Discussion in 'Other Hot Topics' started by Ellen, Aug 5, 2010.
Gloria would be so proud
Yay! As long as his unqualified, ideologically-driven nominees are considered part of a protected class, I guess it's all good.
Have you ever said the same thing about Scalia, Thomas or Roberts (the Federalist Society ideologue)?
Wow. That's a new low even for you. Offensive on so many different levels. Are you pissed that she's a woman or a Jew? Or is it that she may be a lesbian? That's like the unholy trifecta for you.
Yeah. Soooooo unqualified.
well, shoot, I wish I could have those qualifications.
Abandon credibility, all ye who enter here.
He speaks ... is he testing the waters to see if it's safe? Knucklehead ....
EDIT: It's a form of Tourette's... he can't help it.
This has a chart of all prior positions held by our supreme court justices.
I had no idea that Judge Thomas worked for Monsanto. They are really far reaching!
Neither of those things bother me; in fact, as a conservative I'm probably more supportive of Jews and Israel than most. I don't know that it's been established that she is a lesbian; nor do I particularly care. You won't believe I really think that way, but it's true.
Do you despise Clarence Thomas because he is black? Scalia because he's Italian? Or is it because you disagree with how they interpret the US Constitution?
In her list of glowing qualifications, I didn't see the word "judge" in there anywhere. She was selected as Solicitor General with very little courtroom experience, and none arguing before the Supreme Court. She's been a very distinguished law clerk and academic for sure.
She authored several papers and policies, including topics covering federal regulation of the loosely defined term "hate speech." This is where my problem lies: she believes in driving social policy through the executive and/or judicial branches. This is the definition of an "activist" judge, and is why she was selected.
I wonder this: if a liberal administration gave the courts or other federal entities the power to regulate "hate speech," what would happen if a conservative activist wandered through these forums and read some of the things said about me in this thread and others, and then decided to sue CWD and the authors personally because it violates "hate speech" regulations?
Roberts: vast experience as a clerk, courtroom experience as a lawyer (including 39 cases before the Supreme Court), and a 2 years as a judge on the DC Circuit Court.
Scalia: Law faculty, judge on Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thomas: Attorney General, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court.
So no, I've not ever questioned their experience. If they had a tendency toward judicial activism and zero experience as a judge, I would expect the left to be highly critical of them.
I don't believe in any real "requirement" for most branches of civil service; but it seems that before you join the United States Supreme Court that it might be best for one to have at least some experience as a judge, no? If you don't believe that, then it is your right. It does not make you less credible; apparently I'm held to a higher standard.
Knucklehead huh? That's a good one. Wasn't it the left that championed the phrase "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" during the George Bush witch-hunt? I still believe that phrase is true in America. Do you?
Good to see that on a diabetes forum you would choose to use a medical disorder as an insult.
I want to explain my views on this a little further. As a conservative (I'm NOT a libertarian), I don't think it's anyone's business what anyone's sexuality is. And by "especially," I ESPECIALLY mean the federal government. I view the matter just as I do health care. If a state wishes to pass a law requiring health insurance, it has every right to do so! This is how Massachussetts passed it, and why your state mandates you buy car insurance, not the federal government. My views on the matter are irrelevant; a law passed by any government body that is within the scope prescribed by its constitution and passes judicial muster should only be opposed from a process standpoint.
I'll give an example, if the voters in any given state vote to legalize gay marriage, then I would support that fully because the Consitution specifically delegates such matters to the states, which draws its powers from its citizens. My problem would come from a federal body requiring other states to recognize that law.
Perhaps even more surprising to you might be that, under specific circumstances I would support gay marriage fully! If the matter was open to honest, open debate, and the people voted for candidates who openly support it, then presumably there would be sufficient public support to amend the US Constitution in a way where federal regulation of marriage were allowed, then I would have no argument. Zero. Because the change would come from the people, through their state, and up to the Federal level.
The founders of the US drafted the Constitution for one very specific reason: to protect its citizens from an all-powerful executive body. The First Amendment does not apply at work, or at school, or anywhere other than if the federal government took punitive action against someone for practicing free speech. It also prohibits states from doing the same thing.
