Obama Supreme Court Nominee has never been a judge!

1. 66

   MikeNVposted 13 years ago

   "Kagan is now solicitor general, the top government lawyer who argues the administration's cases before the Supreme Court, and was dean of Harvard Law School. But she has never been a judge."
   
   So why with all the potential candidates would anyone nominate a person for the highest court who has never been a judge?  And do we really want a Supreme court of only Harvard Graduates... so East Coast Centric?  Who is representing the voice of America.  Washington isn't America.  The current Administration believes that the United States only exists on the East Coast.
   
   That makes sense.  You wouldn't let a Doctor who had never performed surgery do open heart surgery without a little practice... would you?  Would you want that Doctor to operate on you?
   
   This is just plain stupid.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No, it's not. Many of the greatest Supreme Court justices were never judges. Earl Warren who was appointed by Dwight Eisenhower, for example. Ditto Rehnquist appointed by Reagan and Arthur Goldberg appointed by Kennedy, and William O. Douglas appointed by Roosevelt. Besides, Kagan would have been a federal judge if the GOP hadn't shelved her appointment by Clinton.
      
      I assume you supported Sonia Sotomayor who did serve as a judge???

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I hope to God they can stop Kagan.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Not likely. John Kyl said today he doesn't expect the GOP to filibuster Kagan's nomination.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah I know. It is a sure thing she will be in Ralph. But I can wish.

               replyreport
2. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 13 years ago

   Mike, before you posted this thread, did you happen to check to see how many of the 111 supreme court justices had never been a judge prior to their appointments to the supreme court?
   
   Just wondering.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Mike, where are you?  I see you posting on other threads, are you coming back to this one?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         barrancaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         He doesn't want the facts to get in the road.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I did some checking because Mike is busy. There have been 111 Supreme Court judges - if confirmed, Kagan would be the 41st judge with no bench experience. So roughly a third of the SC judges have NOT been judges.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, I was just wondering if Mike bothered to check before he got his panties in a wad over it. 

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Mike suffers from conservative myopia - he can only see the side of an issue that supports his view.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Funny that's what people say about you!  Except they use liberal instead of conservative.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  The thing is - I CAN see both sides of an issue.

                  replyreport
      2. 66

         Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Nothing like a few facts for the discussion along with the opinions.

         replyreport
3. 61

   TMMasonposted 13 years ago

   He will stack the court like F.D.R.
   
   That is why he doesn't care about a second term. The court will be in the pocket of the left for the next 40 years. And he will tour the Islamic nations talking shit about the U.S.A.
   
   Just like Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter.
   
   We are screwed.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "The court will be in the pocket of the left for the next 40 years."
      
      Kagan won't put the court in the pocket of the left. She is replacing Stevens which will still leave the conservatives in a 5-4 majority. Ginzburg is the next likely retirement. So if Obama appoints a liberal to replace her, the conservatives will still have a 5-4 majority.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         As I stated somewhere in here Ralph. There will be another resignation in the next 2 years. At least I think so.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Who do you think is likely to leave the court besides Ginzburg who is a liberal?

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You mean in the next SIX years, there may be another resignation. As Ralph said, the kicker is getting to name a replacement for one of the CONSERVATIVE justices.

            replyreport
            1. 56

               Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Six years doesn't matter because obama will be outta here in 2012. He'll try to do as much damage as possible until then.

               replyreport
4. 60

   DevLinposted 13 years ago

   She recruited conservative law students at Harvard. How do you know she'll do just what Obama wants? The man has SOME good ideas, just bad implementations.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      She is left. There is no denying that. Whether or not she takes marching orders from Obama.
      
      And we have gone tooooo far left already.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         DevLinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         And you're going to do what about it? Latest finding, the people still want Dem's in power, since all the Repub's want it to stop progress. They just want new blood in. The old guys are fighting too much. But they still want a party willing to change. The right refuses to change, in fact want to go backwards. Which way's better? Closed minded and out of power, or open to new ideas, and helping each other? And I'm not talking socialism. Just giving a damn. What the right won't do. Gos forbids it.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah right. What polls are you lookin at. We are ejecting all incumbants. Including, the dems as a party.
            
            And man it is not about the party, Both parties have screwed us. It is about crushing progressivism.
            
            We don't want it. We are sick of it. And it is outta here.
            
