you should have addressed it "here". :roll:I addressed this elsewhere.
Scalia's opinion is irrelevant. Perhaps you'll soon understand my view on that. I rarely infer... I'm point blank stating that the White House is injecting emotional evaluation and mediation --- and NOT legal experience into the Constitution. Yes. Affirmative. You can take that as an "inference".Are you infering that Scalia is stating by implication that he wants SCOTUS Justices to employ emotion in their evaluation of the application of the Constitution? Seriously?
Dunno. Ask him and let me know when he reply's back. Such diversity doesn't belong on the SCOTUS bench.Is it possible that this conservative justice is just indicating that he thinks there needs to be experience from diverse backgrounds?
Then Obama should appoint some janitor from Ada Oklahoma who uses common sense.Maybe because that brings wisdom to a conclave?
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.I know, I know, I should go ask him. Aren't YOU interested? YOU are a conservative. HE is the leader of the conservative judicial movement.
Nope. I like my SCOTUS all law, all experience, all Constitution. If I want some emotional sob session I'll turn on Cable talk shows.Aren't you curious, a little bit, about the basis of his opinion on this matter? A little?
having argued a bunch of case before two different circuits (right below the supremes) I don't think judicial experience is all that necessary. I also think a president has the right to appoint whom he chooses as long as they meet basic qualfications. And Kagan does. However, she is no where near a top choice IMHO. She was not an experienced appellate litigator (as was Roberts or THurgood Marshall). She was not a distinguished judge (Alito, etc). She was not a highly respected constitutional scholar whose works are regularly cited by judges and other scholars alike (such as Akhil Reed Amar, Pamela Karlan, Steven Calabresi, William Van Alstyne). She was a good Dean at harvard who hired diverse faculty and improved student morale. However, as a scholar she has not been (once again) a Pam Karlan, an Akhil Reed Amar or another similar superstar in academia.
Again, if true, I will begin to speculate that this is Obama engaging in a rather dangerous strategy: Wanting so much to appoint younger people that he is risking the credibility of the SCOTUS. Something I cannot support.
Why? A huge portion of the court's docket has absolutely nothing to do with constitutional law.
I don't think I said that. Can you point it out to me?
Yes, history has shown others with no bench experience have fulfilled the position of justice well - I still don't agree with it, regardless of political affiliation, which I might add, should not be part of Constitutional argument. Right vs. Left has no business being applied to the Constitution. Those issues should be left to amendments passed by Congress and reviewed by the SCOTUS to make sure the laws / amendments are Constitutional.
It was a mistaken then, it's a mistake now.
Agreed. But you know, that describes most of the people on the Supreme Court. Rarely do we get the best legal minds in there.
Just like all of government. The people who would be best running things either don't get elected or never run. Our system of government is based on who can win elections and gain approval of the Senate and not on who is the most qualified.
Hey, you know, if Republicans wanted more of a trail on Kagan, maybe they should have not voted her down when Clinton nominated her to the federal bench.
My question is how does that conclusion ("It was a mistake then, it's a mistake now") follow from the premise ("History has shown others with no bench experience have fulfilled the position of justice well")? Why was/is it a mistake if those justices are still able to do a good job?
Wasn't aware she was ever voted on back then. Thought the nomination just sort of died on the vine.....
.
What? huh?
Since when?
Since forever? Much of the court's docket deals with arguments over statutory interpretation, not constitutional law.
Johnson v. United States - ScotusWiki
Bloate v. United States - ScotusWiki
Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers - ScotusWiki
Perdue v. Kenny A. - ScotusWiki.
Jones v. Harris Associates - ScotusWiki
More than 1/3 of the first month's cases last term were entirely based on statutes.
yes, I agree -- 1/3.
You said "a huge portion".
I guess I just don't consider 33% a "huge portion". I interpreted your comment to mean a vast majority.
More than half the cases the court agrees to hear are not constitutional, but statutory, presenting questions much like the one posed by Hackworth v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, No. 06-1300. To whom does a statute apply? Precisely what behavior does it prohibit? How does it fit with another law on the books that seems to suggest something quite different?
...
The 73 cases the court selected for argument during the current term included 41 statutory cases, 27 that raised chiefly constitutional issues and 5 other kinds that raised issues of retroactivity and jurisdiction. (These calculations are subject to interpretation; at the margins, the categories can easily overlap, as when the court is asked to interpret a statute in such a way as to avoid a potential constitutional problem.)
So yes, I think "huge portion" was entirely appropriate.
Perhaps if this bozo, Kagan, had been a judge at some point, she probably wouldn't have tried to punish the military and military recruiters for Clinton's policy on don't ask don't tell by attempting to ban them from the Harvard campus. The military has very little influence on policies like these which are imposed by the political establishment. She should have banned Clinton! If she'd have been a judge maybe she would be able to identify the perpetrator.
I am against Kagan because she is catholic. If she is confirmed we will have 6 catholic supremes. This scares me.
I am against Kagan because she is catholic. If she is confirmed we will have 6 catholic supremes. This scares me.