Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Kagan lacks right experience to be on Supreme Court
Tuesday, May 18, 2010 | 2:02 a.m.
I am fascinated with all the rhetoric about Elena Kagan’s personal life and her apparent eminent qualifications as a lawyer, teacher, dean of law school and even U.S. solicitor general.
Her recommendation for justice of the Supreme Court by the president of the United States is very impressive. Only one small question.
Of all the possible, very experienced judges in America’s judicial system, why pick someone for the U.S. Supreme Court with no bench time at all?
Let’s put this in another perspective. You are able to select a replacement doctor to be on the very limited team at the major cardiac intensive care hospital in the entire country.
Are you going to pick from all the skilled and experienced surgeons in all the hospitals, or are you going to go to all the best schools and look for the most eminently qualified teacher in all the best schools who has never held a scalpel in an operation suite?
Which of these doctors do you want on your heart transplant team?
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
- Motorcycle accident claims life of man in northeast valley
- Surprise links, negotiated deals addressed by commissioners
- Hope and change and … what’s missing?
- We don’t need a CEO in charge
- New York mayor has the right idea
- Paying our own way
- Country has ‘given’ citizens a lot
- Jerry Tarkanian: Mike Moser impresses yet again on a day to remember former Rebel greats
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Harvey Talbert from Las Vegas thinks that Kagan lacks the right experience to be on Supreme Court.
Well Harvey, what did you expect from Obama who lacks the the right experience to be President???
The Constitution doesn't require a Supreme Court Justice to have any legal training at all.
There have been 40 Supreme Court Justices With No Prior Judicial Experience Before Becoming Justices
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_co...
What are you talking about? No experience? I have it on good authority that she has seen
every rerun of Perry Mason and has the complete
DVD collection of Night Court. Isn't that enough experience?
@StanG - The Constitution doesn't require a Supreme Court Justice to be human or have a certain IQ either. That doesn't mean it is OK to nominate a stupid giraffe to the court. It also does not matter how many giraffes were nominated before (even intelligent ones). That does not mean you should continue nominating the giraffe just because there were a million before. What you need to do is use your common sense and your intelligence. Do you also think we should jump off the roof because 40 people did it first?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bork and Starr
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I suppose in reading the letter from Mr. Talbert that our contry would be better off with Bork and Starr on the big court, telling women how to live and what to do with their bodies and how to treat themselves and when to do it and telling men that something pleasurable is to be prosecuted
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I guess its okay for S. Korea and Israel to buy elecions here in America now that the Court has said they can spend all they want on American elections ... yea, that's real good, too.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Yea, that'll do it, put a justice in there who has circuit court bench time, right - lots of idiots out there coming in from the loony yards screaming for their porrage
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Thank You For Reading This
There are 9 justices on the supreme court. If they were all supposed to have the same background then there would be no reason to have more than one. I suspect that the 8 justices with judicial experience can handle that aspect. The goal is (or should be, IMNSHO) to have a variety of ways of thinking represented.
Some factual content on her background, not that conservatives and libertarians will care.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
I think that having a varied backgrown is good for the Supreme Court.
Maybe a used car salesman or a community organizer would be good...
lol, teabagger swear words: community organizer, empathy, compassion, secular, diversity, science, social justice...
Can't wait for the confirmation hearings:
So tell me, Ms. Kagan, what do think about the new Indigo Girls release?
You know how to drive a stick shift, or maybe not?
Why do Liberal posters like okra have to use vulgarity to refer to those who have different political beliefs than their own?
Maybe these posters are lacking in self esteem and feel the need to use profanity as a part of their scare tactics...
What concerns me most is her "qualification" as U.S. solicitor general. Like any prosecutor that means she's inclined to follow the party line -- you know, the state uber alles.
As for past justices with lack of bench experience, let's not forget up until the first half of the last century the bedrock of all attorneys' education was Blackstone and reverence for the Rule of Law. That's now been replaced by political expediency, selfish concerns, rampant corruption on the bench -- as the brave and Honorable Edith Jones said "America's courts are corrupted beyond all recognition."
The proof? Any one else concerned how We the People have allowed a private club -- the Bar associations -- to usurp an entire branch of government?
"Which of these doctors do you want on your heart transplant team?"
Talbert -- this is my single bone to pick with you. I tire of attorneys comparing themselves to the medical profession. For starters, what do attorneys heal? They depend on the adversarial side of human social and political relations to make a living.
Lawyers -- it's what's for dinner.
A total of 40 justices (10 Chief Justices and 30 Associate Justices) of the 111 seated (36%) had no judicial experience before joining the US Supreme Court.
