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.
??? No.... not "every parent" has an incredible law background including the Dean of Law at Harvard (first woman to do so), US Solicitor General, Law Clerk for Thurgood Marshall, College Professor of Law, etc etc...
She knows the law. She knows how to interpret the law. Why does she have to have worn a black robe before?
anyone????????????
I'm not saying I'm advocating for this lady I'm just TRYING MY F'ING HARDEST to understand the logic here....
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
In regards to the experience issue, there is a huge difference between book smarts and street smarts. As an analogy, lets say that myself and a friend graduate with a B.S. (engineering) in four years. I choose to go to work immediately while my friend stays an extra 3 years for a masters. When he / she enters the workplace, I will have three years of real-world experience that cannot be replicated in the classroom. My opinions, thought process, and overall organization will be more valuable. Experience cannot be understated.
Also, how can someone be vetted properly without any background to judge? Now that I think about it, that is probably why she was nominated . . . she has no record, therefore she cannot be picked apart.
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.
??? No.... not "every parent" has an incredible law background including the Dean of Law at Harvard (first woman to do so), US Solicitor General, Law Clerk for Thurgood Marshall, College Professor of Law, etc etc...
She knows the law. She knows how to interpret the law. Why does she have to have worn a black robe before?
anyone????????????
I'm not saying I'm advocating for this lady I'm just TRYING MY F'ING HARDEST to understand the logic here....
logic and politics..is there such a thing when all or most ideas involving politics are swade by money and power.
just a thought.
In regards to the experience issue, there is a huge difference between book smarts and street smarts. As an analogy, lets say that myself and a friend graduate with a B.S. (engineering) in four years. I choose to go to work immediately while my friend stays an extra 3 years for a masters. When he / she enters the workplace, I will have three years of real-world experience that cannot be replicated in the classroom. My opinions, thought process, and overall organization will be more valuable. Experience cannot be understated.
Also, how can someone be vetted properly without any background to judge? Now that I think about it, that is probably why she was nominated . . . she has no record, therefore she cannot be picked apart.
That's my logic.
agreed
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
In regards to the experience issue, there is a huge difference between book smarts and street smarts. As an analogy, lets say that myself and a friend graduate with a B.S. (engineering) in four years. I choose to go to work immediately while my friend stays an extra 3 years for a masters. When he / she enters the workplace, I will have three years of real-world experience that cannot be replicated in the classroom. My opinions, thought process, and overall organization will be more valuable. Experience cannot be understated.
Also, how can someone be vetted properly without any background to judge? Now that I think about it, that is probably why she was nominated . . . she has no record, therefore she cannot be picked apart.
That's my logic.
That is a poor analogy. She hasn't only been taught the process without any experience, which is what you are saying. She has 25 years of experience in law.
I guess when you have to use an analogy it is because you can't think of a proper reason why this specific situation is right/wrong.
The background thing definitely has some merit. We don't know where she stands on almost everything. You're probably right about that one... it is hard to deny her a seat (if you're a republican) based on anything tangible if you don't know her opinion on anything except habeas corpus and gay rights.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
I guess when you have to use an analogy it is because you can't think of a proper reason why this specific situation is right/wrong.
My original proper reason was the lack of any experience behind the bench.
and I keep asking, why does that matter?
Am I speaking greek here?
no, you are just ignoring the answers you are getting. there is no paper trail on her and she has never had to decide a case based on what has been presented. She has been in academia as well as clerking. Neither of those things are to be taken lightly, however she has yet to be a judge. Try this analogy on if you didn't like the last one. If I have 25 years of sales and business experience, does that make me able to run a fortune 500 company as a CEO? That is the leap she is making, she is going from practicing and teaching law to making decisions that will effect the American public for a very long time. This is the biggest of the big, probably the most important decision makers in the country as far as I am concerned, and I just am uncomfortable with someone who has never had to decide a case making these kinds of decisions.
