Justice Scalia Praises Elena Kagan’s Lack of Judicial Experience

[Pepsei]

link

Well, since they're friends, I do not know if he's "praising" her because of that reason. or that he knows where she stands on things.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Judicial experience is not a requirement for the job. There is not even a solid argument that it should be.

 

[JEDIYoda]

link

Well, since they're friends, I do not know if he's "praising" her because of that reason. or that he knows where she stands on things.

your just another misinformed goofball.....
Show me where experience is a requirement...

 

[Pepsei]

your just another misinformed goofball.....
Show me where experience is a requirement...

obviously, you missed my previous post that insisted that the constitution requirement didn't say anything about being a judge. i was trying to spur conversation on this. :sneaky:

here

it is only recently we have people who have court experience. 41 of the 109 justices had no prior judicial experience. look at John Marshall, Earl Warren. my beef will be where she stands on...

 

[Linflas]

link

Well, since they're friends, I do not know if he's "praising" her because of that reason. or that he knows where she stands on things.

Given that he is friends with Ruth Ginsburg I doubt her stand on things matters when it comes to friendship. It is possible to be friends with people with political views different than yours.

 

[Pepsei]

Given that he is friends with Ruth Ginsburg I doubt her stand on things matters when it comes to friendship. It is possible to be friends with people with political views different than yours.

that's true. i even have a racist friend or two (or rather, nationalist, it depends on what your definition of racist is). As a liberal, I expect and enjoy a good debate from my other conservative friends.

 

[Thump553]

I occassionally agree with PJ but I thought I'd never agree with Justice Scalia on anything. But the fact of the matter he is correct here. The only role judiicial experience has is to create a record of written opinions-which serve for nothing other than having the Senators' staffs pour through looking for gotcha points they disagree with.

 

[Bateluer]

Judicial experience is not a requirement for the job. There is not even a solid argument that it should be.

Err, wasn't she nominated for as a Supreme Court Justice, ie, a judge? I think judicial experience being a requirement for that position goes without saying.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Err, wasn't she nominated for as a Supreme Court Justice, ie, a judge? I think judicial experience being a requirement for that position goes without saying.

What does the experience of being a judge bring to the position?

Judges are just a fancy lawyer position.

 

[tk149]

What does the experience of being a judge bring to the position?

Judges are just a fancy lawyer position.

I respectfully disagree. Lawyers represent their client's position, which means that they have to take sides. Judges are supposed to be impartial. The mentality involved is very different. I suspect that after X years of practicing law as an attorney, the mentality becomes quite ingrained. This varies by person, of course.


Obligatory joke:
What do you call a dishonest lawyer? "Senator"
What do you call a stupid lawyer? "Your Honor"

 

[CallMeJoe]

Err, wasn't she nominated for as a Supreme Court Justice, ie, a judge? I think judicial experience being a requirement for that position goes without saying.

Google "John Marshall". Don't you even read the threads you post in?

 

[Patranus]

I respectfully disagree. Lawyers represent their client's position, which means that they have to take sides. Judges are supposed to be impartial. The mentality involved is very different. I suspect that after X years of practicing law as an attorney, the mentality becomes quite ingrained. This varies by person, of course.

Well said.

 

[Moonbeam]

I respectfully disagree. Lawyers represent their client's position, which means that they have to take sides. Judges are supposed to be impartial. The mentality involved is very different. I suspect that after X years of practicing law as an attorney, the mentality becomes quite ingrained. This varies by person, of course.


Obligatory joke:
What do you call a dishonest lawyer? "Senator"
What do you call a stupid lawyer? "Your Honor"

So what? Neither party at a trial is a judges client so he or she has no duty or obligation to take sides and if he or she is good at taking sides he or she will easily recognize which side is more a taking of sides approach and which is more a matter of conviction, no? At any rate, the judge is not being paid to see things from one side or the other but both so any bias or mental capacity to do so favors both or neither side equally.

What you really are saying is that you do not trust yourself to be fair and you thus see others that way.

 

[Balt]

I respectfully disagree. Lawyers represent their client's position, which means that they have to take sides. Judges are supposed to be impartial. The mentality involved is very different. I suspect that after X years of practicing law as an attorney, the mentality becomes quite ingrained. This varies by person, of course.

Any lawyer who can't examine and assess both sides of the case isn't going to be worth much.

 

[tk149]

Any lawyer who can't examine and assess both sides of the case isn't going to be worth much.

I didn't say that.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I didn't say that.

so what did you say...cmon spit it out.....
You believe that a lawyer needs experiece..hands on...in order to "take sides"??

Why?

As long as somebody hand picked to be on the bench can uphold there sworn oath of office and be a fair judge...what does knowing where they stand have anything to do with things?

The person can still be fair..

 

[ElFenix]

there are only 2 judicial positions in the united states that do not have being a lawyer as a formal requirement: JP in texas and supreme court justice.



edit:

In 1996 she wrote an article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.” Kagan argued that government has the right, even considering the First Amendment, to restrict free speech, when the government believes the speech is "harmful", as long as the restriction is done with good intentions.

may want to read that.

 

[Balt]

I didn't say that.

Let me be clearer about what I meant. Any lawyer who couldn't argue both sides of a case isn't worth much. In order to do that, they need objectivity. They may appear to be one-sided advocates in the court room, but they can't be that in their preparation.

 

[tk149]

so what did you say...cmon spit it out.....
You believe that a lawyer needs experiece..hands on...in order to "take sides"??

Why?

As long as somebody hand picked to be on the bench can uphold there sworn oath of office and be a fair judge...what does knowing where they stand have anything to do with things?

The person can still be fair..

I suggest you re-read my post.

 

[tk149]

Let me be clearer about what I meant. Any lawyer who couldn't argue both sides of a case isn't worth much. In order to do that, they need objectivity. They may appear to be one-sided advocates in the court room, but they can't be that in their preparation.

I agree that a good lawyer must be capable of arguing both sides. My point is that a lawyer's mentality is different from a judge's. A lawyer is not necessarily objective, but a judge must be.

I'm just saying that a good lawyer would not necessarily be a good judge. I'm basing this on my personal observations of a few lawyers. They get so used to arguing for one side, that I wouldn't trust their objectivity.

I hope Kagan isn't one of these.

 

[MJinZ]

Any lawyer who can't examine and assess both sides of the case isn't going to be worth much.

I was going to say the same thing... because Lawyers WILL see both sides of a argument and advise their client appropriately... You know, when to settle, when to fight...

 

[MJinZ]

I agree that a good lawyer must be capable of arguing both sides. My point is that a lawyer's mentality is different from a judge's. A lawyer is not necessarily objective, but a judge must be.

I'm just saying that a good lawyer would not necessarily be a good judge. I'm basing this on my personal observations of a few lawyers. They get so used to arguing for one side, that I wouldn't trust their objectivity.

I hope Kagan isn't one of these.

ALL Judges ARE licensed attorneys (in their State), so there goes your theory.

You can not be a good Judge UNLESS you are a good Lawyer.

 

[Kirby]

there are only 2 judicial positions in the united states that do not have being a lawyer as a formal requirement: JP in texas and supreme court justice.



edit:
may want to read that.

you can get it here