hunter wheres the coke wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
Kagan had zero experience as a judge, a trial lawyer, She was a fund raiser. No way she had any qualifications
The only qualification to being a Supreme Court justice is the ability to understand and rule on interpretations of the law at the highest level. Kagan can do that and is therefore qualified.
How do you know she can do that?
carmine9 wrote:
hunter wheres the coke wrote:
The only qualification to being a Supreme Court justice is the ability to understand and rule on interpretations of the law at the highest level. Kagan can do that and is therefore qualified.
How do you know she can do that?
Magna C%m Laude Harvard Law, Dean of Harvard Law School, multiple positions at the highest level of politics
Are you seriously arguing over the legitimacy’s of Kagan’s appointment to the Court which happened well over a decade ago? Dude come on. Coney Barrett can barely read a sentence.
raging clue wrote:
Are you seriously arguing over the legitimacy’s of Kagan’s appointment to the Court which happened well over a decade ago? Dude come on. Coney Barrett can barely read a sentence.
If you've followed any of carmine/uncle/k5's posts over the years you'd know the real reason he objects to her hiring.
carmine9 wrote:
hunter wheres the coke wrote:
The only qualification to being a Supreme Court justice is the ability to understand and rule on interpretations of the law at the highest level. Kagan can do that and is therefore qualified.
How do you know she can do that?
Kagan was Solicitor freakin' General, a position sometimes referred to as the "tenth justice." She was a superstar, and she's more than proven herself since. Among regular SCOTUS practitioners, she and Roberts are commonly regarded as the smartest.
She is mediocre.
She is in the right club is all.
The Ivies are filled with mediocrities.
Their exclusion of deserving Asian students should be a scandal but instead was ok'ed by the Justice System
Here are some things she has said and done.
1. Justice Elena Kagan said something almost as shocking when she announced that “the government is paying for the medical services so they have the right to dictate details of those services.” Making the argument that is the govt pays for it, they can tell you what medical treatment you have to get!
2. Kagan said that workers “have to get vaccinated so that you’re not transmitting the disease that can kill elderly Medicare patients, that can kill sick Medicaid patients. I mean, that seems like a pretty basic infection prevention measure.” However, medical experts say that vaccinated people can spread COVID-19, though potentially for a shorter period of time than unvaccinated people spread the virus.
3. The reaction to the appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court in 2010 was a case study in how taboos are maintained in our society... It is not just that she was generally lacking in qualifications for the appointment and for pretty much every other job she has ever gotten. When Obama was set to make his second nomination for the Supreme Court, Kagan’s selection was neither a surprise nor ever seriously in doubt. She had already been on the short list of candidates to fill the first vacancy, which eventually went to Sonia Sotomayor. There were some voices raised, mostly on the “right,” regarding Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience and her relative lack of courtroom experience. However, the truly interesting objections were raised by observers on the “left” regarding the lack of “diversity” in her recruitment of professors while she was the dean of Harvard Law School.
The liberal on-line magazine Salon published an article by four law professors from less prestigious schools noting that all but one of the 32 tenure-track professors hired while Kagan was dean were "White".
4. Kagan's lack of a record. One of the difficulties in assessing Kagan's judicial philosophy and view
of the Constitution is that direct evidence is extremely sparse.
That's not only because she's never been a judge, but also because
(a) her academic career is surprisingly and disturbingly devoid of
writings or speeches on most key legal and Constitutional
controversies,
5. Kagan's absolute silence over the past decade on the most intense Constitutional controversies speaks very poorly of her
Hunter HS, Princeton, Oxford, Harvard
U of Chicago, yeah filled with mediocrities.
One can not like her positions, which is fine, or that she doesn't have much real world work experience (it's debatable if you need that kind of experience to be able to interpret the Constitution), but one loses all credibility claiming that she is mediocre. She is anything but (and I hardly am a Kagan fan).
coach wrote:
raging clue wrote:
Are you seriously arguing over the legitimacy’s of Kagan’s appointment to the Court which happened well over a decade ago? Dude come on. Coney Barrett can barely read a sentence.
If you've followed any of carmine/uncle/k5's posts over the years you'd know the real reason he objects to her hiring.
Yep.
Mediocrities getting special privileges due to bloodlines should bother us all.
It was wrong when the WASPs were doing it 100 years ago.
And it's wrong now
coach wrote:
Hunter HS, Princeton, Oxford, Harvard
U of Chicago, yeah filled with mediocrities.
Completely.
That CV confirms her membership in the club.
MIT or Cal Poly -- okay. Very bright.
Those places you listed are filled with dumb insiders.
You really don't know this?
carmine9 wrote:
coach wrote:
Hunter HS, Princeton, Oxford, Harvard
U of Chicago, yeah filled with mediocrities.
Completely.
That CV confirms her membership in the club.
MIT or Cal Poly -- okay. Very bright.
Those places you listed are filled with dumb insiders.