And there is really nothing wrong with making analogies when discussing topics. Some work and some don't, but don't make it sound like they are useless in conversation.
and I just checked, nothing Greek in my explanation either
As you pointed out, some have not had judge experience in the past and have worked out fine, but I would have been uncomfortable with them too. I am not saying she will fail miserably, it just gives me pause that is all.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
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?
The god damn problem I have has nothing to do with not being a judge but being paid by goldman sachs while on their advisory board for a few years and supporting the indefinite detention of SUSPECTED terrorist without a trial just for 2 things...
Really, had bush nominated someone with those credentials many would be going crazy.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
no, you are just ignoring the answers you are getting.
I have coherently and thoroughly debunked every "answer" I have gotten. I use quotation marks there because they aren't answers at all... people are saying the answer is either intrinsic (which is no answer at all) or they use an improper analogy.
... she has never had to decide a case based on what has been presented.
That isn't true at all. That is what she does all day, every day. She is paid to know the law and knowing the law means being knowledge of how to interpret it and decide what the right decision is. She HAS NOT done it in a formal setting. Is that the problem? Will she get scared or use her ego and make the wrong decision? I don't know... that is the best answer I can come up with.
She has been in academia as well as clerking. Neither of those things are to be taken lightly, however she has yet to be a judge. Try this analogy on if you didn't like the last one. If I have 25 years of sales and business experience, does that make me able to run a fortune 500 company as a CEO? That is the leap she is making, she is going from practicing and teaching law to making decisions that will effect the American public for a very long time. This is the biggest of the big, probably the most important decision makers in the country as far as I am concerned, and I just am uncomfortable with someone who has never had to decide a case making these kinds of decisions.
Another useless analogy. You are saying that she doesn't have the experience at a high level (just "sales and business experience"... which I assume you are saying mean menial experience... low level... routine.) That is another absurd answer! Go back and look at her resume... it couldn't be more impressive and is anything but menial. By your logic, any county judge would be more suitable for the position.
And there is really nothing wrong with making analogies when discussing topics. Some work and some don't, but don't make it sound like they are useless in conversation.
and I just checked, nothing Greek in my explanation either
As you pointed out, some have not had judge experience in the past and have worked out fine, but I would have been uncomfortable with them too. I am not saying she will fail miserably, it just gives me pause that is all.
If it gives you pause, that is great. But what we were arguing was "why or why not black-robe experience is NEEDED to become a supreme court justice." It gives me pause, too, I was only trying to get an answer from the people who vehemently claim that she shouldn't be a SCJ because she hasn't been a judge before. Which I still don't have...
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
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?
The god damn problem I have has nothing to do with not being a judge but being paid by goldman sachs while on their advisory board for a few years and supporting the indefinite detention of SUSPECTED terrorist without a trial just for 2 things...
Really, had bush nominated someone with those credentials many would be going crazy.
I hadn't heard about Goldman Sachs... that may be a red flag depending on what she knew, what she advised, and when she was there. It doesn't necessarily mean she is the devil... but yeah... potentially a red flag.
In regards to indefinite detention of suspected terrorists... I completely agree. Not cool, bro!
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
no, you are just ignoring the answers you are getting.
I have coherently and thoroughly debunked every "answer" I have gotten. I use quotation marks there because they aren't answers at all... people are saying the answer is either intrinsic (which is no answer at all) or they use an improper analogy.
... she has never had to decide a case based on what has been presented.
That isn't true at all. That is what she does all day, every day. She is paid to know the law and knowing the law means being knowledge of how to interpret it and decide what the right decision is. She HAS NOT done it in a formal setting. Is that the problem? Will she get scared or use her ego and make the wrong decision? I don't know... that is the best answer I can come up with.
She has been in academia as well as clerking. Neither of those things are to be taken lightly, however she has yet to be a judge. Try this analogy on if you didn't like the last one. If I have 25 years of sales and business experience, does that make me able to run a fortune 500 company as a CEO? That is the leap she is making, she is going from practicing and teaching law to making decisions that will effect the American public for a very long time. This is the biggest of the big, probably the most important decision makers in the country as far as I am concerned, and I just am uncomfortable with someone who has never had to decide a case making these kinds of decisions.
