Report: Obama to nominate Kagan to Supreme Court

[southsider2k5]

please tell me you know what you said

 

All's cool in fantasy world

[bmags]

i'm just gonna link this here...don't open it at work, but it's all text. The definition of pearl necklace

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...=pearl+necklace

[KipWellsFan]

"one of the highest expressions of love and affection bestowable upon a woman by a man."

 

lol

[Texsox]

In the 1950s (Brown V. Board of Education era) exactly none of the Supremes had prior judicial experience. It wasn't until the appointment became a political event, with party wins and loses associated with the confirmation that sitting judges became the norm. The list of judges without prior experience is amazing.

 

 

[Y2HH]

In the 1950s (Brown V. Board of Education era) exactly none of the Supremes had prior judicial experience. It wasn't until the appointment became a political event, with party wins and loses associated with the confirmation that sitting judges became the norm. The list of judges without prior experience is amazing.

 

Because we did something stupid in the past doesn't mean it's a-okay to continue doing it now or in the future.

 

Supreme Court Justices should be *required* to have massive real world on the job experience in addition to classroom experience and/or teaching experience to even be considered for such a position. These positions are for-life terms, so it's not like a "trial run" to see if they can do the job, and if they can't, we replace them. On top of that, let's add in that they're appointed by government, NOT the people, and they can't be replaced by the people if they prove to be totally incompetent.

 

I apply this to any important position in life, on the job or otherwise. I wouldn't want a medical professor with years of lecture experience performing a major surgery on me without prior surgical experience, just as I wouldn't hire a college professor with years of teaching experience to secure a banks network with no prior non-book field experience, either.

[Texsox]

Because we did something stupid in the past doesn't mean it's a-okay to continue doing it now or in the future.

 

Supreme Court Justices should be *required* to have massive real world on the job experience in addition to classroom experience and/or teaching experience to even be considered for such a position. These positions are for-life terms, so it's not like a "trial run" to see if they can do the job, and if they can't, we replace them. On top of that, let's add in that they're appointed by government, NOT the people, and they can't be replaced by the people if they prove to be totally incompetent.

 

I apply this to any important position in life, on the job or otherwise. I wouldn't want a medical professor with years of lecture experience performing a major surgery on me without prior surgical experience, just as I wouldn't hire a college professor with years of teaching experience to secure a banks network with no prior non-book field experience, either.

 

 

 

Judges with experience develop a logic pattern in making their decisions. The cases that get to the Supreme Court do not fit the routine stuff. If you look at the list of Justices that had no prior experience there are some outstanding justices. A partial list of the 40 out of 111 without any prior experience as a judge: John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis . . .

 

Are you really suggesting they were mistakes? If that is the case, a third of the justices that have ever served are mistakes.

[Balta1701]

Are you really suggesting they were mistakes? If that is the case, a third of the justices that have ever served are mistakes.

It strikes me though that list may be biased by the first 9. Did any of them ever actually serve as judges when there were no official lower courts for them to serve in?

[Y2HH]

Judges with experience develop a logic pattern in making their decisions. The cases that get to the Supreme Court do not fit the routine stuff. If you look at the list of Justices that had no prior experience there are some outstanding justices. A partial list of the 40 out of 111 without any prior experience as a judge: John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis . . .

 

Are you really suggesting they were mistakes? If that is the case, a third of the justices that have ever served are mistakes.

 

I'm not suggesting they're all mistakes, and regardless, what worked then will NOT work now. In today's politically charged atmosphere where judges aren't about balance but about being empathetical, or political or whatever other catchphrase you'd like to include in this example, I think prior experience and track record are of paramount importance in making the decision of who we appoint. I'm not seeing any "balance" in any of the modern justices, to be perfectly honest, what I see is left or right leaning judges -- whatever the hell those are supposed to be.

 

Supreme court justices should all be *required* to show a prior track record of non political, non empathetical judgments throughout their career in interpreting law in a completely down the middle, non-biased fashion, whether it be for or against any such cause or modern plight. If they cannot show this past track record, they have no business making final rulings on the laws of the land, regardless of how it was done in the past. The very fact that the modern supreme court is "weighted" with 5 "republican leaning" and 4 "democratic leaning" judges is so beyond stupid, it's unfathomable to me that we let this sort of political bulls*** infest our highest court.

 

These judges have no business being affiliated with any party, or letting such affiliations weigh their judgments.

 

I find it funny that just about every vote on the supreme level is 5-4 across the board. Gee, I wonder why that is.

