is obama's supreme court pick a step in the wrong direction?

Godfather.

battan1120 wrote:

She has big bank experience. Not surprising plus she prefers tuna over sausage

that's funny !!!!!

Godfather.

Jason P

After pondering this pick for the last few days, it still boggles my mind that someone who hasn't served as a judge before has been nominated for this post. She seems smart and has a good resume but lacks (any) experience.

Not that I have a say in any of this nonsense anyway :(

Godfather.

Jason P wrote:

After pondering this pick for the last few days, it still boggles my mind that someone who hasn't served as a judge before has been nominated for this post. She seems smart and has a good resume but lacks (any) experience.

Not that I have a say in any of this nonsense anyway :(

that's what people say about obama too !

Godfather.

he still stands

Jason P wrote:

After pondering this pick for the last few days, it still boggles my mind that someone who hasn't served as a judge before has been nominated for this post. She seems smart and has a good resume but lacks (any) experience.

Not that I have a say in any of this nonsense anyway :(

something like 40 of the 111 supreme court justices have not had experience being a judge, so I don't know why everyone is worried about this. To say she "isn't experienced" is ridiculous. She is probably one of the top 10 people in Law in the damn world. A judge has experience... making decisions based on the facts perceieved truths. Its not like she wants to become an astronaut and has never flown a plane before...

I do not like her opinion on holding terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial.

I do like her stance on gay rights, marriage, etc.

Other than that, we know very little about her stance on key topics...

cajunkiwi

aerial wrote:

And he was calling it, as it is !......
Double standards?

I don’t think adults should throw around insults but when confronted harshly human nature prevails with a defense......
In other words If you can’t take it don’t dish it out! Male or female

If he can't take the insults that come his way, maybe he should stop posting gibberish fabricated quotes without fact-checking them first?

The original insult was harsh, and she apologized for it - but it's not like godfather comes out of this smelling like roses, either. He posted utter bollocks, and later admitted that he hadn't even taken 10 seconds to fact-check it before posting it, but when he got called out for it he called the person a bitch.

Seriously, is yet another threat on AMT going to be hijacked by name calling?

he still stands

all ya need is love...

mikepegg44

Godfather. wrote:

Jason P wrote:

After pondering this pick for the last few days, it still boggles my mind that someone who hasn't served as a judge before has been nominated for this post. She seems smart and has a good resume but lacks (any) experience.

Not that I have a say in any of this nonsense anyway :(

that's what people say about obama too !

Godfather.

the supreme court justices have the most power in just about all of the government. Think about it, they are appointed for life, and basically get to choose how the federal and state governments get to legislate based on their interpretations of the constitution. For someone to be nominated to the position without ever deciding a case is very unnerving. The cases these justices hear are the cream of the crop so to speak.
I think the whole country finally realized how important the justices were during the 2000 election. For instance, if the AG challenges are heard, this woman could be deciding the legalities of the new health care law, do we really want someone with no experience as a judge deciding something that will effect the whole country and put new implied powers in the constitution? If she is confirmed hopefully this worry will all be for not. I don't care if she is a liberal "living document" type judge or a strict contitutionalist, just hope she is up for the challenge. She has about as much judge experience as Harriet Miers and she was roundly rejected. Not to say they are the same, but just because you are smart or a good lawyer doesn't mean you will make a good judge.

he still stands

again, 40 of the 111 supreme court justices did not have experience being a judge.

it isn't that rare, although it hasn't happened during the past few decades.

some of the "best" justices didn't have experience being a judge... Earl Warren (social freedoms), William Rehnquist (federalism), John Marshall (made the Supreme Court a center of power). Marshall is considered by most historians to be the "best" justice of all time.

mikepegg44

he still stands wrote:

again, 40 of the 111 supreme court justices did not have experience being a judge.

it isn't that rare, although it hasn't happened during the past few decades.

some of the "best" justices didn't have experience being a judge... Earl Warren (social freedoms), William Rehnquist (federalism), John Marshall (made the Supreme Court a center of power). Marshall is considered by most historians to be the "best" justice of all time.

I am not saying she won't work out at all, I just would prefer someone have been a judge. It certainly can work out and hopefully it does. My guess is she will have a tough confirmation simply because of the fact she hasn't been a judge. Can you imagine someone bringing up a paper you wrote 20 years ago and questioning you about it? no thanks.