Another useless analogy. You are saying that she doesn't have the experience at a high level (just "sales and business experience"... which I assume you are saying mean menial experience... low level... routine.) That is another absurd answer! Go back and look at her resume... it couldn't be more impressive and is anything but menial. By your logic, any county judge would be more suitable for the position.
And there is really nothing wrong with making analogies when discussing topics. Some work and some don't, but don't make it sound like they are useless in conversation.
and I just checked, nothing Greek in my explanation either
As you pointed out, some have not had judge experience in the past and have worked out fine, but I would have been uncomfortable with them too. I am not saying she will fail miserably, it just gives me pause that is all.
If it gives you pause, that is great. But what we were arguing was "why or why not black-robe experience is NEEDED to become a supreme court justice." It gives me pause, too, I was only trying to get an answer from the people who vehemently claim that she shouldn't be a SCJ because she hasn't been a judge before. Which I still don't have...
you have debunked these answers with opinion. anyone can be a scj with no experience, the questions is should they, and I answer no to that. The analogy I gave was solid, she has plenty of law experience, but no experience running a courtroom or deciding cases. Those are different things. And someone in sales and business for 25 years has plenty of business experience, but with no management experience they should not and more than likely would not be able to jump to a position like CEO. Sorry, difference of OPINION I guess. Just because other judges in the past have not had experience doesn't make it right. Again, hopefully if she is confirmed she does a great job and can be named with the other judges you brought up. I just have my doubts.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
no, you are just ignoring the answers you are getting.
I have coherently and thoroughly debunked every "answer" I have gotten. I use quotation marks there because they aren't answers at all... people are saying the answer is either intrinsic (which is no answer at all) or they use an improper analogy.
I have no idea how you can't understand this. I can understand how you might disagree and that it doesn't matter to you, but I have no idea how you think this might not matter to others and they may actually have a point.
If you were hiring an individual to manage a business. You had 2 candidates with equal credentials except 1 had experience working and managing in the same exact field that you business is in...which would you hire?
Can they both do the job...maybe. Is one the easier choice to make because you actually have background information on how they handle themselves in the exact same setting? Yep.
It is an important fact that she has never had to sit in a courtroom as a judge and decide on a case. This is a LIFETIME appointment. Pretty important to get it right. Can she do it? Maybe, but what exactly would you base your opinion on? Certainly not her record, because there isn't any.
It's the difference between theory and practical experience to me.
no, you are just ignoring the answers you are getting.
I have coherently and thoroughly debunked every "answer" I have gotten. I use quotation marks there because they aren't answers at all... people are saying the answer is either intrinsic (which is no answer at all) or they use an improper analogy.
I have no idea how you can't understand this. I can understand how you might disagree and that it doesn't matter to you, but I have no idea how you think this might not matter to others and they may actually have a point.
If you were hiring an individual to manage a business. You had 2 candidates with equal credentials except 1 had experience working and managing in the same exact field that you business is in...which would you hire?
Can they both do the job...maybe. Is one the easier choice to make because you actually have background information on how they handle themselves in the exact same setting? Yep.
It is an important fact that she has never had to sit in a courtroom as a judge and decide on a case. This is a LIFETIME appointment. Pretty important to get it right. Can she do it? Maybe, but what exactly would you base your opinion on? Certainly not her record, because there isn't any.
It's the difference between theory and practical experience to me.
QUIT SPEAKING GREEK!!!!
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
people keep giving examples regarding other jobs... how it is important those THOSE jobs require experience... quit giving me examples in business, mechanics, etc... and give me a reason why in this SPECIFIC FUCKING CASE why it is important for her to have been a judge at a lower level?
No one has given me an answer yet.
Only, "experience as a judge makes her more credible."
OKAY i get that is your opinion. FINE.
WHY???
Probably the top 3 Supreme Court Justices of all time (by most historians opinion) did not have experience wearing the black robe...
Its not like you're hiring a person to fly an airplane who has only been through school and is an aeronautical engineer...
