0
   

Kagen totally unqualified

 
 
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 05:14 am
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37614


Quote:
Kagan Unqualified To Be on Court
by Rep. Ted Poe
06/23/2010


The new Supreme Court pick, Elena Kagan, has never been a judge. She's never seen a courtroom from the bench. She's never had a judge's responsibilities. Elena Kagan has never instructed a jury or ruled on a point of law—any point of law. She's never tried a criminal case, a civil case, or even a traffic case. She has not decided even one constitutional issue.

We don't know whether or not she believes the Constitution is the foundation of American law or whether she thinks, like many, the Constitution constantly changes based upon the personal opinions of Supreme Court justices. But either way, Elena Kagan has never had to make a constitutional call in a court of law in the heat of a trial.

She has never admitted evidence or ruled out evidence or ruled on the chain of custody regarding evidence. She has never made even one decision regarding any rule of evidence. She has never ruled on the exclusionary rule, the Miranda doctrine, an unlawful search and seizure allegation, a due process claim, an equal protection violation or any constitutional issue.



She has never impaneled a jury. She has never instructed a jury on a reasonable doubt or sentenced a person to the penitentiary. She has never had to decide whether a witness was telling the truth or not. As a judge, she has never heard a plaintiff, a defendant, a victim, or a child testify as a witness. She has never made that all-important decision of deciding whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime.

She has never ruled on a life-or-death issue.

Elena Kagan has never made a judgment call from the bench—not a single one. Yet, as a Supreme Court justice, she would be second-guessing trial judges and trial lawyers who have been through the mud, blood and tears of actual trials in actual courts of law. How can she possibly be qualified to fill the post of a Supreme Court justice?

Kagan is an elitist academic who has spent most of her time out-of-touch with the real world and with the way things really are. Being a judge would be an exercise to the new Supreme Court nominee. She has read about being a judge in books, I suppose. She might even have played pretend in her college classroom, but she has never held the gavel in a courtroom. Her first time to render judgment should not be as a member of the United States Supreme Court.

Aside from never being a judge, she has never even been a trial lawyer. She has never questioned a witness, argued a case to a jury or tried any case to any jury anywhere in the United States. Real-world experience makes a difference. Reading books about something and actually doing it are two completely different things.

People's lives and livelihoods are at stake in these courtroom decisions, particularly when they reach our highest court. Courtroom experience is fundamental to being a judge on the Supreme Court. As anyone who has been through the court system can testify, a courtroom is a whole different world.

Putting Elena Kagan on the United States Supreme Court is like putting someone in charge of a brain surgery unit who has never done an operation. She may be qualified for the classroom, but she is certainly not qualified for the courtroom. She should stay in the schoolhouse since she has never been in trial at the courthouse. The Supreme Court is no place for on-the-job training.

And that's just the way it is.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,447 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 05:49 am
@gungasnake,
We had have some great supreme court judges who never was a judge being place on the court and I may be wrong but I do think we even have a few who was not lawyers.

It only been the last fifty years so that the majority of court appointments had a history of being judges.

I am off to googling..............
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 05:57 am
@gungasnake,

Sorry no non-lawyers on the court but a lot of non-judges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2005/10/03/non-judges-on-supreme-court-not-uncommon.htm

Non-Judges on Supreme Court not Uncommon
Monday October 3, 2005
Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, has never served as a judge. While this fact raised a few eyebrows, it is not unusual. Former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist had never been a judge when he joined the Supreme Court in 1972.
While selecting Supreme Court justices from among the ranks of federal appeals court judges has become a recent precedent, the historic tradition has been for presidents to nominate elected officials and deeply experienced lawyers who had never served as judges.

Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Sen. Hugo Black (D-Alabama), Attorney General Robert Jackson and Securities and Exchange Commissioner William O. Douglas. William H. Rehnquist was Assistant Attorney General when nominated by President Nixon, who also nominated distinguished attorney Lewis F. Powell Jr.

The practice of nominating appeals court justices did not become common practice until around 1965.

If confirmed by the Senate, Ms. Miers would be the only justice on the current court without prior judicial experience.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 06:11 am
@gungasnake,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2539960/posts

The lawyer in me is making me play devils advocate:
The new Supreme Court pick, Elena Kagan, has never been a judge. She's never seen a courtroom from the bench. She's never had a judge's responsibilities. Elena Kagan has never instructed a jury or ruled on a point of law—any point of law. She's never tried a criminal case, a civil case, or even a traffic case. She has not decided even one constitutional issue.

Neither have 36% (40 out of 111) of the Supreme Court Justices who proceeded her. The list includes both liberals (Douglas), conservatives (Rehnquist), and centrists (White and Powell). Even our favorite son -- Justice Thomas -- never instructed a jury or tried a criminal, civil, or traffic case.

But either way, Elena Kagan has never had to make a constitutional call in a court of law in the heat of a trial.

If we use this as the standard, then something like 90% of the prior justices would have been unqualified. Indeed, IIRC the only current justice who has served as a trial judge is Ginsburg.