 

I add that this latest Obama choice is nothing more than a political chess move, and has nothing to do with wanting to choose the best and most fair justice for the highest court. I apply this to past administrations, too, so don't think I'm singling out Obama...he's just the latest to continue politicizing the highest court.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Supreme court justices should all be *required* to show a prior track record of non political, non empathetical judgments throughout their career in interpreting law in a completely down the middle, non-biased fashion, whether it be for or against any such cause or modern plight. If they cannot show this past track record, they have no business making final rulings on the laws of the land, regardless of how it was done in the past. The very fact that the modern supreme court is "weighted" with 5 "republican leaning" and 4 "democratic leaning" judges is so beyond stupid, it's unfathomable to me that we let this sort of political bulls*** infest our highest court.

 

These judges have no business being affiliated with any party, or letting such affiliations weigh their judgments.

 

I find it funny that just about every vote on the supreme level if 5-4 across the board. Gee, I wonder why that is.

Now, really, I understand viewing the growing polarization on the court as a problem, but I'm not exactly sure where you're going to find these candidates you speak of who show this record of non-political decisions on political issues?

 

For example, even if a lower court is doing it's job 100% correctly, it is still ruling on issues that will go upwards to the Supreme Court, and it's doing so based on its reading of the current law and current Supreme Court rulings.

 

So, for example, if an abortion case comes up before a judge, that judge can't just recuse him or herself because its a political issue, that judge has to make a decision based on the current law. And since we have an extremely activist supreme court right now, whatever decision that judge makes is going to be a political one and it's going to have a chance of being overturned.

 

The only way to meet your standard would be to have a pair of dice out get nominated. If a judge is working his or her way up, he or she is issuing rulings that one party or the other will like, he or she is producing writings that one party will like more than the other. The idea that there is this large group of non partisan scholars out there to pull from is silly.

[Y2HH]

Now, really, I understand viewing the growing polarization on the court as a problem, but I'm not exactly sure where you're going to find these candidates you speak of who show this record of non-political decisions on political issues?

 

For example, even if a lower court is doing it's job 100% correctly, it is still ruling on issues that will go upwards to the Supreme Court, and it's doing so based on its reading of the current law and current Supreme Court rulings.

 

So, for example, if an abortion case comes up before a judge, that judge can't just recuse him or herself because its a political issue, that judge has to make a decision based on the current law. And since we have an extremely activist supreme court right now, whatever decision that judge makes is going to be a political one and it's going to have a chance of being overturned.

 

The only way to meet your standard would be to have a pair of dice out get nominated. If a judge is working his or her way up, he or she is issuing rulings that one party or the other will like, he or she is producing writings that one party will like more than the other. The idea that there is this large group of non partisan scholars out there to pull from is silly.

 

Making the decision based on current law isn't the same as making the decision based on which party you're affiliated with, now is it? And if you're judgment gets overturned, so be it, that's a chance you take of calling it down the middle, and it would be easy to prove it wasn't a political decision based on other decisions going a different direction, again, based on the current law as written.

 

The fact that you're ok with calling our current supreme court "activist" is insane. It's my very point of what's wrong and what continues to be wrong with these appointees. They're all "activists". They have no business being such. And if that makes it hard to find someone qualified for such A LIFELONG POSITION OF POWER, too f***ing bad.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Making the decision based on current law isn't the same as making the decision based on which party you're affiliated with, now is it?

Do the math. If you agree politically with one side on an issue, and you're forced to decide on that issue, even if you're 100% deciding based on the current law, what's going to happen? You're going to make some decisions that agree with your political beliefs. Immediately, that's going to set you up for attack from the other side.

 

For all I know, Kagan may think that Citizens United was 100% the correct decision or even didn't go far enough (God I hope not). But in her role as Solicitor General, it was her job to argue the case in favor of the current law, and she did that. But now, that case is a political ruling, and so her arguments in favor of the campaign restrictions are now considered political arguments.

 

Sotomayor, for example, ruled on the unpopular "Kelo vs. New London" case involving a city trying to forceably take property for commercial development. Her ruling likely followed the law to the letter, but that case became a political case that became a libertarian Cause Celebre, and thus, her ruling, even if 100% technically accurate at her level, was an issue during her confirmation.

[Y2HH]

Do the math. If you agree politically with one side on an issue, and you're forced to decide on that issue, even if you're 100% deciding based on the current law, what's going to happen? You're going to make some decisions that agree with your political beliefs. Immediately, that's going to set you up for attack from the other side.

 

I did the math. So let me show you the equation you seem to be missing...

 

Over the course of these rulings you speak of, yes, some will appear to be decisions that agree with your political beliefs...HOWEVER, you will be able to show a clear record of non political judgment as some of your decisions will also go against those same beliefs. Ignoring this part of the equation ignores the balancing act I'm requesting these justices be able to show.