All a judge does is listen, understand, interpret.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
people keep giving examples regarding other jobs... how it is important those THOSE jobs require experience... quit giving me examples in business, mechanics, etc... and give me a reason why in this SPECIFIC FUCKING CASE why it is important for her to have been a judge at a lower level?
No one has given me an answer yet.
Only, "experience as a judge makes her more credible."
OKAY i get that is your opinion. FINE.
WHY???
Probably the top 3 Supreme Court Justices of all time (by most historians opinion) did not have experience wearing the black robe...
Its not like you're hiring a person to fly an airplane who has only been through school and is an aeronautical engineer...
All a judge does is listen, understand, interpret.
it's really not, my comment about "if I were president" really isen't that far off the mark,
every leader sourounds them selfs with people that will help move their plan forward.
if we don't aprove of a person that has been elected or appointed we find a way to discredit them....crap I'm guilty of that (nobama) it just the way things work.
I think her extensive background in law makes her perfectly capable of being a judge.
However, I'd like to know more specifics about her positions. I suppose that will all come out in the hearings so I'm willing to be patient. I think in recent years people have been so accustomed to being able to access a history of the nominee's position on each of the major issues within 20 minutes of their nomination (or even through the rumor mill before their nomination) that they're having a negative reaction to the fact that she doesn't have a record like that available. But, as hestillstands points out, it's really not unusual, we're just not used to it.
I'll wait for the hearings to make my decision on her...
people keep giving examples regarding other jobs... how it is important those THOSE jobs require experience... quit giving me examples in business, mechanics, etc... and give me a reason why in this SPECIFIC FUCKING CASE why it is important for her to have been a judge at a lower level?
Because she is the solicitor general for the current administration. She could be a rubber stamp on Obama's policies for all we know. The problem is that she does not have a record of deciding cases to look back on and say "she may have been SG, but her record as a judge proves that she can be impartial" how's that for a reason. the experience and paper trail matter. That specific enough to this case for you?
I wish I knew how to type that in greek so as to put it in what appears to be your native tongue...just kidding
I hope she can, I just want to know more.
who's on first again?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
With her education and knowledge I wonder why she has never been a judge? And why she wants to be now?
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
people keep giving examples regarding other jobs... how it is important those THOSE jobs require experience... quit giving me examples in business, mechanics, etc... and give me a reason why in this SPECIFIC FUCKING CASE why it is important for her to have been a judge at a lower level?
No one has given me an answer yet.
Only, "experience as a judge makes her more credible."
OKAY i get that is your opinion. FINE.
WHY???
Probably the top 3 Supreme Court Justices of all time (by most historians opinion) did not have experience wearing the black robe...
Its not like you're hiring a person to fly an airplane who has only been through school and is an aeronautical engineer...
All a judge does is listen, understand, interpret.
Since you obviously don't actually care about other people's points of view...I'm done
I'd also rather that my car mechanic have actually worked on a car before. Silly me.
...
But, would you rather drive a car that was designed and built by a Program Engineer or a maintenance mechanic?
And you have to remember... a lot of judges pass some pretty terrible judgements. Sort of like there are a lot of terrible auto mechanics out there... just because they are mechanics, doesn't mean they will fix your car.
...
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I'd also rather that my car mechanic have actually worked on a car before. Silly me.
...
But, would you rather drive a car that was designed and built by a Program Engineer or a maintenance mechanic?
And you have to remember... a lot of judges pass some pretty terrible judgements. Sort of like there are a lot of terrible auto mechanics out there... just because they are mechanics, doesn't mean they will fix your car.
...
i'd just rather a supreme court justice that doesn't
-defend monsanto
-support the indefinite detention of SUSPECTED terrorists without a trial
-sat on a goldman sachs advisory board
i don't think that's asking for too much, especially from mr. hope and change and "like the most liberal president in history EVER"
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I'd also rather that my car mechanic have actually worked on a car before. Silly me.
...
But, would you rather drive a car that was designed and built by a Program Engineer or a maintenance mechanic?
And you have to remember... a lot of judges pass some pretty terrible judgements. Sort of like there are a lot of terrible auto mechanics out there... just because they are mechanics, doesn't mean they will fix your car.
