Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 30 Jun '10 19:37
    why confirm her?
  2. 30 Jun '10 20:05
    Lots of reasons to confirm, but with regard to the thread's title here's a list of Supremes who were not judges prior to confirmation:

    http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

    I'd hate to pass up the next Marshall, Hughes, Brandeis or Frankfurter just because she's never been a judge.
  3. 30 Jun '10 20:13
    Originally posted by mrj0hn50n
    Lots of reasons to confirm, but with regard to the thread's title here's a list of Supremes who were not judges prior to confirmation:

    http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

    I'd hate to pass up the next Marshall, Hughes, Brandeis or Frankfurter just because she's never been a judge.
    how could you forget Rehnquist?
  4. 30 Jun '10 20:14
    with the thousands of judges ready, waiting, and available to be selected, why propose someone with no judicial experience whatsoever?
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Jun '10 20:52
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    why confirm her?
    because she was appointed by the President of the United States and she's qualified for the job... she's also seemingly not an extremist. There's not real compelling reason not confirm her. If she goes down, the next person appointed by the President would probably be less moderate and less understated.
  6. 30 Jun '10 22:53
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    how could you forget Rehnquist?
    Add him if you like. I left him out because his influence was so recent that it seems controversial to put him on the same list as the others.
  7. 30 Jun '10 22:57
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    with the thousands of judges ready, waiting, and available to be selected, why propose someone with no judicial experience whatsoever?
    I thought my first post made this point for me (Civis said it too), but I'll go ahead and state it explicitly....

    Given the number of justices who've joined the Supreme Court without any judicial experience, the burden of proof is on you to explain why someone with judicial experience is preferable to someone without. Otherwise, it's a non-issue.
  8. 01 Jul '10 00:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    why confirm her?
    40 prior supreme court justices had no prior judicial experience. The precedent is well set.

    What is wrong with the neocons on this site lately? Lazy as hell in researching.
  9. 01 Jul '10 01:09
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    why confirm her?
    Because she is a "lefty" and is young. Potentially she could have close to half a century on the bench as a nice "rubberstamp" for the "progressive" movement.

    I think what Arlen Specer had to say sums it all up.

    As a Republican he said, "I voted against her for Solicitor General because she would not answer basic questions about her standards for handling their job."

    As a Democrat he said, "I have an open mind about her nomination and hope she will address important decisions related to her position on matters such as executive power, warrantless wiretapping, a woman's right to choose, voting rights and congressional power."

    Basically everyone knows that such nominations are a way to legislate from the executive branch and now that the Dems are in control its their show. So enjoy!!
  10. 01 Jul '10 01:30
    Originally posted by mrj0hn50n
    I thought my first post made this point for me (Civis said it too), but I'll go ahead and state it explicitly....

    Given the number of justices who've joined the Supreme Court without any judicial experience, the burden of proof is on you to explain why someone with judicial experience is preferable to someone without. Otherwise, it's a non-issue.
    would you hire a chemical engineer to code the software for the Anti-Lock Brake System in your motor vehicle?

    or a software engineer?
  11. 01 Jul '10 01:37
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    would you hire a chemical engineer to code the software for the Anti-Lock Brake System in your motor vehicle?

    or a software engineer?
    Do you really think Kagan's experience is as irrelevant to the job as a supreme court judge as a chemical engineer would be for a software engineering job?
  12. 01 Jul '10 12:31
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    would you hire a chemical engineer to code the software for the Anti-Lock Brake System in your motor vehicle?

    or a software engineer?
    But you see, her lack of "history" as a judge is a benefit. There is simply less to attack. In fact, that was part of Obama's charm in 2008. Simply say as little as possible and vote as little as possible to avoid scrutiny.
  13. 01 Jul '10 14:46
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    would you hire a chemical engineer to code the software for the Anti-Lock Brake System in your motor vehicle?

    or a software engineer?
    If I know that a major car company has done so 40 times before and got good results, then I might consider it.
  14. 01 Jul '10 16:35
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    would you hire a chemical engineer to code the software for the Anti-Lock Brake System in your motor vehicle?

    or a software engineer?
    False Analogy!

    A Solicitor General has a great deal of relevant legal knowledge, ability, and experience needed to be a good judge. A chemical engineer would (presumably) lack the relevant knowledge, ability, and experience needed to code software.

    It's not like Kagan was a bus driver....

    However, if she had been, that working class perspective might still be very valuable to court -- provided, of course, that she had the smarts to know/learn the law and its history.
  15. 03 Jul '10 04:28
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Do you really think Kagan's experience is as irrelevant to the job as a supreme court judge as a chemical engineer would be for a software engineering job?
    WHAT experience does she HAVE?