John Jay- Envoy, Ambassador
John Marshall- Secretary of State
Roger Taney- Secretary of the Treasury
Salmon Chase- Secretary of the Treasury
Morrison Waite- Pres, OH Constitutional Convention
Melville Fuller- Lawyer
Charles Hughes- US delegate, Perm Court of Arbitration (The Hague)
Harlan Stone- Associate Justice, US Supreme Court
Earl Warren- Governor, California
William H. Rehnquist-Associate Justice, US Supreme Court
Kagan has argued six cases before the Supreme Court, none of the members on the Supreme Court can make that statement.
"William H. Rehnquist-Associate Justice, US Supreme Court"
VernosB -- doesn't exactly fit your "had no judicial experience before joining the US Supreme Court." Kindly explain.
My own opinion, based on many years of citizen observation and sometime unfortunate consumer, is if the average citizen knew how low the quality is of the average sitting judge, there would be that revolt that's been brewing.
"The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law ..... When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?" -- the Honorable Edith Jones to Harvard's Federalist Club "American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School" 2/28/03
"William H. Rehnquist-Associate Justice, US Supreme Court"
No black robe, wasn't a judge that decided cases.
Hey Vern...
Did not Kagan lose all those six cases that she brought before the Supreme Court?
I think we need a community organizer on the high court...
Most of these comments demonstrate profound ignorance regarding the day to day work of trial court judges. Their civil calendars consist mostly of fender-bender injury cases, construction defect claims, landlord-tenant disputes, debt collections, and maybe an occasional partnership fight. Judges with criminal calendars spend their days listening to cops testify about DUIs, drug possession, petty theft, and so on. They don't, in other words, spend much -- if any -- time debating Constitutional principles and their effect on matters of national significance. Those types of discussions do take place, however, on a daily basis throughout our nation's law schools. The dean of the Harvard Law School is thus in a much better position to take on the role of a Supreme Court Justice than most trial court judges.
Making the dean of the Harvard Law School a member of the Supreme Court makes about as much sense as making a community organizer the President.
Sometimes you get what you pay for...
LarryVegas - "Making the dean of the Harvard Law School a member of the Supreme Court makes about as much sense as making a community organizer the President."
Obviuosly you know nothing of our president. Another empty right wing talking point, from Fox maybe?
Oh yeah, that came from good old Rudy, the same Rudy who said "we've never had a terrorist attack under George Bush."
Emthree -- what profound ignorance. Every judge swears an oath of office -- essentially, a promise to We the People -- to do pretty much what you said they don't have the time to "spend much -- if any -- time debating."
I do agree except for the federal bench the "national significance" part is too remote to be relevant to local courts.
We don't need more academics, we need more real justice for real people. Yet the tyranny of the Bars have set themselves up as toll booths in our path to getting what the judiciary must give us. What's wrong with this picture?
LarryV -- what you said.
One of the best justices to ever sit on that highest court was John Marshall. He'd had only six months of law school, and that was to impress the father of a girl he was interested in. Yet he gave us enduring masterpieces like 1803's Marbury v. Madison -- the one that gave us the bedrock principle this country has a government of laws, not of men, and that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual. Why was he so good? He grew up reading Blackstone.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- Dick the Butcher in Shakespeare's "Henry The Sixth," Part 2 Act 4, scene 2
Yes, judges -- and lawyers -- and all State and federal officeholders -- even notaries public -- all take oaths to uphold the Constitution. That doesn't mean, however, that any of them spend any significant portion of their time working on Constitutional issues. The fact of the matter is that the average State trial judge probably has a good working knowledge of Fourth and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence if he or she covers criminal cases, but that's probably about it. Constitutional issues simply aren't raised very often at a trial court level.
That isn't a criticism, by the way, of trial court judges. I'm sure there are a number of appellate court judges/justices who would have difficulty dealing with the intricacies of a lengthy jury trial.
Hey Vern...
In response to your question:
Do you know anything about our President?
Do you know where and if he was born?
Do you know what religion he really aspires to?
Do you know what beliefs and organizations he had as a young man?
Do you know what his academic record is?
Do you know for what purpose he sat for twenty years in the Reverend's Wright church, when he did not hear or remember anything?
Do you really know of his association with Bill Ayers and other shady characters?
Do you know why he and his family does not celebrate Christan holidays such as Christmas?
Do you know why the President being a millionaire does not help support his poor aunt, who is on public assistance, that thinks so much of him?
So Vern, Liberals such as yourself wanted to know every tiny detail in George Bush's life but you are content to know nothing about Obama other than the fact that you all think he is the second coming...
Comment removed by moderator. Name-calling.
REID: Supreme Court nominee Solicitor General Elena Kagan a superstar in the American legal community http://bit.ly/aQKW0e
The only way this woman, Elena Kagan, is not going to be sworn in as a Supreme is for her to die in her sleep.
I don't doubt for one minute that she will do a good job. She knows the law. She has taught the law at a very prestigious institution. Lets not forget that she is above all an American. She'll be okay. Keep a good thought for a change.
LarryVegas, I just have to answer one of your questions:
I'm pretty sure he was born.