...
i'd just rather a supreme court justice that doesn't
-defend monsanto
-support the indefinite detention of SUSPECTED terrorists without a trial
-sat on a goldman sachs advisory board
i don't think that's asking for too much, especially from mr. hope and change and "like the most liberal president in history EVER"
...
I'm not defending her as a Justice... my point being, you do not need to have served as a judge to be on the Supreme Court. But you should possess a strong body of knowledge about Constitutional Law, to serve.
i just think it's fucking funny that Conservatives on this board oppose her solely because of the guy who appointed her... not on her opinions... which weigh heavier on the Conservative side. I mean, Obama could have appointed Judge Roy Bean to the court and the 'Conservative' rank on this board would have opposed it.
It all goes to show that people are split strictly along political party lines and very few are true independents.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I'm not defending her as a Justice... my point being, you do not need to have served as a judge to be on the Supreme Court. But you should possess a strong body of knowledge about Constitutional Law, to serve.
i just think it's fucking funny that Conservatives on this board oppose her solely because of the guy who appointed her... not on her opinions... which weigh heavier on the Conservative side. I mean, Obama could have appointed Judge Roy Bean to the court and the 'Conservative' rank on this board would have opposed it.
It all goes to show that people are split strictly along political party lines and very few are true independents.
oh, i know you weren't, it's just so damn aggravating. the lack of judicial experience isn't really an issue for me because while i would rather her have been a judge not to gain some kind of experience but to see where she stands on things but i feel i have seen where she stands on enough to make my decision. they are pushing her as this blank slate, the colbert report said it's like she just got off the plane yesterday but this just isn't true, while she hasn't done as much as many others she still has given her opinion on some very important issues.
it's like a big pr campaign or false advertising. they focus on rumors if she's gay or not or the colbert report makes jokes about drinking beer, playing softball and poker and not liking sausage, which he brought up in his segment 'grasping at straws' when he tried to find something bad about her and everyone is echoing what the talking heads say of 'well, we just don't know what she thinks' and are willing to give their blind support to obama and this image they have in their head of some lesbian dean of harvard that banned military recruiters from the harvard campus (which is a lie, she upheld the policy since '76 or '79 that recruiters aren't allowed in the office of career planning, not the campus) when she has shown herself to be pretty conersvative and upholding beliefs of the previous administration.
the media gave us faulty information and just took the administrations word for the case for war and they are doing it here
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
people keep giving examples regarding other jobs... how it is important those THOSE jobs require experience... quit giving me examples in business, mechanics, etc... and give me a reason why in this SPECIFIC FUCKING CASE why it is important for her to have been a judge at a lower level?
Because she is the solicitor general for the current administration. She could be a rubber stamp on Obama's policies for all we know. The problem is that she does not have a record of deciding cases to look back on and say "she may have been SG, but her record as a judge proves that she can be impartial" how's that for a reason. the experience and paper trail matter. That specific enough to this case for you?
I wish I knew how to type that in greek so as to put it in what appears to be your native tongue...just kidding
I hope she can, I just want to know more.
who's on first again?
Okay so she needs to have experience being a judge because it proves she can be impartial...
That makes sense. I don't think that is a reason to withhold the position from her but it might be something to consider.
Thanks for finally answering the question!
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Since you obviously don't actually care about other people's points of view...I'm done
Other's opinions are very important to me... even if I don't agree with them. They help me better understand the situation.
I was frustrated because it took 48 posts to finally get an answer about you and Mike's perspective on her needing to have black robe experience in order to be a judge. It is not good enough to just say it is implicit, to give analogies, or to say "experience is important."...
And the answer that I got (we need to know she'd be impartial), is understandable and I agree to a point, but it is not enough to withhold a SCJ seat from her, especially since 40 of the past 111 SCJs were in the same position as she is now.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Since you obviously don't actually care about other people's points of view...I'm done
Other's opinions are very important to me... even if I don't agree with them. They help me better understand the situation.
