Obama to nominate Kagan to Supreme Court

#76
#76
lawgator1 said:
I actually agree that I'd really like to see the nomination of someone who has tried a lot of cases, handled a lot of appeals from those cases, and who has had to deal with the losing and the winning that comes from the real practice of law.
Click to expand...

but that would mean a written record and that would be tough for a hardcore lefty. This is much easier and avoids the big public debate over issues she has never adjudicated. Let's her congressional interview stand as her answers.
 
#77
#77
BigPapaVol said:
but that would mean a written record and that would be tough for a hardcore lefty. This is much easier and avoids the big public debate over issues she has never adjudicated. Let's her congressional interview stand as her answers.
Click to expand...


Be honest. Such a record would be tough on anyone, be they right or left, because there would be a long record of them arguing points of view for their clients that would be easily assailable.
 
#78
#78
lawgator1 said:
Be honest. Such a record would be tough on anyone, be they right or left, because there would be a long record of them arguing points of view for their clients that would be easily assailable.
Click to expand...

it isn't tough on anyone that doesn't take a hard left or hard right approach to legal matters. It hasn't to date. Hell, Sotomayor was confirmed and she has some dicey issues back there.
 
#79
#79
Robert C. Clark: Kagan and the Military: What Really Happened - WSJ.com

Seems Kagan's predecessor is on her side on the military account. I'm fine with that.

Wonder if Clark is biased when his opening paragraph looks like:
"With the announcement of Elena Kagan as nominee for the open seat on the Supreme Court, comments both sound and foolish are sure to flood the media. In the prior category is the observation that Ms. Kagan is a brilliant legal scholar with a superb record of service in the federal government and as a law school dean. In the foolish category, we are already hearing a replay of an attack critics used against her when she was being considered for her current position as solicitor general."
 
#80
#80
i find it ironic that he nominates a woman who writes papers that bemoans the collapse of socialism just as Greece's socialistic economy has been destroyed.
 
#81
#81
BigPapaVol said:
it isn't tough on anyone that doesn't take a hard left or hard right approach to legal matters. It hasn't to date. Hell, Sotomayor was confirmed and she has some dicey issues back there.
Click to expand...

Because of the fiduciary duty owed to clients, attorneys argue zealously on their behalf no matter how much or how little they agree on the matter (for the most part). I imagine that separating one's views from arguments they made in past representations of clients could prove difficult. At the least, it leaves a lot of ammunition for adversaries.
 
#82
#82
BigPapaVol said:
it isn't tough on anyone that doesn't take a hard left or hard right approach to legal matters. It hasn't to date. Hell, Sotomayor was confirmed and she has some dicey issues back there.
Click to expand...


As a practicing attorney who argues positions in favor of law enforcement in civil rights cases every day, I can tell you that anyone litigating an an area of law touching upon constitutional rights is not writing everything in calming, emotionless, moderate terms.

If you want lawyers who ran medical malpractice cases, or auto accident cases, sure, there won't be much rhetoric to what they do.

But if we are talking about lawyers who deal with interpretations of constitutional principles, or cases that go back to the 1950s, there's going to be a record that will include some strong position-taking.
 
#83
#83
joevol320 said:
i find it ironic that he nominates a woman who writes papers that bemoans the collapse of socialism just as Greece's socialistic economy has been destroyed.
Click to expand...

She's the first socialist I know of who is even willing to admit publicly that any socialist system has ever failed although they all have except perhaps China which is now outwardly adopting free market measures and it's imporetant to note that in creating that 'humane' society (as the democrat socialist caucus calls it) the cost was only like 40 to 60 million citizens who had to be sacrificed to the gods of socialism.




volfanjustin said:
Well get ready to not vote for another Republican, many Rs up there don't have the spine to block her.

The Republican party is being pulled back to conservatism, but it's going to take time.
Click to expand...

I'm prepared.

I didn't vote for Lamar last time and he has lost my vote forever, if for nothing else because he voted to seat Sotomayor.

