- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Justice Scalia disagrees with you.
Yeah... and?
Justice Scalia disagrees with you.
Yeah... and?
You dismiss everyone that thinks USASC candidates should have some experience as doing it for purely partisian reasons.Do you have anything beyond STUPID, childish, personal insults to add or is that your entire act?
That might make sense if my opinion could effect the outcome of the judges but since it does not, and you know that, you're little point about him being more qualified is irrelevant. His opinion is equal to mine as Scalia's opinion cannot effect the make up of the court any more than my opinion can.And, I guess I think he's more qualified to say what is required for a Supreme Court Justice than you are.
Why would I need one? Why not ask the question... why hasn't a non-judge been appointed for almost 40 years?Do you have a stronger argument for requiring Bench experience than you have already offered?
As 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?
I think as long as the candidate is qualified for the position (and I believe she is) then it doesn't matter if they've been a judge before.
One needn't be a judge to know the Constitution. Simple as that. There have been many Justices who weren't judges. 41 in fact. This is nothing new.
You dismiss everyone that thinks USASC candidates should have some experience as doing it for purely partisian reasons.
Apparently you have nothing to offer beyond STUPID, childish, personal insults to those that think a candidate should have some experience. Not surprising though. :roll:
.
As 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?
Is that the only qualification required to be a Justice? "Know the constitution"?
Anyone who thinks that the reason we're posting to this forum is to have a significant impact on the political processes in this country should just shut up now.That might make sense if my opinion could effect the outcome of the judges but since it does not, and you know that, you're little point about him being more qualified is irrelevant. His opinion is equal to mine as Scalia's opinion cannot effect the make up of the court any more than my opinion can.
Do you?Do you have any point to make that would be at all relevant?
I don't know, maybe because you're on a political discussion forum.Why would I need one?
Given the illustrious history of non-Judges on the SCOTUS, I can't see any good reason, though I can see a few possible political ones.Why not ask the question... why hasn't a non-judge been appointed for almost 40 years?
You dismiss everyone that thinks USASC candidates should have some experience as doing it for purely partisian reasons.
Apparently you have nothing to offer beyond STUPID, childish, personal insults to those that think a candidate should have some experience. Not surprising though. :roll:
.
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,
Prestige and experience are two different things. Why should it matter how prestigious someone's background is when considering them for a Supreme Court appointment? What do you mean by "prestige," and is there a correlation between their prestige and their effectiveness on the court?
About 1/3 of all SC Justices have not had any previous experience as judges.
Simply put, this is a non-issue brought up by those who's real problem is that President Barack Obama nominated this person and nothing more. Pure, partisan crap.
One needn't be a judge to know the Constitution. Simple as that. There have been many Justices who weren't judges. 41 in fact. This is nothing new.
Now, you need to demonstrate that knowledge. And considering that Kagan is one of the most respected Constitutional scholars in the country, I think she's done a pretty damn fine job of demonstrating it.
Maybe you don't like some of her views, but she's probably the smartest Constitutional mind in America.
Then you're comment about Scalia's opinion being more qualified? Still irrelevant.Anyone who thinks that the reason we're posting to this forum is to have a significant impact on the political processes in this country should just shut up now.
Presidential appointments for the SCOTUS should have 1 to 2+ years on the bench prior to their appointment.Do you?
My original point stands. You've made no resonable or substantiated argument to refute it. Hence the lack to needing an additional or new one.I don't know, maybe because you're on a political discussion forum.
Given the last 40 years of that illustrious history and lacking unqualified appointees... but you don't seem to want to discuss that part.Given the illustrious history of non-Judges on the SCOTUS, I can't see any good reason, though I can see a few possible political ones.
Why don't you write him a nice letter and ask him? As for me, I prefer law and judges to use facts, not emotions.Scalia, on the other hand seems to think as I do. I think a better question to ask is why he feels that way.
Why don't you agree with it if you acknowledge that history has shown there is no relationship between bench experience and the effectiveness of the justice? What's the purpose of limiting ourselves to candidates with bench experience, if it has no bearing on their performance either way?
I never agreed nor acknowledged... which is probably why I don't agree or acknowledge.
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?
probably to get an idea how she is going to rule on controversial issues.
It's certainly legitimate to try to infer how she might rule on controversial issues, but that's a separate issue from experience. One does not necessarily need to have bench experience to get an idea of one's general legal philosophy. Similarly, bench experience is no guarantee that people know anything about someone's legal philosophy. Think David Souter.
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.Then you're comment about Scalia's opinion being more qualified? Still irrelevant.
Again? Scalia says the exact opposite. He's a brilliant legal mind, and a Supreme Court Justice for decades. If you're not going to make a more substantive argument, I'm going to have to go on credibility of the people making the declarations. You lose.Presidential appointments for the SCOTUS should have 1 to 2+ years on the bench prior to their appointment.
You've made no reasonable or substantiated argument to support your position to begin with. Just stated your opinion, really.My original point stands. You've made no resonable or substantiated argument to refute it. Hence the lack to needing an additional or new one.
I addressed this elsewhere.Given the last 40 years of that illustrious history and lacking unqualified appointees... but you don't seem to want to discuss that part.
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? Scalia, the intellectual leader of the Conservative wing of the SCOTUS wants people with more diverse backgrounds on the SCOTUS because ... he wants more 'heart' in their decision making?Why don't you write him a nice letter and ask him? As for me, I prefer law and judges to use facts, not emotions.
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.
If one were to hazard an informed guess as to why such a distinction in treatment between judges and prosecutors, on the one hand, and other public officials, on the other, obtains, mine would be that those who decide the common law know through personal experience the sort of pressures that might exist for such decisionmakers in the absence of absolute immunity, but may not know, or may have forgotten, that similar pressures exist in the case of nonjudicial public officials to whom difficult decisions are committed. But the cynical among us might not unreasonably feel that this is simply another unfortunate example of judges treating those who are not part of the judicial machinery as "lesser breeds without the law."
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.