I was frustrated because it took 48 posts to finally get an answer about you and Mike's perspective on her needing to have black robe experience in order to be a judge. It is not good enough to just say it is implicit, to give analogies, or to say "experience is important."...
And the answer that I got (we need to know she'd be impartial), is understandable and I agree to a point, but it is not enough to withhold a SCJ seat from her, especially since 40 of the past 111 SCJs were in the same position as she is now.
I think it should. If you cannot be absolutely sure someone will be impartial, then you cannot approve her as SCJ. THIS IS A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. I just really hope the democratically led senate does not just force her through to a vote because of party allegiances and they really dig deep to find out what she is all about. If she passes that test than she will probably make a fantastic supreme court judge
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think it should. If you cannot be absolutely sure someone will be impartial, then you cannot approve her as SCJ. THIS IS A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. I just really hope the democratically led senate does not just force her through to a vote because of party allegiances and they really dig deep to find out what she is all about. If she passes that test than she will probably make a fantastic supreme court judge
well... I don't know that any SCJ is always impartial. Inevitably, beliefs and values will come into play in the Supreme Court because they are interpreting laws at that level. The law is NEVER explicit at that level, because if it was, it was have been handled at the County or State court level. So, their opinions based on life experiences and influences almost always come into play... making it hard to be impartial. But yeah, there are varying degrees of being impartial and I agree, it would be nice to know if she has a hard-line leftist approach or if she is a centrist. From the evidence available (Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, gun rights, gay rights) it appears she is some views that lean to the left AND the right.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Comments
??? No.... not "every parent" has an incredible law background including the Dean of Law at Harvard (first woman to do so), US Solicitor General, Law Clerk for Thurgood Marshall, College Professor of Law, etc etc...
She knows the law. She knows how to interpret the law. Why does she have to have worn a black robe before?
anyone????????????
I'm not saying I'm advocating for this lady I'm just TRYING MY F'ING HARDEST to understand the logic here....
Also, how can someone be vetted properly without any background to judge? Now that I think about it, that is probably why she was nominated . . . she has no record, therefore she cannot be picked apart.
That's my logic.
logic and politics..is there such a thing when all or most ideas involving politics are swade by money and power.
just a thought.
Godfather.
agreed
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
That is a poor analogy. She hasn't only been taught the process without any experience, which is what you are saying. She has 25 years of experience in law.
I guess when you have to use an analogy it is because you can't think of a proper reason why this specific situation is right/wrong.
The background thing definitely has some merit. We don't know where she stands on almost everything. You're probably right about that one... it is hard to deny her a seat (if you're a republican) based on anything tangible if you don't know her opinion on anything except habeas corpus and gay rights.
and I keep asking, why does that matter?
Am I speaking greek here?
no, you are just ignoring the answers you are getting. there is no paper trail on her and she has never had to decide a case based on what has been presented. She has been in academia as well as clerking. Neither of those things are to be taken lightly, however she has yet to be a judge. Try this analogy on if you didn't like the last one. If I have 25 years of sales and business experience, does that make me able to run a fortune 500 company as a CEO? That is the leap she is making, she is going from practicing and teaching law to making decisions that will effect the American public for a very long time. This is the biggest of the big, probably the most important decision makers in the country as far as I am concerned, and I just am uncomfortable with someone who has never had to decide a case making these kinds of decisions.
And there is really nothing wrong with making analogies when discussing topics. Some work and some don't, but don't make it sound like they are useless in conversation.
and I just checked, nothing Greek in my explanation either
As you pointed out, some have not had judge experience in the past and have worked out fine, but I would have been uncomfortable with them too. I am not saying she will fail miserably, it just gives me pause that is all.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The god damn problem I have has nothing to do with not being a judge but being paid by goldman sachs while on their advisory board for a few years and supporting the indefinite detention of SUSPECTED terrorist without a trial just for 2 things...
Really, had bush nominated someone with those credentials many would be going crazy.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I have coherently and thoroughly debunked every "answer" I have gotten. I use quotation marks there because they aren't answers at all... people are saying the answer is either intrinsic (which is no answer at all) or they use an improper analogy.