You really don't know this?
Insiders, yes. Dumb, lol no
Ben Shiller wrote:
One can not like her positions, which is fine, or that she doesn't have much real world work experience (it's debatable if you need that kind of experience to be able to interpret the Constitution), but one loses all credibility claiming that she is mediocre. She is anything but (and I hardly am a Kagan fan).
To call her mediocre is being kind
1. Justice Elena Kagan said something almost as shocking when she announced that “the government is paying for the medical services so they have the right to dictate details of those services.” Making the argument that is the govt pays for it, they can tell you what medical treatment you have to get! That's an intelligent person saying that?
2. Kagan said that workers “have to get vaccinated so that you’re not transmitting the disease that can kill elderly Medicare patients, that can kill sick Medicaid patients. I mean, that seems like a pretty basic infection prevention measure.” However, medical experts say that vaccinated people can spread COVID-19, though potentially for a shorter period of time than unvaccinated people spread the virus. She is ruling in a key case and does not have the most elementary knowledge of the subject. Seem bright to you?
3. The reaction to the appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court in 2010 was a case study in how taboos are maintained in our society... It is not just that she was generally lacking in qualifications for the appointment and for pretty much every other job she has ever gotten.
Ben Shiller wrote:
One can not like her positions, which is fine, or that she doesn't have much real world work experience (it's debatable if you need that kind of experience to be able to interpret the Constitution), but one loses all credibility claiming that she is mediocre. She is anything but (and I hardly am a Kagan fan).
I agree with this.
It still baffles me how very intelligent people can come to wrong conclusion on pretty much every issue.
Leondra Kruger will get the job.
The coach will do the right thing and not post for a week.
And, unlike coach, I will not accuse him in advance of posting under a different name. That was classless.
On the off chance she does not get it, I will not post for a week.
800 dude wrote:
samcallan wrote:
Biden did promise a Black woman so I do not see how he cannot follow through on that without huge backlash. It looks like a recent DC court of appeals Black woman was confirmed 53-44.
Just a point of clarification: Ketanji Brown Jackson is on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, referred to typically as just the D.C. Circuit. This is the second most important court in the country, after the Supreme Court, as it oversees the majority of litigation about administrative agencies, as well as most separation of powers cases.
The D.C. Court of Appeals is the equivalent of a state supreme court, only for the District of Columbia. It oversees stuff like a fast food joint terminating its lease too early. It is not a very important court at all.
Thanks for that clarification.
Disciple of The Watch wrote:
Wuzzle Wuzzle4 wrote:
Serious question. How many people are well qualified for SCOTUS?
I would guess probably a dozen.
The idea there is ONE most qualified person is beyond silly.
It's a lot more than a dozen.
No one was saying there is ONE most qualified. Strawman.
Making a particular race the primary qualification for nominating a qualified Supreme Court candidate is a beyond silly. You would agree with that statement, if you were being reasonable.
A couple of the people being talked about have already been confirmed by the Senate for lower courts. Biden made the promise to nominate a black woman when he really did not need to do so. First, he had the black vote locked up. Were any people not going to vote for him if he had said "I will nominate the most qualified person"? By painting it this way it can send a message that it is a token appointment or a check box appointment. The person nominated may not be seen by some as the best qualified (whatever that means). If he says "I will pick the best person" then the person who walks in does so under a much better situation.
zvxcxzcv wrote:
If you go back to the late 1960s, you'll see that court nominations have been opposed on many occasions, even prior to Bork--who was so radical he had to be opposed.
There was opposition and some were withdrawn. Prior to Bork look at the votes in the Senate. Often the person would be confirmed with single digit no votes. Some were confirmed with a voice vote...
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htmSince 1960 there were 4 withdrawals (3 really since Roberts withdrew and then was confirmed as Chief Justice). 3 were rejected including Bork.
carmine9 wrote:
Their exclusion of deserving Asian students should be a scandal but instead was ok'ed by the Justice System
good little boy. Keeping up with his right wing talking points.
Vineyard Vines wrote:
Remember the time George W. Bush nominated his personal lawyer? LOL!
Harriet Myers was not his personal lawyer; she was White House legal counsel.
Also, there were a lot of Republicans who did not support her. Yeah, she was a bad nominee.
samcallan wrote:
A couple of the people being talked about have already been confirmed by the Senate for lower courts. Biden made the promise to nominate a black woman when he really did not need to do so. First, he had the black vote locked up. Were any people not going to vote for him if he had said "I will nominate the most qualified person"? By painting it this way it can send a message that it is a token appointment or a check box appointment. The person nominated may not be seen by some as the best qualified (whatever that means). If he says "I will pick the best person" then the person who walks in does so under a much better situation.
There is no "best qualified" or "most qualified" person.
It's funny people complain about Biden saying he would nominate a black women but have NO problem with Trump saying he would ONLY nominate people from a list made by the Federalist Society.