Obama nominates Kagan for Supreme Court to replace John Paul Stevens Su

Obama and his socialistic views? Can we get real please. This socialist BS is just getting old, tired, and the ignorance of it all is way beyond played out.

 

It also depends on who is wielding the flashlight; they let you see what they want you to see. In the end you're left with what you got.

If I was a progressive liberal such as yourself I would be very happy with what he has done so far even with his Judicial picks.

 

Glad you have a sense of humor.

I'm really not too happy, but I'm happy that I don't have to witness the alternative, which would have been a disaster, in my opinion. The court has enough activist conservatives already, eager to overturn established precedent.

 

I completely understand your point. In my perfect world... It would be even number of judges from both parties all outspoken. That way they just shout over each other and nothing gets done. I actually like the happy medium.

 

Batman, have you considered the possibility that this nomination isn't just about pleasing republicans, but what Obama actually wants? She supports the expansion of executive power and has sat on a Goldman Sachs board (which should please his corporate donors).

 

Five bucks says Scolito and Thomas resign if she's confirmed. No way they show up everyday to work having to look at her.

 

yes there are tremendous legal minds that come out of many law schools. stanford, columbia, chicago, absolutely. maybe texas of yesteryears. stevens has been by far my favorite justice and he's a northwestern grad (chicago undergrad). but the fact is that harvard, yale and some of these others have an overwhelming hold on legal scholarship, and it may be partly because of the hierarchy in law schools, but its also because they have superb scholars teaching, and very impressive student bodies.

i just find it absurd that the principal critique of kagan being her education. summa from princeton and magna from hls are not something you can criticize.

i think the critique of her lack of experience, her lack of any viewpoints regarding legal issues during the bush administration, her seemingly conservative arguments as SG, are much more legitimate avenues of attack.

 

In a perfect world there wold be nine judges with no party affiliation.

Centrist, pragmatic choice again Mr. Obama. Keep on rockin.

 

Deckard:

I'm disspointed too, but hardly surprised. Virtually everything Obama has done has been centrist to the point of absurdity. Batman's excuses are just that, excuses. Sadly, the "excuses" mentality is why liberals in the US cannot get a damn thing done even when they have a clear mandate from the people and damn near a governmental majority.

It's absolutely disgusting how pathetic the democratic party is. As the cliche goes, the american far left is the european far right.

 

if they can handle looking in the mirror every morning, they will be able to handle working next to kagen.

 

i think she'll get confirmed

 

Exactly right. Obama is not nominating an entire Supreme Court. He's nominating a single person. There's no reason to say that because other Justices went to Ivy League schools, that means we automatically boot all Ivy League grads from the pool of candidates. That's just stupid logic.

 

The problem now isn't lack of judicial experience on the SCt, I think the problem with the current court is that only Soto, if I'm not mistaken, has any experience as a trial court judge.

So much of what the SCT does impacts what judges and lawyers do on a day-to-day basis at the trial court level, and most of them have very limited experience with that aspect (and it shows, particularly among the more ideological members).

Granted Roberts, Breyer, Scalia etc all have experience judging at the Appelllate level, but that's a whole separate ball of wax, basically rarified air compared to the gritty, day-to-day work of being a trial judge. Even on the federal court level, trial judges have to interact with the common man (litigants, witnesses, jurors etc).

To appellate judges, these people are just part of the record on appeal, rather than actual people. Which leads to things like Frank Easterbrook admonishing people for taking the judge's elevator once.

 

right. and this is where i think the 'elitist' critique may be applicable. fact is that if your a brilliant legal mind, you're probably aiming to jump ship from an academic career (or perhaps in private practice/government) to the appellate level. you aren't leaving the dean position at harvard for western district of kentucky. just like if you're a brilliant law student, you're probably aiming at an appellate clerkship.

and i think this goes to how roberts, et al, complain about judges not making enough money to attract really good talent.

 

John Marshall
Earl Warren
William Rehnquist
Felix Frankfurter
Louis Brandeis

Maybe you've heard of one or two of these guys.

What do these former Justices share in common?

 

They are sexy and well-hung?

 

Trial judges don't do this kind of things? I havent' personally witness elevator conflicts, but have certainly dealt with several trial judges (from the same court, actually) whom I am sure will yell at me if I ever ran take their elevator.

 

I would have to take your word on that tidbit of knowledge, but none of them had any prior judical experience.

 

How much do judges make versus BigLaw partner or even associates? Is it possible the Ivies are more willing/able to do lower paying or more cerebral work rather than just cash-in doing deals or whatever the heck corporate lawyers do?

 

He did it in a hyperarrogant fashion that is etched in my memory. to a bunch of students. from his class.