It's not a question of Kagan's lack of judicial experience, it's a question of her background as Solicitor General.
Liberals, instead of looking at her personal "identity", look at how she will treat things such as the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. Her past views on cases like that should scare the hell out of you. Then ask yourself why Republicans had no problems with confirming her as Solicitor General.
The only personal liberties that might be safe under her will be Roe v. Wade and GLBT issues. Everything else is going to be a nightmare. Just what do you think she will do when Obama and Holder ask for relaxed rules regarding Miranda? How do you think she will rule when Obama and the Senate want to strip a *suspect* of US Citizenship before a conviction?
Obama is not Bush Lite when it comes to those civil liberties, he is Bush Heavy and is stacking the deck for the Court battles to come.
Liberals, take off your blinders!!!
Wait a minute. I thought Obama was going to toss out the 2nd Amendment. Now you're telling us he's planning to negate the 4th, 5th and 6th as well?
Holy sh!t Batman, let's all join the American Civil Liberties Union. It's our only hope!!!!
StanG, did you not see the recent stories about Holder's request and Obama's support to weaken Miranda? They were on the AP wire and most of the news networks (and I don't mean Fox).
I thought Republicans want stronger criminal laws and Democrats want better protection for the rights of citizens. And yeah, the ACLU is a damn good thing, I wish Obama would have nominated someone from there.
JustinBarasky, did you change your name from Justin Reid to Barasky?????
Kagan will do a great job.
Republican losers, lose again.
Cry,Cry,Cry.
The teamster KNOWS that Kagan will do a great job, because a little birdie told him so...
I like the teamster. He is so dedicated to his cause...
Lets face it folks. Nobody in government does a GREAT job. Sheesh! Most of them don't do any job. Of all the people in governmeant that even work five days a week it's the Court. Even they don't do a GREAT job. I think they do a GOOD job.
Take for instance The Attorney General, Eric Holder. He stood before a Congressional commitee and admitted he hasn't read the SB1070 bill from Arizona. WTF. What the hell does he do? The law is 10 pages. This guy ain't gonna make it. Talk about your underachievers.
Kagan has One Vote. That's all, One Vote. Trust her to make it a smart vote. It's all you have people. Like I said. Let's keep a positive thought.
I share boftx's apprehension(?) at least as far as civil liberties go.
All told SB1070 was 17 pages, including Title and ToC, and 9 of them dealt with employing illegal immigrants.
But yeah, if I can read that bill and have a reasonable understanding of what it said you gotta wonder what Holder was doing before shooting his mouth off about it.
After eight years of Dubya and Darth Cheney it's understandable for libs to stick up for O. It's time to speak up though when they want to strip SUSPECTS of their citizenship and lock them up with no legal recourse. (paraphrasing Digby).
I think Obama is going down the wrong road, and at the very least we need to know where Kagan stands on miranda dilution, assasination of citizens w/o due process etc.
Glen Greenwald puts it this way:
"It really is the case that every new Terrorist incident reflexively produces a single-minded focus on one question: which rights should we take away now/which new powers should we give the Government? We never reach the point where we decide that we have already retracted enough rights."
Not that anyone cares, but since I quoted him:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_...
Take of your blinders indeed. As long as liberals let conservatives cow them on "terrorism" and "national security" issues, we'll just end up with more senseless wars and a more repressive police state in general. It's time to stop letting them frame the debate--as if a no vote for more war is "weak," for example.
We need to get the hell out of Iraq now just as much as we did two years ago. Party politics doesn't magically change that.
Not only did Attorney General Eric Holder not read Arizona's SB-1070 before talking stink about it, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted that she has not read SB-1070 even though she has been on television to criticize it.
I wonder if Kagan or Obama has read it.
Maybe nobody in the Obama administration has had time to read SB-1070.
But they did not waste any time demonizing the bill...
"That doesn't mean, however, that any of them spend any significant portion of their time working on Constitutional issues."
emthree -- actually, ALL their time is spent "working on Constitutional issues." Being it, as the organic law of this country or state (whichever the case may be), is the source of their authority to declare the law, the legislatures to make the laws, the police to enforce the laws. And any law in conflict with the Constitution(s) is automatically void.
"...the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." -- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 180 (1803)
boftx -- you made some excellent points.
They just caught another Congressman in a love affair with his assistant. Those guys are just horndogs. Plus another schmutz from Connecticut lied about his military service. Arlen Spector got ousted In Pennsylvania after 30 years. The hits just keep on comin'.
A real conspiracy advocate would suspect that the TEA Party is actually being secretly directed by the Democrats in order to have ultra-conservatives facing mediocre Democrats who would otherwise lose to a moderate Republican. We can see both Reids employing a similar tatic here in Nevada.
Is Judge Wapner still alive?
I see the Sun's staff of censors are busy clipping out Anti-Illegal and anti-homosexual commentators at will.