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

aerial

With her education and knowledge I wonder why she has never been a judge? And why she wants to be now?

cincybearcat

he still stands wrote:

still no answer.

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

Cosmo

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

...
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.
...

Pepe Silvia

Cosmo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

...
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"

Cosmo

Pepe Silvia wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

...
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.

Pepe Silvia

Cosmo wrote:

...
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

he still stands

mikepegg44 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

still no answer.

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!

he still stands

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

mikepegg44

he still stands wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

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

he still stands

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

mikepegg44

he still stands wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

by impartial I was referring to her involvement in the Obama administration

he still stands

mikepegg44 wrote:

by impartial I was referring to her involvement in the Obama administration

It would be MASSIVE fuck up if Obama was like, "hey I'll make you a Justice and you'll be my puppet in the Court." I can't imagine either Obama or Kagan would neglect ALL ethical responsibilities they've ever learned and agree to this. Or maybe I'm naive?...