That isn't true at all. That is what she does all day, every day. She is paid to know the law and knowing the law means being knowledge of how to interpret it and decide what the right decision is. She HAS NOT done it in a formal setting. Is that the problem? Will she get scared or use her ego and make the wrong decision? I don't know... that is the best answer I can come up with.
Another useless analogy. You are saying that she doesn't have the experience at a high level (just "sales and business experience"... which I assume you are saying mean menial experience... low level... routine.) That is another absurd answer! Go back and look at her resume... it couldn't be more impressive and is anything but menial. By your logic, any county judge would be more suitable for the position.
If it gives you pause, that is great. But what we were arguing was "why or why not black-robe experience is NEEDED to become a supreme court justice." It gives me pause, too, I was only trying to get an answer from the people who vehemently claim that she shouldn't be a SCJ because she hasn't been a judge before. Which I still don't have...
I hadn't heard about Goldman Sachs... that may be a red flag depending on what she knew, what she advised, and when she was there. It doesn't necessarily mean she is the devil... but yeah... potentially a red flag.
In regards to indefinite detention of suspected terrorists... I completely agree. Not cool, bro!
you have debunked these answers with opinion. anyone can be a scj with no experience, the questions is should they, and I answer no to that. The analogy I gave was solid, she has plenty of law experience, but no experience running a courtroom or deciding cases. Those are different things. And someone in sales and business for 25 years has plenty of business experience, but with no management experience they should not and more than likely would not be able to jump to a position like CEO. Sorry, difference of OPINION I guess. Just because other judges in the past have not had experience doesn't make it right. Again, hopefully if she is confirmed she does a great job and can be named with the other judges you brought up. I just have my doubts.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
and that my friends is a power play.
Godfather.
I have no idea how you can't understand this. I can understand how you might disagree and that it doesn't matter to you, but I have no idea how you think this might not matter to others and they may actually have a point.
If you were hiring an individual to manage a business. You had 2 candidates with equal credentials except 1 had experience working and managing in the same exact field that you business is in...which would you hire?
Can they both do the job...maybe. Is one the easier choice to make because you actually have background information on how they handle themselves in the exact same setting? Yep.
It is an important fact that she has never had to sit in a courtroom as a judge and decide on a case. This is a LIFETIME appointment. Pretty important to get it right. Can she do it? Maybe, but what exactly would you base your opinion on? Certainly not her record, because there isn't any.
It's the difference between theory and practical experience to me.
QUIT SPEAKING GREEK!!!!
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
people keep giving examples regarding other jobs... how it is important those THOSE jobs require experience... quit giving me examples in business, mechanics, etc... and give me a reason why in this SPECIFIC FUCKING CASE why it is important for her to have been a judge at a lower level?
No one has given me an answer yet.
Only, "experience as a judge makes her more credible."
OKAY i get that is your opinion. FINE.
WHY???
Probably the top 3 Supreme Court Justices of all time (by most historians opinion) did not have experience wearing the black robe...
Its not like you're hiring a person to fly an airplane who has only been through school and is an aeronautical engineer...
All a judge does is listen, understand, interpret.
it's really not, my comment about "if I were president" really isen't that far off the mark,
every leader sourounds them selfs with people that will help move their plan forward.
if we don't aprove of a person that has been elected or appointed we find a way to discredit them....crap I'm guilty of that (nobama) it just the way things work.
Godfather
However, I'd like to know more specifics about her positions. I suppose that will all come out in the hearings so I'm willing to be patient. I think in recent years people have been so accustomed to being able to access a history of the nominee's position on each of the major issues within 20 minutes of their nomination (or even through the rumor mill before their nomination) that they're having a negative reaction to the fact that she doesn't have a record like that available. But, as hestillstands points out, it's really not unusual, we're just not used to it.
I'll wait for the hearings to make my decision on her...
Because she is the solicitor general for the current administration. She could be a rubber stamp on Obama's policies for all we know. The problem is that she does not have a record of deciding cases to look back on and say "she may have been SG, but her record as a judge proves that she can be impartial" how's that for a reason. the experience and paper trail matter. That specific enough to this case for you?
