Take on Kagan?

Damocles said:
She seems to be a reflection of Obama, actually. No experience in the direction of the office she is up for.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly and what better way to underscore that fact by appointing someone who will be eternally beholding to him for this gesture, perhaps soon to be, appointment?

See? You don't have to have hardly any experience necessary to eff the job up. Look at BHO!

I wonder how he keeps his pants up with all those people he has in his back pocket? Perhaps the smoking helps keep the additional weight off.
 
http://ask.yahoo.com/20051103.html


The members of the current Supreme Court were all judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals. But not all Supreme Court judges held prior judicial experience. According to several biographies of the Supreme Court justices, 41 of them weren't judges before sitting on the highest court in the land. They were all lawyers, and many had long careers in public office. One even played professional football.
 
Yurt said:
i disagree. i don't believe one had to be a judge in order to be a qualified judge. making rulings based on the law and the constitution can be done without having ever been a judge. imo, there are pleny of career judges, especially in the federal court system, who have no business being there despite years of experience....
Click to expand...
I disagree. Her qualifications to be "a judge" are exemplary, but to jump directly into the "judge of judges" role is quite a bit like Obama jumping from Jr. Senator with hardly any time under his belt to being the Executive Branch...
 
Yurt said:
i disagree. i don't believe one had to be a judge in order to be a qualified judge. making rulings based on the law and the constitution can be done without having ever been a judge. imo, there are pleny of career judges, especially in the federal court system, who have no business being there despite years of experience....
Click to expand...

indeed, one not even need be a lawyer to be a judge. Those are probably better anyway.
 
Damocles said:
I disagree. Her qualifications to be "a judge" are exemplary, but to jump directly into the "judge of judges" role is quite a bit like Obama jumping from Jr. Senator with hardly any time under his belt to being the Executive Branch...
Click to expand...

ok...the founders also didn't believe you had to have prior experience as a judge or lawyer in order to sit on the high bench...in fact, you don't even need a law degree
 
Yurt said:
i disagree. i don't believe one had to be a judge in order to be a qualified judge. making rulings based on the law and the constitution can be done without having ever been a judge. imo, there are pleny of career judges, especially in the federal court system, who have no business being there despite years of experience....
Click to expand...

I wish she had been a judge. That way we could see some of her rulings. At this point, we have no idea what she would do.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
I wish she had been a judge. That way we could see some of her rulings. At this point, we have no idea what she would do.
Click to expand...

Why so you could say she was tooo liberal?

You have NEVER answered why its OK if shes right leaning but not if shes left leaning?
 
TuTu Monroe said:
I wish she had been a judge. That way we could see some of her rulings. At this point, we have no idea what she would do.
Click to expand...

what is baffling is that obama called her a constitutional scholar....yet she hasn't written anything (to my knowledge) on the subject and in fact, has hardly written anything....much like obama...

imo, if you haven't written anything, you're not a scholar
 
Yurt said:
what is baffling is that obama called her a constitutional scholar....yet she hasn't written anything (to my knowledge) on the subject and in fact, has hardly written anything....much like obama...

imo, if you haven't written anything, you're not a scholar
Click to expand...

Well, you know how Obama lies about everything.
 
Yurt said:
hypocrite....you like left leaning judges and not right leaning judges....why is that OK????
Click to expand...

when we have a SCOTUS that is for decades now going to be right leaning even though the people are not I think I have a reason to worry.

You people do not.

It already overreflects your position
 
This is the clown that banned the military recruiters from the Harvard campus ? Thats disgraceful....

For that alone, she should not be confirmed.
 
Yurt said:
what is baffling is that obama called her a constitutional scholar....yet she hasn't written anything (to my knowledge) on the subject and in fact, has hardly written anything....much like obama...

imo, if you haven't written anything, you're not a scholar
Click to expand...


IMO, if you don't really know much about a person, like, for example, the fact that the person was a tenured professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago and Harvard (where the person subsequently became Dean) and the fact that the person has written several articles on constitutional law, you probably shouldn't opine on whether that person is a "scholar" of the Constitution.
 
Surprisingly enough, I am not opposed to this pick. I think she is a left-wing loony tune, but she is replacing a left-wing loony tune, so it's just not going to be that big of a deal regarding decisions. The president, according to the Constitution, gets to nominate the judges, and unless there is something which specifically disqualifies them, they should be confirmed because that is who the president picked. I know that's a hard thing for partisans to accept, and seldom is ever a pick that everyone likes, but it is part of the privilege of being the president, to pick the justices, and that should be respected regardless of who the president is.
 
evince said:
when we have a SCOTUS that is for decades now going to be right leaning even though the people are not I think I have a reason to worry.

You people do not.

It already overreflects your position
Click to expand...


Can you support your absurdity that we are NOT a center-right country, like every reputable research organization has concluded for decades?
 
NigelTufnel said:
IMO, if you don't really know much about a person, like, for example, the fact that the person was a tenured professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago and Harvard (where the person subsequently became Dean) and the fact that the person has written several articles on constitutional law, you probably shouldn't opine on whether that person is a "scholar" of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

frankly, given that she has almost nothing out there to peg her positions on, it would be hard to call her a 'scholar'. I've seen dozens of 'scholars' who talk like they never read the constitution.
 
Damocles said:
What makes you ask only me what I am talking about?
Click to expand...

Honestly it is because you usually give the most honest and thought provoking answer. Your perspective is of much more interest to me than what I usually get from others.

Its a complament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top