            The repubs will be in next election and 2012.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               DevLinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I read yesterdays paper. People are fed up with DC, but see the conservs as hindering everything. At least the dems are trying to bring America into the 21st century. They're just screwin it up with their approach. But they're trying. Repubs refuse to even try.
               
               as for 2012, you better do better than Palin. Obama would still be the better choice. And as for everyone being sick of it, half right. Fight with the other half. I'm smarter though. Moderate.

               replyreport
      2. 78

         barrancaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Fact:  We just have about the most right wing court in history.  A little fair and balanced isn't going to hurt.

         replyreport
      3. 66

         Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You should read up a bit more about the court before making  ridiculous comments which bear no resemblance to reality.

         replyreport
5. 60

   tony0724posted 13 years ago

   Just by the fact that she did not allow the Military to recruit on a campus that accepts Federal money and believes that Government has the right to overtake free speech and gun rights is enough to make me pray she does not get in. A typical socialist.

   replyreport
6. 80

   Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

   ALL presidents choose Supreme Court justices who agree with their politics. That does not only include Democratic presidents.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That is true.
      
      My point exactly. We will be swung left for the next 40 years regardless of who is in power. There will be another resignation in the next 2 years.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Probably there will be another resignation or death--Ginzburg who is a liberal under treatment for pancreatic cancer.

         replyreport
7. 80

   Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

   And it sounds like the woman has a lot of legal experience, more so than others on that bench.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Doesn't mean she belongs there.
      
      And lets not forget she is a member of La'Raza. A racist anti-American anti-Anglo Organization.
      
      Yeah. Perfect canidate.
      
      And they ain't to fond of Blacks either.

      replyreport
8. 75

   barryrutherfordposted 13 years ago

   mmm, I have already published a hub on Elena Kagan she is probably the mot qualified and able person in the United States to take on the role right now.  In fact she has been appearing beofre the Supreme Court as Solicitor-General for some time. Many would say that is harder that being a Supreme Court judge itself !

   replyreport
9. 60

   DevLinposted 13 years ago

   They're just freaking out that Obama got to pick a judge during his term. Can't have a dem making decisions. They forget, their anti abortion fight is over a mostly catholic bench that made it legal. But the righteous will have their way some day. Judgement day.

   replyreport
10. 61

    TMMasonposted 13 years ago

    She is a member of La'Raza. A racist anti-American anti-Anglo Organization.
    
    Sorry that was Sotomayor

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       La Raza--
       National Council of La Raza
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_C … of_La_Raza
       
       Raza Unida Party--
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raza_Unida_Party
       
       Sonia Sotomayor
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
       
       No mention of La Raza.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          She admitted it in her college work and other docs.  And it was briefly mentioned in her hearings.
          
          It is a fact.
          
          I will look for it though.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             DevLinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             The former first lady she's "really glad" there would be three women among the nine justices if Kagan won confirmation. Kagan would join Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
             
             Laura Bush tells "Fox News Sunday" that women should be represented "in all parts of American political and civic life." She says it really makes a difference.
             
             What's the problem? Even your illusrious leader Bush's wife likes her.

             replyreport
          2. 66

             Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Well, there is nothing sinister about the National Council of La Raza. Like the NRA and Chamber of Commerce, its just a lobbying group, on behalf of Hispanic causes. It isn't a racist or anti-American group.

             replyreport
11. 61

    TMMasonposted 13 years ago

    Bush, was not my Illustrious leader.
    
    Good try though D.
    
    I am and always have been an Independent non-party affiliated.
    
    I know that boggles you all that I don't mind some amount of Govt. assistance and programs. But I have my limits. And they have been surpassed.
    
    By Progressives! It is both parties screwing us people.
    
    Stop with the left and right thing... both parties are destroying us.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       DevLinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       That I agree with. Moderate.

       replyreport
12. 61

    TMMasonposted 13 years ago

    Far from a moderate.
    
    And ralph here is some stuff on Sotomayor's La'Raza membership. It is funny how fast her name dis-appears from thier sites though.
    
    http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/05/28/s … za-member/

    replyreport
13. 63

    prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago

    academicians are idealists so it is good, plus she is younger to put a balance to an ageing justices

    replyreport
    1. 60

       logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Why is being an idealist a good idea?  Why wouldn't having experience in the practical world be of more benefit? 
       I do not believe we should discriminate against anyone based on their age or anything else.

       replyreport
       1. 63

          prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          they use logic and common sense more often

          replyreport