I wish I knew how to type that in greek so as to put it in what appears to be your native tongue...just kidding
I hope she can, I just want to know more.
who's on first again?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Since you obviously don't actually care about other people's points of view...I'm done
But, would you rather drive a car that was designed and built by a Program Engineer or a maintenance mechanic?
And you have to remember... a lot of judges pass some pretty terrible judgements. Sort of like there are a lot of terrible auto mechanics out there... just because they are mechanics, doesn't mean they will fix your car.
...
Hail, Hail!!!
i'd just rather a supreme court justice that doesn't
-defend monsanto
-support the indefinite detention of SUSPECTED terrorists without a trial
-sat on a goldman sachs advisory board
i don't think that's asking for too much, especially from mr. hope and change and "like the most liberal president in history EVER"
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I'm not defending her as a Justice... my point being, you do not need to have served as a judge to be on the Supreme Court. But you should possess a strong body of knowledge about Constitutional Law, to serve.
i just think it's fucking funny that Conservatives on this board oppose her solely because of the guy who appointed her... not on her opinions... which weigh heavier on the Conservative side. I mean, Obama could have appointed Judge Roy Bean to the court and the 'Conservative' rank on this board would have opposed it.
It all goes to show that people are split strictly along political party lines and very few are true independents.
Hail, Hail!!!
oh, i know you weren't, it's just so damn aggravating. the lack of judicial experience isn't really an issue for me because while i would rather her have been a judge not to gain some kind of experience but to see where she stands on things but i feel i have seen where she stands on enough to make my decision. they are pushing her as this blank slate, the colbert report said it's like she just got off the plane yesterday but this just isn't true, while she hasn't done as much as many others she still has given her opinion on some very important issues.
it's like a big pr campaign or false advertising. they focus on rumors if she's gay or not or the colbert report makes jokes about drinking beer, playing softball and poker and not liking sausage, which he brought up in his segment 'grasping at straws' when he tried to find something bad about her and everyone is echoing what the talking heads say of 'well, we just don't know what she thinks' and are willing to give their blind support to obama and this image they have in their head of some lesbian dean of harvard that banned military recruiters from the harvard campus (which is a lie, she upheld the policy since '76 or '79 that recruiters aren't allowed in the office of career planning, not the campus) when she has shown herself to be pretty conersvative and upholding beliefs of the previous administration.
the media gave us faulty information and just took the administrations word for the case for war and they are doing it here
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Okay so she needs to have experience being a judge because it proves she can be impartial...
That makes sense. I don't think that is a reason to withhold the position from her but it might be something to consider.
Thanks for finally answering the question!
Other's opinions are very important to me... even if I don't agree with them. They help me better understand the situation.
I was frustrated because it took 48 posts to finally get an answer about you and Mike's perspective on her needing to have black robe experience in order to be a judge. It is not good enough to just say it is implicit, to give analogies, or to say "experience is important."...
And the answer that I got (we need to know she'd be impartial), is understandable and I agree to a point, but it is not enough to withhold a SCJ seat from her, especially since 40 of the past 111 SCJs were in the same position as she is now.
I think it should. If you cannot be absolutely sure someone will be impartial, then you cannot approve her as SCJ. THIS IS A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. I just really hope the democratically led senate does not just force her through to a vote because of party allegiances and they really dig deep to find out what she is all about. If she passes that test than she will probably make a fantastic supreme court judge
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
well... I don't know that any SCJ is always impartial. Inevitably, beliefs and values will come into play in the Supreme Court because they are interpreting laws at that level. The law is NEVER explicit at that level, because if it was, it was have been handled at the County or State court level. So, their opinions based on life experiences and influences almost always come into play... making it hard to be impartial. But yeah, there are varying degrees of being impartial and I agree, it would be nice to know if she has a hard-line leftist approach or if she is a centrist. From the evidence available (Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, gun rights, gay rights) it appears she is some views that lean to the left AND the right.