Take on Kagan?

Damocles said:
Decisions are lacking whereby people can understand how she rules and if she is capable of removing herself from the decision and ruling on law. She doesn't have a record as a judge, nor has she been discoursing on the subject of judicial decisions.

She's a blank page.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that does not make it more likely that she will be a poor justice.
 
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...

I call that a good thing, an outsider who is otherwise very qualified. A fresh perspective and a unique outlook.
 
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...

And Obama has doen a great job...dispite his "lack of experience"!

Being a Justice of the S.Ct is so different than being an appeals Ct. Judge id say its not an important factor in what type of judge one will be.

Remember when the Cons said that Palin was experienced enough to be VP after serving a year as Gov. of Alaska?
 
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...

Id say that qualifies her as a scholar.
 
Yurt said:
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
Click to expand...
Nor is there a "required" amount of experience to be the President, which changes nothing about my point.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow. Im impressed.
 
Jarod said:
And Obama has doen a great job...dispite his "lack of experience"!

Being a Justice of the S.Ct is so different than being an appeals Ct. Judge id say its not an important factor in what type of judge one will be.

Remember when the Cons said that Palin was experienced enough to be VP after serving a year as Gov. of Alaska?
Click to expand...
We disagree on how great a job the current Executive is doing. And they usually said she had "more experience than Obama", not that she was "qualified".
 
Damocles said:
We disagree on how great a job the current Executive is doing.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but dispite your disagreement with his politics, I belive objectivly, as far as his ability to do the job... not his politics, one must agree he is handeling it fairly well....

He has gotten major legislation passed. He has set a path in Iraq and Afganistan.
 
Damocles said:
Nor is there a "required" amount of experience to be the President, which changes nothing about my point.
Click to expand...

you have to be at leats 35, lived in the US for a certain amount of time...that indicates a certain amount of experience

to sit on the scotus, there are no requirements
 
Jarod said:
Maybe, but dispite your disagreement with his politics, I belive objectivly, as far as his ability to do the job... not his politics, one must agree he is handeling it fairly well....

He has gotten major legislation passed. He has set a path in Iraq and Afganistan.
Click to expand...
No, one must not agree with that. I believe that he is deliberately divisive and doing a terrible job as the Executive. I also think Bush was terrible at it, but was more of a "uniter" than this guy ever thought of being. Couple that with having equally bad policies as Bush and an equal penchant to grow government and the power of the executive specifically and I would say he was doing very poorly indeed.

While he can read a speech better and avoid gaffes more often, that does not make him a good Executive.
 
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...

what articles? like i said....to my knowledge...being a dean or a professor does not a scholar make

if you have knowledge otherwise, don't be a prick, just give the knowledge...good lord, forbig someone have an opinion about her when so little is know...hence my caveats which you of course missed due to your poor reading comprehension skills
 
Damocles said:
No, one must not agree with that. I believe that he is deliberately divisive and doing a terrible job as the Executive. I also think Bush was terrible at it, but was more of a "uniter" than this guy ever thought of being. Couple that with having equally bad policies as Bush and an equal penchant to grow government and the power of the executive specifically and I would say he was doing very poorly indeed.

While he can read a speech better and avoid gaffes more often, that does not make him a good Executive.
Click to expand...

Well you are entitled to that opinion. I disagree.

Personally Id like a president who has never been in politics, Id also like a S. Ct. Justice who has never been a judge.
 
Yurt said:
you have to be at leats 35, lived in the US for a certain amount of time...that indicates a certain amount of experience

to sit on the scotus, there are no requirements
Click to expand...
Which again changes nothing about my point. It appears that this nomination is a reflection of the current Executive and underqualified for the position compared to other more exemplary nominations for the same job from the past.
 
Yurt said:
what articles? like i said....to my knowledge...being a dean or a professor does not a scholar make

if you have knowledge otherwise, don't be a prick, just give the knowledge...good lord, forbig someone have an opinion about her when so little is know...hence my caveats which you of course missed due to your poor reading comprehension skills
Click to expand...

She was editor of the Harvard Law Review... for one thing.
 
Jarod said:
Well you are entitled to that opinion. I disagree.

Personally Id like a president who has never been in politics, Id also like a S. Ct. Justice who has never been a judge.
Click to expand...
I actually don't care that she hasn't been a judge. I am more interested in her philosophy on "Social Justice" and other things that we do not know about. I would prefer a stronger political record so that people know what they are getting rather than a huge question mark.

This whole thing reminds me a bit of Harriet Myers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top