TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 10, 2010 14:52:32 GMT -5
John Roberts is a conservative fire-breather? He worked as a carny for several years before going into law. It was part of the act. Boz, I'm surprised you didn't know how that was how Roberts made his fortune ;D |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 10, 2010 15:45:38 GMT -5
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,696
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 10, 2010 16:25:55 GMT -5
Kagan may or may not unqualified, but I hate the criticism that she's never been a judge.
I'd like there to be more real world experience on the court. Of course, a tour through academia doesn't usually qualify as real world.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 10, 2010 16:43:48 GMT -5
Kagan may or may not unqualified, but I hate the criticism that she's never been a judge. I'd like there to be more real world experience on the court. Of course, a tour through academia doesn't usually qualify as real world. Agreed. A more reasonable criticism of Kagan is that she hadn't been inside a courtroom before her appointment as Solicitor General. My ideal non-judge candidate's resume includes: military service, experience as a government lawyer, success in private practice, and a stint as a legislator. I think Kagan will be a competent justice, but a bureaucrat/administrator is not my ideal non-judge candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 10, 2010 17:04:55 GMT -5
Some of the early conservative responses are to be expected, including that of Ed Whelan. Some on the right would be more likely to support Orly Taitz for Supreme Court than a mainstream candidate. What did Ed Whelan write that was out of line, or indicative of your conclusion? I read his column this morning and it was perfectly fair, even if you don't agree with it. Maybe you mean his short little follow up blog post that has Media Matters all in a tizzy. I thought that was kind of stupid, but it's not much more than a Tweet. I was referring to Whelan's deliberate remark about haggling. He's no dummy and knew what he was doing with it. His point could have been made without it to be sure. Leahy had the quote of the day IMO - "The President could nominate Moses the Law Giver. In fact I told the President, I said you realize if you'd nominated Moses the Law Giver, somebody would raise, 'but he doesn't have a birth certificate! Where's his birth certificate!'" Sarah Palin's comments are also off the reservation with the Sharia litmus test that she appears to be advocating. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on May 10, 2010 17:46:54 GMT -5
Also, Whelan thinks that not having a driver's license until later in life (something that Kagan shares in common with every other person who grew up in New York City) is somehow un-American. He's just throwing crap on the wall at this point.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 10, 2010 17:51:58 GMT -5
What did Ed Whelan write that was out of line, or indicative of your conclusion? I read his column this morning and it was perfectly fair, even if you don't agree with it. Maybe you mean his short little follow up blog post that has Media Matters all in a tizzy. I thought that was kind of stupid, but it's not much more than a Tweet. I was referring to Whelan's deliberate remark about haggling. He's no dummy and knew what he was doing with it. His point could have been made without it to be sure. Leahy had the quote of the day IMO - "The President could nominate Moses the Law Giver. In fact I told the President, I said you realize if you'd nominated Moses the Law Giver, somebody would raise, 'but he doesn't have a birth certificate! Where's his birth certificate!'" Sarah Palin's comments are also off the reservation with the Sharia litmus test that she appears to be advocating. It is a sad day indeed when the wittiest thing anyone has to say is a cheap Birther joke. I hope someone, somewhere, said something wittier, or we might as well pack it in. [ EDIT: Oh, hey, look at that--someone WAS wittier than Leahy. Shocking, I know. 10 more compelling reasons why Moses would be a bad Supreme Court nominee than Leahy's Edited poor Birther joke that doesn't even make sense due to the lack of a requirement for Supreme Court justice to be natural born citizens: www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/moses-too-liberal-for-the-supreme-court-93304229.html ] |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 10, 2010 18:13:01 GMT -5
He's just throwing crap on the wall at this point. Do you actually work for Media Matters, or do you just quote them?  I thought the driver's license comment was kind of stupid, as I've mentioned, but his original column was pretty good. At the very least it was not unfair, as he was primarily questioning her experience, which is something everyone can and should be doing. Sorry, Jersey, I can't really get all bunged up about a political joke that refers to prostitution and that has been used by liberal and conservative columnists and politicians alike since long before I was born. If Whelan is guilty of anything it's a lack of originality in that line, not much else. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 10, 2010 18:29:42 GMT -5
I'd like to repeat the question asked when Clarence Thomas was nominated for the court: Is Kagan the most qualified person that could be nominated?
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 10, 2010 18:38:45 GMT -5
For better or for worse, Kagan was on most short lists generated during campaign season - along with Wood and Sotomayor. I am not sure that the most qualified necessarily get the nod - a good argument in those regards could be made against Alito and Thomas, among others. I also had a tough time believing that Sotomayor was the most qualified legally speaking out of the options available.
|
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on May 10, 2010 18:57:14 GMT -5
I'd like to repeat the question asked when Clarence Thomas was nominated for the court: Is Kagan the most qualified person that could be nominated? I agree. Only YLS. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 10, 2010 21:41:20 GMT -5
I'd like to repeat the question asked when Clarence Thomas was nominated for the court: Is Kagan the most qualified person that could be nominated? Once you reach some level of "qualified," how do you determine who of the group is the most qualified? Is it the brilliant Dean of Harvard law, the brilliant District judge in Montana, the brilliant appellate judge in D.C., or some other brilliant legal mind? Really...when you're up in the top .00001%, what does "most" mean anymore? Of course, I think Thomas got a raw deal too in terms of the hostility of his hearing. I personally think that the Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to be undemocratic. I don't like televised hearings with grandstanding Senators and every blog shooting around half-baked opinions of each potential nominee. If it were up to me, the obviously intelligent legal minds, whether they be Sotomayor and Kagan or Roberts and Alito, should be passed almost immediately. An appointment to the Supreme Court shouldn't be the same political circus that we see for elected offices. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 10, 2010 21:47:27 GMT -5
I don't like televised hearings with grandstanding Senators and every blog shooting around half-baked opinions of each potential nominee. If it were up to me, the obviously intelligent legal minds, whether they be Sotomayor and Kagan or Roberts and Alito, should be passed almost immediately. An appointment to the Supreme Court shouldn't be the same political circus that we see for elected offices. Shoot. Wish you'd been around when Robert Bork was nominated. I agree and disagree. These are lifetime appointments. As such, I think it is absolutely necessary to have rigorous review and questioning regarding their qualifications and judicial philosophy. Unfortunately, we do get rigorous review and questioning, but it usually has little or nothing to do with those criteria. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on May 10, 2010 22:11:54 GMT -5
Every political strength Sotomayor had pretty much applies here - It's going to be hard to convince Snowe and Collins to vote against Kagan, Brown will probably have to vote for her, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson doesn't have much motivation to oppose her anymore.
I have no doubt she'll be opposed and questioned hard and there'll be a lot of grandstanding and delay and attempts to fundraise off of her, but ultimately she'll inevitably be confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 5, 2010 15:41:01 GMT -5
Kagan, as expected, has been confirmed. Final tally was 63-37. Nelson (NE), Snowe, Collins, Lugar, Graham, and Gregg were the cross-over votes.
|
|