Never mind she has been involved with radical leftist groups that preach sedition, treason and have used terror bombings to further their ideology, over half of her decisions as a presiding judge had been turned over in higher courts, do we want that kind of incompetence and/or misinterpretation of law sitting in judgement in the highest court in the land??

Not just no, HELL NO!!

It seems we vote people into office to represent us in Washington DC and even if they start out doing that well, before long they are representing Washington DC to us, phooey on that!

Nowadays the democrats could best be described as bolsheviks and sadly many republicans can be described as mensheviks.

Having Obama in the White House may be one of the best things to happen to America, it has awakened many people to just what is going on and shown others just what the high handed leftist democrat party agenda is all about, plus it underscores the fact that most republicans don't (as you mention) have the spine it takes to oppose them.



Obama is nothing if not consistent, his latest nomination is the epitome of the double standard elitist attitude.

Kagan Whitewash

As Dean of Harvard Law School in 2004 and 2005 she treated two liberal law professors with kid gloves when they were busted for plagiarism.

Her chicanery was so blatant that even a leftist academic said she should be fired for her "whitewash."

But the way she handled professors Larry Tribe and Charles Ogletree, when they both were caught swiping the words of others, seems to violate basic principles of fairness.

She let the professors off easy for the kind of offense that for which any Harvard undergraduate or law school would have been suspended if not expelled.

As the Harvard Crimson wrote after Kagan and Harvard president Larry Summers declined to punish Tribe, "the glaring double standard set by Harvard stands as an inadequate precedent for future disappointments."

It also could say a lot about Kagan would behave on the bench. Through inaction and disingenuous statements that disregarded Harvard's own disciplinary policy Kagan exonerated Tribe and Ogletree of any malfeasance.

In other words, like a good liberal activist judge, she ignored precedent and the plain meaning of relevant texts to create an outcome that struck her fancy.
Click to expand...

Ogletree taught both Michelle and Barack Obama.

Tribe's book is considered the bible for liberals.

elena_kagan.jpg


Not to mention she is as ugly as a three day old dog turd.

Add to here lack of integrity the charge of complete incompetence as Solicitor General:

RealClearPolitics - Video - Kagan Botches Oral Argument In Supreme Court Appearance At Citizens United Lawsuit


Solicitor General Elena Kagan muffed her argument in front of the Supreme Court on the Citizens United v. FEC case: In fact, the crux of the case was the issue of limiting expenditures as an expression of political speech, not contributions.

Kagan started off her argument by misconstruing the issue and then offering a factually incorrect reading of precedent.

Both Scalia and Kennedy objected to it before Kagan even had time to get the argument completed, although as the transcript notes, she didnÂ’t pay much attention to them.
Click to expand...

"And what my constitutional values are are wholly irrelevant to the job, and so neither you nor anyone else will know what they are."
Elena Kagan
 
#84
#84
lawgator1 said:
But if we are talking about lawyers who deal with interpretations of constitutional principles, or cases that go back to the 1950s, there's going to be a record that will include some strong position-taking.
Click to expand...

but their opinions won't be littered with propaganda or Lenin style dogma.
 
#85
#85
paul1454 said:
Because of the fiduciary duty owed to clients, attorneys argue zealously on their behalf no matter how much or how little they agree on the matter (for the most part). I imagine that separating one's views from arguments they made in past representations of clients could prove difficult. At the least, it leaves a lot of ammunition for adversaries.
Click to expand...

that is an issue only to the extent that a nominee has no appellate history at all. In the instance of actual experience, one has opinions to fall back on. In the case of no experience, people aren't going to hang a lot of weight on litigation history because of exactly what you're saying. It's why we expect more experience from a judge, because it provides some sort of blueprint.
 
#86
#86
All is not lost!!
A member of the Supreme Court can be impeached by Congress. That power is given to them in Article 1 of the Constitution.
Even though it hasnt been done much, the last being Justice Samuel Chase in 1804, it can be done.
There is always the balance of power
 
#88
#88
I would think being a judge or having been a judge should be a prerequisite for the job. This is the big leagues - why put a complete rookie in.

Also, with judging experience one's record of rulings can be vetted.

