SC short list

[Archaea]

I might add, a venerable law professor, with a treatise on Constitutional Law, used at major law schools, who also had a monumental litigation career, would be acceptable.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I know longer would oppose somebody simply because I disagreed with one's legal views or especially political views. However, I want somebody of a judicial temperament, with a keen intellect, somebody who's lived enough to understand real people are affected by the case and by perhaps the precedent, and that somebody is a person of integrity, not swayable by who the litigants are.

Most of the time, it should be a sitting judge, somebody with a distinguished career, somebody who wasn't afraid to address controversial cases.

If it's a non-judge, that person should have a distinguished career as a litigator, having won large monumental cases.

And I want geographical representation. Justice O'Connor was Arizona, and not my favorite justice, but I still respected her pedigree.

Nominee Kagan is a non-judge, her writings are sparse and nothing special and she has no distinctions in her litigation career. By those standards she is unqualified.

And she eliminates geographic diversity by virtue of her domiciles.

Those are my reasons for opposing her.

unfortunately for you, I think most of the reasons why you oppose her are reasons she makes a good nominee to many, especially those who are in the position to nominate. if she had written too much, been too controversial, there's too much to tear apart. you're not going to see laurence tribe as a nominee for that reason. you don't know much about her intellect, though.

I hear you on the geographical diversity, though. Maybe Sid Thomas will surface again. Go Montana!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

unfortunately for you, I think most of the reasons why you oppose her are reasons she makes a good nominee to many, especially those who are in the position to nominate. if she had written too much, been too controversial, there's too much to tear apart. you're not going to see laurence tribe as a nominee for that reason. you don't know much about her intellect, though.

I hear you on the geographical diversity, though. Maybe Sid Thomas will surface again. Go Montana!

I submit that Roe v. Wade is the most harmful decision, because it polarized the selection of judges. Now, I suppose I'm being naive as I read about 19th Century confirmations, but that single decision is the most divisive decision. Justice Blackmun was never a very distinguished jurist. I wish the issue had been avoided.

For me the single most important decision is Marbury vs. Madison, as it created our judicial approach to Constitutional law. And in our "generation" the most important helpful decision is Brown vs. Board of Education, decided rightly in result but by the wrong rationale.

Roe v. Wade and the rejection of Robert H. Bork, and also Judge Ginsburg back in Reagan years all but guarantees a non-distinguished judiciary. We are poorer for it.

My guess is she is a clever, administrative politician. Not somebody I want on the Court, but I doubt we'll see a good, distinguished judiciary again. Once upon a time, I believed, and perhaps again I was deceived, a President often sought to nominate somebody who might help create a legacy for his Presidency. But the Presidents no longer seem to pursue that endeavor. C'est domage.

Geographical diversity includes Montana. I imagine there will be a Montanan before a Nevadan sits there.

Judicial distinction does not hinge upon political viewpoint. Justice Brennan was distinguished and ran very contrary to my line of thought. Justice Blackmun was not.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist was a distinguished jurist, we shall see what becomes of Justice Scalia, certainly bright but he appears to be growing full of himself.

[SeattleUte]

The whole lack of judicial experience thing is disingenuous. I hate disinigenuousness. How hard do you think it is to write a judicial opnion? For a reasonably strong legal mind, not very. Trying a case is a lot harder. Writing judical opinions is a luxurious way to make a living.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The whole lack of judicial experience thing is disingenuous. I hate disinigenuousness. How hard do you think it is to write a judicial opnion? For a reasonably strong legal mind, not very. Trying a case is a lot harder. Writing judical opinions is a luxurious way to make a living.

I disagree.

I have family in the judiciary, have clerked at the trial and appellate level, and have a modest litigation history.

To practice being on the bench, with a judicious demeanor is important. A bunch of non-practitioners sitting up there opining how things should be done procedurally?

Or how to work with a committee of lawyers to put out something which affects both practitioners, litigants and the public at large requires some experience.

Plus a judicial record shows how a judge actually voted and wrote. To be placed in a highly political position with lifetime status warrants being able to review one's body of judicial work. Without that, we only have speculation.

[MikeWaters]

it's crazy that we give so much power to lawyers in the first place.

they should put someone like me on the court.

[MikeWaters]

I don't hide the fact that I am married. Nor that I am Mormon.

I especially don't hide things for political gain.

It's kind of bizarre. But it fits with her MO to hive EVERYTHING so that she can have power.

I don't trust someone like that.

...

Wasn't it Ginsburg who was canned because he admitted to smoking pot in college?

And now we have a president who was a drug user, and most likely hard drugs at that.

Makes the 80s seem so quaint.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't hide the fact that I am married. Nor that I am Mormon.

I especially don't hide things for political gain.

It's kind of bizarre. But it fits with her MO to hive EVERYTHING so that she can have power.

I don't trust someone like that.

...

Wasn't it Ginsburg who was canned because he admitted to smoking pot in college?

And now we have a president who was a drug user, and most likely hard drugs at that.

Makes the 80s seem so quaint.

Ginsburg was withdrawn for having smoked pot. The Dems had just Borked Bork, and then we fell flat with Ginsburg, who was by all accounts bright and accomplished.

You are correct in not trusting somebody who conceals her entire agenda. If she's gay, come out of the closet. We know where she'll vote on the marriage debate.

[MikeWaters]

In short, Kagan’s career represents rampant elitism–which is to say cronyism Ivy League-style–in its worst form. No one doubts she is smart, ambitious, hard-working, and well-liked by lots of influential people. In fact she’s so well-liked she’s gotten a series of jobs for which she was largely unqualified. She obtained tenure at two of America’s top universities, and became a dean at one of them, without producing anything resembling the kind of academic record normally required for such positions. (This circumstance seems particularly ironic given a dismal aspect of Harvard’s hiring practices during her term as dean. Thirty one of the school’s 32 tenure-track hires were white, and none were African American or Hispanic. Apparently no “qualified” minorities could be found). She was named Solicitor General—that is, the federal government’s top courtroom lawyer—without ever having appeared in a courtroom on behalf of a client. Now someone who has never been a judge, and, far more important, has taken almost no public positions on any issue relevant to being a judge, is on the verge of being put on the Supreme Court.

In a particularly perverse sense, this would be a fitting capstone to a remarkable career.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...nt-deserve-it/

[Archaea]

My favorite part:

She was named Solicitor General—that is, the federal government’s top courtroom lawyer—without ever having appeared in a courtroom on behalf of a client.

Now someone who has never been a judge, and, far more important, has taken almost no public positions on any issue relevant to being a judge, is on the verge of being put on the Supreme Court.

In a particularly perverse sense, this would be a fitting capstone to a remarkable career.

Squeeze the right palms and you can achieve anything without doing anything.