@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