She has never admitted evidence or ruled out evidence or ruled on the chain of custody regarding evidence. She has never made even one decision regarding any rule of evidence. She has never ruled on the exclusionary rule, the Miranda doctrine, an unlawful search and seizure allegation, a due process claim, an equal protection violation or any constitutional issue. She has never impaneled a jury. She has never instructed a jury on a reasonable doubt or sentenced a person to the penitentiary. She has never had to decide whether a witness was telling the truth or not. As a judge, she has never heard a plaintiff, a defendant, a victim, or a child testify as a witness. She has never made that all-important decision of deciding whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime.

Same as above.

Yet, as a Supreme Court justice, she would be second-guessing trial judges and trial lawyers who have been through the mud, blood and tears of actual trials in actual courts of law. How can she possibly be qualified to fill the post of a Supreme Court justice?

The constitutional role of the SCOTUS is not to "second guess" trial judges. They have completely different roles within our judicial system. Indeed, in 99.99999999999% of the cases, the SCOTUS is not reviewing the the decisions of the trial court, but rather the circuit court of appeals or the highest appellate court of a state.

The most important reason to oppose Kagan is not her lack of judicial experience (which would not be an issue if she was a conservative), but rather her liberal, if not marxist ideology and her refusal to disclose documents that would objectively affirm who she is, how she thinks, and what kind of judge she will be (as if we don't already know).


14 posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:51:31 AM by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Man50D
Harvard



15 posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:52:57 AM
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 06:55 am
@gungasnake,
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201005110008

Top Republicans Hypocritically Target Solicitor General Kagan's Experience
May 11, 2010 6:30 pm ET
Republican Senators Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions, and John Cornyn have all criticized President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, for her lack of experience as a judge. However, in 2005, all three Republican leaders touted President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers, who also lacked both judicial experience and Kagan's impressive credentials.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
2010:

She's the least qualified in terms of judicial experience in 38 years. Now some would argue that maybe we need to have people who don't have judicial experience. I saw a survey indicating that about 70 percent of the American people think that judicial experience is a good idea for somebody who is going to be on the Supreme Court. [ABCNews.com, 5/10/10]

2005:

Ms. Miers has an exemplary record of service to our country. She will bring to the Court a lifetime of experience in various levels of government, and at the highest levels of the legal profession. She is a woman of tremendous ability and very sound judgment. ... Ms. Miers has great experience in government as well, at the local, state, and federal levels. ...She is well qualified to join the nation's highest court. ... She will make a fine addition to the Supreme Court, and I look forward to her confirmation. [McConnell Floor Speech, 10/4/05]

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
2010:

Ms. Kagan's lack of judicial experience and short time as Solicitor General, arguing just six cases before the Court, is troubling. The public expects Supreme Court nominees to possess a mastery of the law, a sound judicial philosophy, and a demonstrated dedication to the impartial application of the law and the Constitution. With no judicial opinions to consider, it will be especially important that other aspects of her record exhibit these characteristics. [Sessions.Senate.Gov, 5/10/10]

2005:

My conversations with Harriet Miers indicate that she is a first-rate lawyer and a fine person. Her legal skills are proven and her reputation throughout the legal community is excellent. It is not necessary that she have previous experience as a judge in order to serve on the Supreme Court. It's perfectly acceptable to nominate outstanding lawyers to that position. I look forward to the confirmation process and to learning more about her judicial philosophy. [Sessions Statement, 10/3/05 via NYDailyNews.com, 5/10/10]

NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (R-TX)
2010:

Ms. Kagan is likewise a surprising choice because she lacks judicial experience. Most Americans believe that prior judicial experience is a necessary credential for a Supreme Court Justice. [Cornyn.Senate.Gov, 5/10/10]

2005:

One reason I felt so strongly about Harriet Miers's qualifications is I thought she would fill some very important gaps in the Supreme Court. Because right now you have people who've been federal judges, circuit judges most of their lives, or academicians. And what you see is a lack of grounding in reality and common sense that I think would be very beneficial. [Cornyn Statement, 10/27/05 via Salon, 5/10/10]

0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 07:40 am
I glanced at the editorial gunga used to support his argument and immediately found some faulty reasoning: that Kagan had never impaneled a jury. There are no juries in SC hearings.

A harder look showed that the author was pleading that without experience in basic courtroom technique and procedures, Kagan would be unable to serve the SC. She has, as an academic administrator, experience in organization which the right claims to admire, even demand. Certainly, the SC is as rigorously scheduled as a law school.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 07:47 am
@plainoldme,
Plainoldme it just the right wingnuts as 40 out of 111 members of the supreme court had similar or less background then Kagen now have when they was picked for the court.

Second, as I had posted the same Republicans who are crying about her did not have a problem when Bush try to place a woman with far less background then Kagen on the court.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jun, 2010 10:24 am
@BillRM,
I read your post. A lack of hypocrisy has never been a qualification for public office, unfortunately.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Kagen totally unqualified
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 09:06:58