That being said I hope who ever gets confirmed does a great job and comes with the same liberal strength that stevens did so there remains the current balance.

he still stands

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am not saying she won't work out at all, I just would prefer someone have been a judge.

Why?

mikepegg44 wrote:

That being said I hope who ever gets confirmed does a great job and comes with the same liberal strength that stevens did so there remains the current balance.

I don't think there is any question about that. She has a conservative view about terrorist suspects but I don't find that to be odd at all, considering she is Jewish. Everything else should tell us that she'll be a liberal voice for years to come... but I'm not of the opinion that that is definitely a good thing. If we use the word conservative in its modern definition, then yes I wouldn't want another conservative person in the court. But if we use the appropriate definition of conservative (minimal government, personal freedom, staunch support of the 10th amendment) then I would be all for it. The modern liberal approach is becoming over-bearing in my opinion. We might as well just nerf the whole fucking world to make everyone safe.

cajunkiwi

Okay - so what do people think of decisions she HAS made in the past? Here's one I was reading this morning:

"On Hardball Chris Matthews reports that conservatives are angry about Elena Kagan’s decision to deny military recruiters equal access to students of Harvard Law School while she was the dean. Matthews turns to Nation columnist Melissa Harris-Lacewell and political writer at The Daily Beast Peter Beinart to explain whether Kagan’s decision was justified. Beinart argues that Kagan should apologize to the military because she hurt the relationship between the military and the academy. But Harris-Lacewell disagrees because the American Association of Law Schools has a policy that employers who discriminate in their hiring practices should not be allowed to recruit on law school campuses. So in this case, Harris-Lacewell argues, Kagan made the right decision.

“Part of what a law school dean is meant to do is represent the values of the current legal environment,” Harris-Lacewell says. “This is precisely what you want from a Supreme Court justice, someone who has strong opinions who nevertheless provides as much access as she can…and complies by the [law].”"

mikepegg44

double post

mikepegg44

he still stands wrote:

Why?

Because I like the idea of someone who has made decisions and presided over cases with worry of any decision they make being overturned at appeal. It just seems to me that someone who has gone through this type of decision making would be better suited for such an important position. Again it is only my opinion, it isn't like it is impossible to do a good job without going through those things. I just would be more comfortable with someone who has made decisions before overturning cases than someone who hasn't.

mikepegg44 wrote:

That being said I hope who ever gets confirmed does a great job and comes with the same liberal strength that stevens did so there remains the current balance.

he still stands wrote:

I don't think there is any question about that. She has a conservative view about terrorist suspects but I don't find that to be odd at all, considering she is Jewish. Everything else should tell us that she'll be a liberal voice for years to come... but I'm not of the opinion that that is definitely a good thing. If we use the word conservative in its modern definition, then yes I wouldn't want another conservative person in the court. But if we use the appropriate definition of conservative (minimal government, personal freedom, staunch support of the 10th amendment) then I would be all for it. The modern liberal approach is becoming over-bearing in my opinion. We might as well just nerf the whole fucking world to make everyone safe.

possibly, I just like the idea of opposite ideologies sitting on the bench. If they all thought the same, or we only put in people who think the same, there might as well only be one. I don't agree with a lot of the liberal agenda but firmly believe that they need a voice on the bench considering many in this country do agree with it.[/quote]

he still stands

cajunkiwi wrote:

Okay - so what do people think of decisions she HAS made in the past? Here's one I was reading this morning:

"On Hardball Chris Matthews reports that conservatives are angry about Elena Kagan’s decision to deny military recruiters equal access to students of Harvard Law School while she was the dean. Matthews turns to Nation columnist Melissa Harris-Lacewell and political writer at The Daily Beast Peter Beinart to explain whether Kagan’s decision was justified. Beinart argues that Kagan should apologize to the military because she hurt the relationship between the military and the academy. But Harris-Lacewell disagrees because the American Association of Law Schools has a policy that employers who discriminate in their hiring practices should not be allowed to recruit on law school campuses. So in this case, Harris-Lacewell argues, Kagan made the right decision.

“Part of what a law school dean is meant to do is represent the values of the current legal environment,” Harris-Lacewell says. “This is precisely what you want from a Supreme Court justice, someone who has strong opinions who nevertheless provides as much access as she can…and complies by the [law].”"

She made absolutely the right decision here and upheld the discrimination rule... it doesn't matter at all who it is doing the discrimination (Acme Inc or the US Military).

cincybearcat

he still stands wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am not saying she won't work out at all, I just would prefer someone have been a judge.

