Metal Sludge Gossip Board

The nomination hearings for Elena Kagan are this week. Overall she seems to be fairly moderate and comes across as intelligent and impartial. She has gotten good feedback all around for her work as Solicitor General. She would seem to be a good nominee that would get minimal resistance from conservatives.

She has a good academic background and did work as a clerk in several courts but never served as a judge. She had no courtroom experience prior to being Solicitor General and has no experience in a courtroom as a judge.

So the one question about her becomes: Does she have enough judicial experience to serve as a Supreme Court judge?

SkyDog112046 wrote:The nomination hearings for Elena Kagan are this week. Overall she seems to be fairly moderate and comes across as intelligent and impartial. She has gotten good feedback all around for her work as Solicitor General. She would seem to be a good nominee that would get minimal resistance from conservatives.

She has a good academic background and did work as a clerk in several courts but never served as a judge. She had no courtroom experience prior to being Solicitor General and has no experience in a courtroom as a judge.

So the one question about her becomes: Does she have enough judicial experience to serve as a Supreme Court judge?

I think we can all agree that she's ugly, that's really as far as most Americans are going to get as far as forming an opinion of her.

SkyDog112046 wrote: Overall she seems to be fairly moderate

You gotta be fucking kidding me.

SeminiferousButtNoid wrote:

SkyDog112046 wrote: Overall she seems to be fairly moderate

You gotta be fucking kidding me.

licketysplit...the leading authority on honesty and truth!

I liked her in Peep Show.

it brushes me wrong that she's never been a judge,
and she gets a term for life?

Republicans appoint conservatives. Democrats appoint liberals. What is so shocking?

cc117 wrote:Republicans appoint conservatives. Democrats appoint liberals. What is so shocking?

Tell that to Robert Bork.

SeminiferousButtNoid wrote:

cc117 wrote:Republicans appoint conservatives. Democrats appoint liberals. What is so shocking?

Tell that to Robert Bork.

What's that supposed to mean?

Landshark2000 wrote:
It does trouble me though, that someone who is being nominated to the highest court in the land, has no sitting judicial experience.

It is not uncommon though, 40 out of the 111 judges that have been on the Supreme Court didn't have prior judicial experience either.

woblinweebles wrote:

Landshark2000 wrote:
It does trouble me though, that someone who is being nominated to the highest court in the land, has no sitting judicial experience.

It is not uncommon though, 40 out of the 111 judges that have been on the Supreme Court didn't have prior judicial experience either.

Yeah, it isn't that uncommon.

It would be interesting to see the voting records of the justices who had no prior judicial experience. Is there a learning curve, do they tend to go with majority rulings at first, do they tend to vote party affiliation first, etc... Justices who served on high courts prior to appointment would have more experience with the precedent of prior cases that were similar, but again at SC level a lot of times they seem to not follow precedent.

Crazy Levi wrote:

SeminiferousButtNoid wrote:

cc117 wrote:Republicans appoint conservatives. Democrats appoint liberals. What is so shocking?

Tell that to Robert Bork.

What's that supposed to mean?

It means that it isn't as simple as "Republicans appoint conservatives, Democrats appoint liberals," and the Robert Bork debacle is a prime example of that. Bork was (and still is) one of the finest legal minds in the country and his nomination was torpedoed by the left wing. Bork was likened to Franz Schlegelberger by (surprisingly) energized Democratic smear campaign.

He got Borked, and deservedly so. Fucking racist. Him, I mean, I'm not sure about you, although if you think he should be on the SCOTUS......

SeminiferousButtNoid wrote:Please point to anything Robert Bork has done or said that was "racist".

I'll wait.

For one, his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts.

For two, at his confirmation hearings for the position of Solicitor General, he supported the rights of Southern states to impose a poll tax.

KneelandBobDylan wrote:

SeminiferousButtNoid wrote:Please point to anything Robert Bork has done or said that was "racist".

I'll wait.

For one, his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts.

Really? You must have uncovered a secret document that contradicts the fact that Bork publicly renounced his views on the Civil Rights Act in 1973. I think press, political think tanks, and my entire law school would love to know about his intention to revoke the Civil Rights Act. Please share.

And when you're done with that, you can explain how opposing the Civil Rights Act in 1964 automatically makes you racist. Then we can send your mind-numbingly educated and thoroughly researched reasoning to Barry Goldwater, Jr and see if that reminds him of his father.