• 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!

AP source: Obama chooses Kagan for Supreme Court

Alex

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"President Barack Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, a person familiar with the president's thinking said Sunday night."

"Yet Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. All of the three other finalists she beat out for the job are federal appeals court judges, and all nine of the current justices served on the federal bench before being elevated."

This nominee has no experience on the bench, a potential problem for her confirmation. Of all the people that could have been picked, this is not the best. There is nothing substantial to grant her confirmation on. Why would the Obama administration choose someone without at least a little bit of experience on the bench?

Her nomination should not be confirmed, she lacks the experience to serve on such an important seat.

AP source: Obama chooses Kagan for Supreme Court - Yahoo! News
 
Last edited:
Alex said:
"President Barack Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, a person familiar with the president's thinking said Sunday night."

"Yet Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. All of the three other finalists she beat out for the job are federal appeals court judges, and all nine of the current justices served on the federal bench before being elevated."

This nominee has no experience on the bench, a potential problem for her confirmation. Of all the people that could have been picked, this is not the best. There is nothing substantial to grant her confirmation on. Why would the Obama administration choose someone without at least a little bit of experience on the bench?

Her nomination should not be confirmed, she lacks the experience to serve on such an important seat.

AP source: Obama chooses Kagan for Supreme Court - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

Harriet Miers 2?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan]Elena Kagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


I wonder if this nomination is solely an identity politics ploy.
 
Jetboogieman said:
And the hating begins in 5... 4... 3...
Click to expand...

Thats right. And I'm sure whomever Bush picked you were overjoyed. :roll:

Selective memory is a wonderful thing isn't it?
 
Why the hell would he pick someone for the Highest Court in the nation that has no experience as a Judge? Ugh, Im pretty sure I know the reason but I would love to to hear it from Obama himself. Hell Sotomayor had a ton of experience (which was one of the few good qualities about her).
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
So much to shoot at politically, what was he thinking?
Click to expand...

Perhaps to make people dislike this nominee so much they will all rally around another one? Maybe building support for a real nominee by strategy?
 
Alex said:
Perhaps to make people dislike this nominee so much they will all rally around another one? Maybe building support for a real nominee by strategy?
Click to expand...

Probably so because, if the wiki article is correct, she hadn't even argued before a trial court until less than a year ago.

On top of that, she could be smacked for her stance of the military, indefinite detention and many other things.
 
She is a HUGE lefty that banned the military from recruiting at Harvard University.
 
I think it's also an attempt to get in good with the joos after he's crapped on them for so long.
 
American said:
I think it's also an attempt to get in good with the joos after he's crapped on them for so long.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't care what religion the person is, I only care about will this person make a good justice or not. I don't know, but I am inclined to be skeptical due in part to her lack of judicial experience as well as the long-time connections she has with this president...
 
ludahai said:
Frankly, I don't care what religion the person is, I only care about will this person make a good justice or not. I don't know, but I am inclined to be skeptical due in part to her lack of judicial experience as well as the long-time connections she has with this president...
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you, but with Obama everything is political.
 
So I'd love to understand how she's qualfied for the position. She's never been a judge, so there's no paper trail... she's only argued cases for the government for 1 year, so there's no demonsterable past there. How is it that she's qualified to hold the highest judge ship position in the country? She's a total wild card with no past history ... and there's probably a reason non-judges weren't approved for the past 40 years. Rehnquist had a fairly long history as a lawyer and associate judge - more than 1 year in an administration before going to the SCOTUS.

I'm just not understanding her qualifications for the job - and a very important job. Unless of course the qualifications are to be an activist on the court... which she may or may not be.
 
Maybe she knows the difference between Email and Pagers.
 
Alex said:
Perhaps to make people dislike this nominee so much they will all rally around another one? Maybe building support for a real nominee by strategy?
Click to expand...

Which furthers the "Harriet Miers 2" idea

I'm going to be intrigued by this for no other reason to watch both the left and the right. Many on this board complained about Mier's first and foremost due to her having no experience judging and it basically being a pick seemingly because Bush liked the woman. Others defended it that you don't need to be a judge to be experienced. Though I will say, in the case of Miers, more of the conservatives/republicans on this forum were unhappy with the pick at the time than you would expect with most picks.

First glance, I'm thinking this is a very poor pick. I'm also thinking it may very well be a "Miers-esque" type of rope-a-dope
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Why the hell would he pick someone for the Highest Court in the nation that has no experience as a Judge? Ugh, Im pretty sure I know the reason but I would love to to hear it from Obama himself. Hell Sotomayor had a ton of experience (which was one of the few good qualities about her).
Click to expand...

Picking nonjudges for the supreme court used to be pretty common actually.
 
Jesus Christ this thread already turned into who can find/create the most direct insult...
 
Ockham said:
So was public flogging and drowning witches tied to rocks.
Click to expand...

True, whether or not something happened in the past has no bearing on whether it is a good idea, but I still think it is useful to try and bring in a historical perspective to the debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom