Senate blocks appointment of unqualified left wing radical

[MotF Bane]

You're not talking about making him a judge, you're talking about nominating him to be a judge on one of the top courts in the country -- without him ever having done the job at any level. It's very much comparable to the surgeon with no hands-on experience.

No, it's really not comparable. A judge can take plenty of time to make a decision, read up on whatever s/he wishes to for their decision, et cetera. A surgeon has seconds, or at most minutes, to make a decision under pressure, with at most time to ask another surgeon for a quick consultation.

 

[CallMeJoe]

No, it's really not comparable. A judge can take plenty of time to make a decision, read up on whatever s/he wishes to for their decision, et cetera. A surgeon has seconds, or at most minutes, to make a decision under pressure, with at most time to ask another surgeon for a quick consultation.

There's also another layer of the judiciary above the appellate court, providing an opportunity for correction of a bad decision at the appellate level. Surgeons do not usually get do-overs.

 

[PokerGuy]

Per kami333's post above, 37.5% of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had no prior judicial experience, so it does not appear that it was previously seen as a de facto disqualification, PokerGuy logic notwithstanding.

Nobody said that by itself it's de facto disqualification. Combine it with a nice trail of crazy writings, and then you have good reasons for rejecting the candidate.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Nobody said that by itself it's de facto disqualification.

You're the one who kept hammering that point, insisting Mr. Liu was "unqualified" entirely on the basis of his lack of judicial experience.

Combine it with a nice trail of crazy writings, and then you have good reasons for rejecting the candidate.

Were you among the "Conservatives" insisting that qualification and ideology were two separate and distinct questions during the hearings for President Bush's nominees?

 

[thraashman]

Nobody said that by itself it's de facto disqualification. Combine it with a nice trail of crazy writings, and then you have good reasons for rejecting the candidate.

His writings are crazy only from the very VERY limited perspected of the extreme conservative who refuses to accept reality. The American Bar Association gave him their highest grade of very highly qualified.

 

[PokerGuy]

You're the one who kept hammering that point, insisting Mr. Liu was "unqualified" entirely on the basis of his lack of judicial experience.

He is unqualified, but not solely on the basis of his lack of experience (though that certainly is a big part).

Were you among the "Conservatives" insisting that qualification and ideology were two separate and distinct questions during the hearings for President Bush's nominees?

I have no idea what you're talking about. People with differing ideologies can still be qualified, but not if those ideologies lead them to radical positions. Those are better suited to teaching at Berkeley.

 

[PokerGuy]

His writings are crazy only from the very VERY limited perspected of the extreme conservative who refuses to accept reality.

In addition to being radical, he's also a racist. Plenty of reason to reject him, which the senate effectively did by not bringing it up for a vote.

 

[werepossum]

But he's not yet a judge. And therefore he's not an activist judge. Being a legal scholar he is aware that the role of a judge is to interpret the law in regards to the Constitution of the United States. Most people who are prominent in the legal profession and not just in it for the money are activist in some capacity. When they become a judge that has to stop because it is now not their place for that. Notice the most "activist" judge currently on the supreme court is Clarence Thomas if you take activist to mean a judge that rules in a fashion to legislate from the bench rather than uphold the law. In fact the current overly conservative court has been ruling in an activist capacity at a greater rate than just about any SC before it.

Evidently activism is in the eye of the beholder. Or perhaps in the tin foil hat of the beholder, in this case.

 

[Fern]

Is this person inexperienced?

The answer is yes. And it's not just because they've never been a judge. Having first served as a judge in a lower court would be good experience, and we'd know from reading their decisions how they may rule as an appeals judge.

However, this person also lacks courtroom experience (I'm discounting the one case years ago). This person appears to not even have worked as an attorney. All I see is teaching experience.

There is a lot more to being a judge than just the legal knowledge. They oversee a number of court employees. They must coordinate and organize the caseload with any number of attorneys. What would this person's demeanor in court be like? We have no idea.

Being a judge is not simply just some academic excercise, they affect many peoples' lives in material ways. IMO, this is not something to be taken lightly.

Fern

 

[dainthomas]

I don't know if other ones are more qualified or not, just that he's obviously not. We'll look at the qualifications of others when they get nominated.

You listed some wonderful credentials as a lawyer, but he hasn't EVER been a judge at any level. Simple question, would you let a brain surgeon who's never performed surgery even once perform it on you just because he's read a lot of books about it? If so, good for you, I certainly wouldn't.

You've repeated many times that you know nothing about what qualifies someone to be a federal judge. We get it.

You're probably one of those people who believe only lawyers should be in Congress too. You wouldn't want someone who doesn't know the law to write new ones would you?

 

[ElFenix]

eh, being an appellate judge and being a trial judge are two wholly different things. in fact, i would say being a trial judge would actually inhibit the ability of a person to be an appellate judge.

 

[CanOWorms]

You're not talking about making him a judge, you're talking about nominating him to be a judge on one of the top courts in the country -- without him ever having done the job at any level. It's very much comparable to the surgeon with no hands-on experience.

The work of an appellate judge is completely different than a trial judge. In addition, you're not going to have someone of his caliber likely settle for a district court position.

He has also worked at the appellate level as a clerk at the Supreme Court and the DC Circuit, two of the most prestigious courts. His resume is extremely impressive with just these 2 on there. However, we have more. He also worked at the Department of Education. Working in the executive branch is another useful thing for a judge as it gives them more perspective. He also has work experience as a lawyer and a professor/scholar.

He is extremely well qualified.

 

[theeedude]

Obama should call GOP's bluff nominate him for trial judge then. He can still nominate him for USSC if there is an opening, just to cost GOP Asian voters.

 

[chowderhead]

I agree with Murkowski. Elections have consequences. Presidents should have the right to to have their appointments and judicial nominees voted on. The Senate should vote up or down on the selections.

Edit: This isn't about the Asian votes anyway since most of the Asian voters are on the coast and in non-swing states such as Washington/California/Texas/New York.