Why?

Are you serious? You can't figure it out?

I'd also rather that my car mechanic have actually worked on a car before. Silly me.

Pepe Silvia

he still stands wrote:

cajunkiwi wrote:

Okay - so what do people think of decisions she HAS made in the past? Here's one I was reading this morning:

"On Hardball Chris Matthews reports that conservatives are angry about Elena Kagan’s decision to deny military recruiters equal access to students of Harvard Law School while she was the dean. Matthews turns to Nation columnist Melissa Harris-Lacewell and political writer at The Daily Beast Peter Beinart to explain whether Kagan’s decision was justified. Beinart argues that Kagan should apologize to the military because she hurt the relationship between the military and the academy. But Harris-Lacewell disagrees because the American Association of Law Schools has a policy that employers who discriminate in their hiring practices should not be allowed to recruit on law school campuses. So in this case, Harris-Lacewell argues, Kagan made the right decision.

“Part of what a law school dean is meant to do is represent the values of the current legal environment,” Harris-Lacewell says. “This is precisely what you want from a Supreme Court justice, someone who has strong opinions who nevertheless provides as much access as she can…and complies by the [law].”"

She made absolutely the right decision here and upheld the discrimination rule... it doesn't matter at all who it is doing the discrimination (Acme Inc or the US Military).

i saw on fox news, of all places, this is actually not true. she never banned recruiters from harvard, as chris matthews said last night

http://www.campusprogress.org/opinions/ ... -about-her

The facts behind the decision not to allow military recruiters at Harvard are subtler than Kagan’s critics make them out to be. For one thing, Kagan wasn't the one who barred the recruiters. Her predecessor as dean, Robert Clark, has explained that the military was barred from the law school’s Office of Career Services under its antidiscrimination policy since 1979—long before Kagan had even entered Harvard Law School, much less taken the job as dean.

so not only did she not do it but they were only banned from 1 office, not the campus

ed243421

Godfather. wrote:

President Obama nominates Solicitor General Elena Kagan to U.S. Supreme Court, potentially making her first justice without judicial experience in 38 years...........obama had no experience either..what a superise :?

Godfather.

dubyaa's dad brought 1 up with less than 1 year experience and dubyaa picked 1 with less than 2 years.
and what was dubyaa experienced at anyway?

he still stands

cincybearcat wrote:

he still stands wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am not saying she won't work out at all, I just would prefer someone have been a judge.

Why?

Are you serious? You can't figure it out?

I'd also rather that my car mechanic have actually worked on a car before. Silly me.

She listens to arguments and makes a decision based on the evidence... she has been part of this process for years so I think she understands it fairly well.

Listen.

Understand.

Decide.

This is so fucking retarded.... its not like a judge has some sort of skill that can only be acquired by wearing a fucking black robe.

So please can anyone else explain this to me? She has the most impressive Law Resume I've ever seen, a judge has an incredibly simple job description... what is the g'damn problem?

Godfather.

cajunkiwi wrote:

aerial wrote:

And he was calling it, as it is !......
Double standards?

I don’t think adults should throw around insults but when confronted harshly human nature prevails with a defense......
In other words If you can’t take it don’t dish it out! Male or female

If he can't take the insults that come his way, maybe he should stop posting gibberish fabricated quotes without fact-checking them first?

The original insult was harsh, and she apologized for it - but it's not like godfather comes out of this smelling like roses, either. He posted utter bollocks, and later admitted that he hadn't even taken 10 seconds to fact-check it before posting it, but when he got called out for it he called the person a bitch.

Seriously, is yet another threat on AMT going to be hijacked by name calling?

I also apologized cajun,get over it I did.

Godfather.

cincybearcat

he still stands wrote:

She listens to arguments and makes a decision based on the evidence... she has been part of this process for years so I think she understands it fairly well.

Listen.

Understand.

Decide.

This is so fucking retarded.... its not like a judge has some sort of skill that can only be acquired by wearing a fucking black robe.

So please can anyone else explain this to me? She has the most impressive Law Resume I've ever seen, a judge has an incredibly simple job description... what is the g'damn problem?

So by your definition, just about any parent is qualified for the supreme court.

Just like someone else said, she could be just fine. But I'd much rather have a current judge appointed to the Supreme Court. It's a lifetime thing ya know, you can't just hope for the best.