These are the reasons I am so opposed to Ms. Kagan and others who wish to initiate their desired political outcomes outside of the process prescribed by the Constitution. "Deem and Pass," despite what you've heard, has NEVER been used in the manner in which it was used during the health care debate. It has been used to FUND major bills, but not PASS them. A very distinct difference.
Yeah, that must be it
Were you or were you not saying that this was an affirmative action pick? So was it because she was a woman or a Jew?
How do you know I despise them at all?
To be fair, I don't think you're homophobic or particularly interested in gay rights one way or the other. You've said that before on here, and I don't see much reason to doubt you (other than your support of candidates who are anti-gay rights, but as a Republican, you don't have a lot of choice on that.)
I think where we disagree is that I believe that it is unconstitutional for states to ban gay marriage, so I do indeed believe that it needs to be addressed at the federal level. And, am I to assume that you are against the Defense of Marriage Act? I'd be interested to hear your take on that, since you are against federal regulation of marriage.
I have clerked at the appellate level, and let me let you in on a little secret. The clerks write the opinions. Shhhhhhhhhh. How frightened are you by the notion of 24 year old hawkeyegirl, fresh out of law school, shaping the law for years to come?
I don't know if her clerkships were one or two year (depends on the judge), but she has at least 2 years, and possibly 4 years experience researching and writing appellate opinions at the highest levels. I'm not saying that the judges don't rework opinions or tell their clerks to focus specifically on this or that, but there is little she could have done to BETTER prepare her for being a USSC judge than clerking for a USSC judge. (Clerking for a federal circuit judge is right up there too.)
I don't see you screaming about judges with no judicial experience being appointed to the circuit court of appeals. It's not like that's the minor leagues. Most federal cases never make it to the USSC (is it something like 1 or 2%?) So for most litigants, their circuit court is their last shot. There is, practically speaking, zero difference between being appointed to the federal circuit court without judicial experience and the USSC.
I can't even tell you how little bearing courtroom experience has on a person's qualification as an appellate-level judge. Like less than zero. As a trial court judge? I'd give you that. It would be hard to be a trial court judge without courtroom experience (although it happens all the time, and if the person is bright and a hard-worker, it can be done well), but an appellate judge? Completely irrelevant. It's really even pretty irrelevant to being Solicitor General. Appellate argument is completely different from trial advocacy.
Forty of the past 110 USSC justices did not have any prior judicial experience. She is undoubtedly qualified for this job.
This is what you're really mad about. Not her "lack of experience." It's the fact that she was appointed by Barack Hussain Obama, and therefore must share his socialist worldview.
Honestly, you're under some misguided notion that liberals want to sneak their agenda in through "judicial activism" and conservatives don't. In other words, it's only "judicial activism" when you don't like the result. Almost invariably, Scalia's "strict construction" philosophy leads him to a result that is consistent with his personal politics. It's not a coincidence. There's really not much more to say about this. You don't like her politics, which is fair enough. I don't like Roberts' or Alito's or Thomas'.
Pssst! I think Swellman was talking about and to himself. I know it seems a bit odd and I doubt that its Tourettes. I certainly hope that anyone seeing that doesnt have a child or loved one with Tourettes syndrome as that is an incurable condition where as his being a "knucklehead" isnt
41 out of the 109 Supreme Court Justices had no judicial experience prior to being appointed to the Supreme Court...in addition to one of the most conservative justices Rehnquist.
I don't have an argument against experience as a clerk; I'm well aware that the job is nowhere near what the title implies.
I do not agree with the Defense of Marriage Act as an Act. If it were an amendment to the Constitution, then I would.
I'm not screaming about judges with no experience on the Circuit Court because that is not the matter at hand. Fundamentally, I agree that it's virtually the same thing.
After giving it some thought, I would agree that courtroom experience would mean little at the appellate level or above since it's more of an academic argument than a stylistic one.
You are right and wrong about why I am opposed to Ms. Kagan. There can be little doubt regarding her political views, and I am very much opposed to those.
The difference between a conservative "activist" judge and a liberal one is that a conservative is less likely to stretch or apply a law beyond what the Constitution sets as a boundary, while a liberal one is more likely to do so. The Constitution sets limits on government's influences in people's personal liberty, and when that is circumvented then the ramifications are significant.
Since Swellman said "he" twice, I don't think he was referring to himself.
Separate names with a comma.