I know it's not a requirement but it seems like it should be.
 
#89
#89
MG1968 said:
SCOTUS Nominee Kagan for ?Redistribution of Speech? (Diversity Czar Lloyd Must be Thrilled) | NewsBusters.org

this woman is a hand-wringing liberal's wet dream of a SCOTUS judge
Click to expand...

How right you are, another of Clinton's inner circle of terrorist friendly Ivy League extremist leftist wonks.

"Nothing was ever done by Elena Kagan to learn the details about the leaks, or to identify the leaker and ensure that proper punishment occurred," the committeeÂ’s 1999 report concluded. In fact, investigators found evidence suggesting that Kagan, in internal White House discussions, defended the alleged leaker.
.............................................

Investigators found an email from Bear to another official of the CEQ in which Bear wrote, "Elena went out of her way to go to bat for yours truly, which was quite decent of her." When House investigators asked the White House for Kagan's notes of her discussions with Dinah Bear, the White House refused to provide them.
Click to expand...
 
#90
#90
I heard this earlier today, and it seems a good a description as any as to why Obama picked her... two wors..."Rubber stamp".
 
#91
#91
volinbham said:
I would think being a judge or having been a judge should be a prerequisite for the job. This is the big leagues - why put a complete rookie in.

Also, with judging experience one's record of rulings can be vetted.

I know it's not a requirement but it seems like it should be.
Click to expand...

I agree. William Rehnquist was a hack and should have never been able to sit on the bench because he wasn't a judge before he sat on the SCOTUS.
 
#92
#92
volinbham said:
I would think being a judge or having been a judge should be a prerequisite for the job. This is the big leagues - why put a complete rookie in.

Also, with judging experience one's record of rulings can be vetted.

I know it's not a requirement but it seems like it should be.
Click to expand...

Do you think a president should be required to have prior executive experience?
 
#95
#95
Hack is the wrong word. The man was a really bright guy and while I agreed with a few of his decisions, he was a little too conservative for my tastes. Hack not correct, my bad.

Point being, he was seen as a poster-boy idol for conservative judges, yet he had no experience as a judge. Before Nixon nominated his as an associate justice, he was a former Supreme Court clerk and private practice attorney. He had zero judicial experience. He ended up being a pretty good judge in the eyes of conservatives. Heck, Ronnie Reagan promoted him to Chief Justice. Its the same political double standard that dems do to repubs and repubs to to dems.

While I agree with you that it might be a good idea for nominees to have some judicial experience, we have to go with whats in the Constitution.
 
#97
#97
gsvol said:
Do you think a president should be required to have prior executive experience?
Click to expand...

I don't know about having to have prior executive experience but I would like them to have more experience than just being a community organizer.
 
#99
#99
I wonder if Obama believes his nominee should be subjected to extreme questioning in the same way he believed Harriet Myers deserved?
 
#100
#100
volinbham said:
interesting question but I would think it sure helps.

in the case of being a judge, I think it's more essential.
Click to expand...


The following comment has nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with Kagan:

A person going to sit on a state appellate panel definitely needs trial lawyer or trial judge experience. This is because the vast majority of issues raised on appeal to state appellate courts are claims that a trial judge ruled incorrectly in the midst of one.

At the federal level, this is less important because the standard of reviewing similar in-trial decisions by federal judges is so much higher, meaning that they are rarely second guessed by federal appellate judges.

And that is even more so the case with the Supreme Court. A tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of their cases have anything to do with claims of error at trial. It is almost all interpreting federal statutes, international agreements, and the Constitution.

The value to having been a trial lawyer or having been a judge is really not nearly as high for SCOTUS as it is for everyother level.

Having said that, I do wish that somewhere down the line we'd get some folks up there with day-to-day law office and practice management experience. You see things a whole lot different when you have to juggle your client's interests and getting constantly attacked and criticized by judges and opposing lawyers.

The system is way broken right now. How the interpretations of the law interrelate to that depends on the subject. Just saying that the folks we see getting put up there lately do not have an appreciation for that, except in theory, and that's just not the same.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top