 

It's not that hard to understand what I'm talking about.

 

For a supreme court nominee that's made rulings on hundreds if not thousands of cases throughout their judicial careers, if *every* decision they ever made appears political, then maybe somethings wrong, don't ya think?!

 

That's my point.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

For all I know, Kagan may think that Citizens United was 100% the correct decision or even didn't go far enough (God I hope not). But in her role as Solicitor General, it was her job to argue the case in favor of the current law, and she did that. But now, that case is a political ruling, and so her arguments in favor of the campaign restrictions are now considered political arguments.

 

Sotomayor, for example, ruled on the unpopular "Kelo vs. New London" case involving a city trying to forceably take property for commercial development. Her ruling likely followed the law to the letter, but that case became a political case that became a libertarian Cause Celebre, and thus, her ruling, even if 100% technically accurate at her level, was an issue during her confirmation.

 

You cite two examples that appear political -- both of them should have hundreds of more examples -- and *some* of them should show non political judgments, too. It's really that simple.

 

If every judgment you make agrees with your party, you aren't qualified, IMO, for such a position. Period.

 

[Balta1701]

You cite two examples that appear political -- both of them should have hundreds of more examples -- and *some* of them should show non political judgments, too. It's really that simple.

 

If every judgment you make agrees with your party, you aren't qualified, IMO, for such a position. Period.

And each judge likely does have hundreds more examples. The difference is...those don't get scrutiny because they're not controversial to the side doing the hard questioning during a confirmation hearing.

 

Kagan, for example, has several writings and such on executive power and privacy rights (i.e. the Bush/Obama wiretapping programs) that have been highly controversial on the left. But since things that the left finds controversial don't matter, you're not talking about them.

[Y2HH]

And each judge likely does have hundreds more examples. The difference is...those don't get scrutiny because they're not controversial to the side doing the hard questioning during a confirmation hearing.

 

Kagan, for example, has several writings and such on executive power and privacy rights (i.e. the Bush/Obama wiretapping programs) that have been highly controversial on the left. But since things that the left finds controversial don't matter, you're not talking about them.

 

I don't care if they're scrutinized, so long as they can show a track record of balanced judgments, that's all I care about. If they cannot show this, it's probably because they don't have such a balanced track record, and in that case, these people shouldn't even be considered for such a job.

 

And if republicans (just for examples sake) bring up one scrutinized ruling that looks political...tis' pretty easy then, for the other party to show just as many examples of rulings where they weren't political.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Y2HH

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd just like to throw in here, that given Kagan has gotten such negative reaction from the far left and far right politically... Obama probably made a decent choice here. In fact I'm surprised he had the balls to nominate someone who wasn't obviously far left, which is what everyone expected him to do.

 

[BigSqwert]

I'd just like to throw in here, that given Kagan has gotten such negative reaction from the far left and far right politically... Obama probably made a decent choice here. In fact I'm surprised he had the balls to nominate someone who wasn't obviously far left, which is what everyone expected him to do.

I never expected him to do that.

[NorthSideSox72]

I never expected him to do that.

Really? Because it seemed to me that the right wing feared he'd do that and expected it, while the left HOPED he would do that and at least some of them expected it. Just look at the reactions out there from both wings.

 

[BigSqwert]

Really?

Yes. He doesn't do anything I'd consider far left so naturally I felt his pick would be a centrist like him.

[Controlled Chaos]

I'd just like to throw in here, that given Kagan has gotten such negative reaction from the far left and far right politically... Obama probably made a decent choice here. In fact I'm surprised he had the balls to nominate someone who wasn't obviously far left, which is what everyone expected him to do.

She's as far left as they come only without the paper trail. This is why she's the perfect candidate for Barry. There isn't much to vet her on, but make no mistake, Obama knows where she stands.

[BigSqwert]

She's as far left as they come only without the paper trail. This is why she's the perfect candidate for Barry. There isn't much to vet her on, but make no mistake, Obama knows where she stands.

And you know this how exactly?

[southsider2k5]

She's as far left as they come only without the paper trail. This is why she's the perfect candidate for Barry. There isn't much to vet her on, but make no mistake, Obama knows where she stands.

 

Which is the whole point of picking someone who hasn't practiced law, or sat in judgment of anything of value.

[BigSqwert]

Which is the whole point of picking someone who hasn't practiced law, or sat in judgment of anything of value.

And yet she's the most liberal person alive with no evidence to prove it.

[southsider2k5]

And yet she's the most liberal person alive with no evidence to prove it.

 

Hi lefty Kap!

[BigSqwert]

Hi lefty Kap!

I was referring to Controlled Chaos' post above. I don't understand how anyone could know that she's an ultra leftist.