Why poison the debate well like that? I don’t care if she’s liberal, conservative, or radical middle, she simply does not have the level of experience I want to see in a Supreme Court Justice. And I say this not actually knowing that much about her politics or positions - I want any USSC Justice to have either significant and meaningful experience in the Federal Court system as a judge, or to be a noted Constitutional scholar, or preferably, both. I don’t think my position is any less valid than those giving high-fives to each other over “another Obama win!”
OK, fair enough. Now we’re all in violent agreement: she kicked them out of the OCS and inhibited their ability to recruit from the law school.
I said in the past that I would generally support a Kagan nomination. That remains my policy despite certain disagreements I have with Elena Kagan.
There will probably be a demand for some records of her work from the Clinton Administration. That is likely a reasonable request, given recent history. I certainly think so.
While I don’t think this request will turn up anything noteworthy, the hearing process ought to allow for time for the records to be found and read. That also seems reasonable.
She was Dean of Harvard Law School and is currently the Solicitor General. That’s not sufficiently meaningful?
Respectfully, why? What value do you think experience on the bench imparts?
“Jurisprudence fetishist gets off on technicality” – The Onion.
That’s not what I intended to do. I was trying to say that while I’m sure there will be some objections on that front, she’s going to get confirmed.
In this context? No, not in my opinion.
I’m not even sure I know how to answer this. It imparts…experience on the bench?
I had no idea wanting experience in the Federal Court system as a judge, or as a Constitutional scholar, was so radical an idea. And because this is of course the SDMB, I have to add “yes this criticism applies equally to all past nominees, including ones by Satan a/k/a Bush.”
Including such failed Justices as Earl Warren and Benjamin Cardozo, then.
It’s not radical. You’re just being asked to explain why it’s so important to you. A question which you seem to have some difficulty being able to answer.
She IS a Constitutional Scholar, by the way. She was a tenured professor at the University of Chicago and the Dean of Harvard Law.
Rule number 1, don’t put words in my mouth in Great Debates. I never said nor implied someone without that experience had, has, or would fail. I said that I would prefer the specific experience in the Federal Court system as a judge, or as a Constitutional scholar.
You want to amend your post now, perhaps?
Well if confirmed she’ll replace a person who is supposedly as liberal as she is made out to be. So the Republicans will kick up a minor fuss, like the opposing party does (and if it were the Democrats they’d be doing the same) and she’ll get in.
The only thing is someone is gonna make a fuss over her “masculine” appearence. If she isn’t a lesbian the rumours are going to surface now. Yeah well someone needs to say it, 'cause you know it’s gonna happen.
I don’t think being gay or not gay should enter into it, but watch for it 
There have been many great Supreme Court justices who had zero previous experience on the bench. Which leads me to ask: what’s so great about experience on the bench?
See, any decent lawyer is going to be familiar with Supreme Court jurisprudence. This is not something that requires on-the-job training. And any lawyer who has handled an appeal understands how the appeals process works.
So again, I have to ask, what great benefit does experience on the bench impart? If anything, it seems to me that career jurists are more apt to be infected with “robe-itis” - that arrogant discourteousness so often seen in judges (of which Scalia is a good exemplar).
Not in the slightest. Clearly you don’t say without that experience people will fail, hence I wasn’t being totally serious in my response. But it is interesting those two very well thought of jurists didn’t have the experience you find preferable.
A lot of energy and keystrokes are now being expended advancing (but not bothering to defend) the position that anyone who’s over a certain age, never married, and isn’t Hollywood-sexy must be gay. Why? Because. It’s obvious. You can see gay. You can even smell gay.
The darkly funny part is that anti- and pro-gay folks can both use this theory for their own purposes, so there’s very little to be gained in arguing against it.
She said “a noted Constitutional scholar,” and I’m not sure Kagan qualifies. I think it’s established that she hasn’t left that much of a record of her opinions. And I admit that at least having a significant record would he helpful in terms of assessing Kagan’s views.
I’m sure there have been good Supreme Court Justices with little or no experience on the bench. But I also noted Constitutional scholarship too - how many had neither experience?
As far as what’s so great, I would have thought that having the experience to deeply consider, research, and rule on both sides of an argument placed before one would be more experience than acting principally as either a prosecutor or defender - even if at times in a career that person had played both roles. It seems to me that having a track record which one can point to as being a judge who can consider all the options of both sides, can do or at least dive through the research required to assess the merits of both sides, etc. would be more meaningful than the experience of only handling one side at a time.
As far as academic experience versus real experience, it also seems to me that when one is an actual judge, one holds people lives, livelihoods, and the potential for great Social and Societal change within their hands - as opposed to treating it as an academic exercise or a moot court. It seems to me that therefore the experience of being a Federal judge would impart some better ability to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Am I a lawyer? No, I’m a scientist and an engineer. So I can only base my opinion on what would make sense to me given my limited legal research that I’ve done over my life, and my real-world experience as both an expert witness for one side or another, and as an arbitrator having to listen to testimony from two different sides - the latter is considerably more difficult and trying!
By “noted” I guess one could also substitute “experienced”, but experience does not necessarily mean “good.”
Note I have not posted about how I feel about Kagan’s positions/track record; frankly, a brief review of what I’m seeing online shows I probably would agree with her more than disagree, and I see no obvious red flags (other than of course she is anti-2nd Amendment, but that’s a given with any Obama nominee, just like anti-Roe v. Wade was a given with any Bush nominee). I won’t be gnashing my teeth if she is confirmed, but I just don’t know that she is a good candidate.
Well if you’re not not using emoticons or other flags to tell me such, then I must be forgiven for taking you seriously.
Before the first day of your new job, all anyone has is your resume, assumptions, experience with others in your position, and finally “gut feel.” This is true whether one is a sewer scrubber or a Supreme Court Justice. A person can very well excel, rise to the occasion, reveal a hidden talent, grow into a position, or whatever. But if you’re the boss choosing who to hire, who do you pick - a person with a better Q&E, or one will a lesser Q&E? (and in this case, they get paid the same regardless…) The debate here is whether her Q&E is actually lesser. I don’t know if it is, my opinion, explained in more detail about 2 posts before this one, is that it must be.
I may be incorrect about my assumptions, as I’m not a lawyer, judge, or Constitutional scholar. My assumptions may be wrong, but I don’t feel ashamed to post them. I’ll note that there are a large number of non-scientist posters on here who feel no shame whatsoever posting their opinions about scientific matters, so there you go.
The main conservative media outlet seems to be saying it pretty much the way the AP is saying it: