Supreme Court Justice: Entry Level job
By Brian Kirwin | Monday, May 10th, 2010 | PolicyGuess the competition for an overnight shift at 7-11 was too brisk.
Barack Obama, needing only a cup of coffee in the Senate before having enough experience to become the leader of the free world, now wants to hand a lifetime judicial appointment to the Supreme Court to someone who has never been a judge a day in her life.
Sure, she’s been an attorney. But Harriet Miers was an attorney.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan has an impressive resume, to be sure. After all, the Associated Press said so. The AP also calls her “sharp,” “politically saavy,” with a “blazing legal career.”
And that’s in an “opinion-free news story.”
Doubtlessly liberal with her Harvard Law and Clinton Administration pedigree, the question only becomes if a judge’s first judicial appointment should be the Supreme Court. Since she’s liberal, it won’t matter what her stand with regards to cases would be. Only conservatives are questioned on that front. The media defends liberals inherent right to lie and pretend to be centrist.
But shouldn’t a Supreme Court Justice really have been a judge somewhere? Sometime? Shouldn’t a Justice make a decision tougher than white or red wine before a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land?
Shouldn’t we have some hint of judicial temperament, application of law, and constitutional view other than what they won’t say under oath in a Senate confirmation?
All we’re left with is she’s unmarried, has no children, and attacked the military’s policy on gays by barring military recruiters from Harvard.
Elections can be won by anybody. Lifetime judicial appointments to the Supreme Court shouldn’t go to rookies who never served a day in their lives on the bench.
Period!
-
Update
Statement of RPV Chairman Pat Mullins on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee
“Unlike every other current member of the high court, Elena Kagan has never been a judge on any court. She has virtually no legal paper trail to show Senators how she views the role of the judiciary or her interpretation of the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “She issued no decision, wrote no opinions. Until she was appointed to her present post, Kagan hadn’t even argued before an appellate court.”
“The only real insight we have into Kagan’s legal thinking is an amicus brief she signed while Dean of Harvard Law School, in which she defended the practice of banning military recruiters from college campuses,” Mullins said. “While that insight is limited, it is troubling.”
“At a time when Americans are more concerned than ever about the Federal government intruding into their daily lives, I think Virginians will have some real concerns about her ability to serve as a genuine check on an out-of-control Washington, D.C. and strictly adhere to the U.S. Constitution.” he added. “I call on Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb to ask the tough questions and get some real answers about her judicial philosophy, rather than simply rubber stamp President Obama’s nominee.
“Solicitor General Elena Kagan is for the most part a legal blank slate — an uncertain gamble for the Senate to take given the high court’s life tenure, and something that Senators Warner and Webb need to seriously consider.”
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
22 Responses to "Supreme Court Justice: Entry Level job"
John Marshall, Earl Warren and William Rehnquist were never judges before they became Supreme Court Justices. And that’s only the Chief Justices. I’m trying to find a comprehensive list of people who weren’t judges before accepting Supreme Court seats. There have been quite a few, both liberal and conservative.
I knew John Marshall. John Marshall was a friend of mine. Kagan, you’re no John Marshall.
[...] Kirwin makes the same argument from the right: shouldn’t a Supreme Court Justice really have been a judge somewhere? Sometime? Shouldn’t a [...]
This is a really dumb criticism. JeffConn, here’s that list you were looking for:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Supreme_Court_Justices_were_not_judges_prior_to_being_nominated_to_the_Supreme_Court
That’s 66 names, out of 111 overall. Which means that well over half of all Supreme Court Justices had never been judges before. So to answer your question, “But shouldn’t a Supreme Court Justice really have been a judge somewhere?” The answer is an overwhelming, “No.”
Great. Bring back Miers.
Hell, I’d love Barack to nominate Miers.
With no arguments or decisions to reference yet being an experienced Harvard elite solicitor general, The One has chosen someone uh.. right of far left liberal.
Its been 35+ years since we had a new supreme court judge with zero prior experience. Some turned out ok.. But this time fearless potus Barry O has strategically chosen someone perceived to hold generally centrist left creds to be fair.
Anyone else reading all the innoculating comments from her colleagues on the left stating that she is a moderate? Then again she may be closer to the center than Justice Stevens..
News addicts scanning the news channels and blogs for “Wise Latina” comments found anything yet?
I don’t really care is she has judicial experience or not. I just don’t want her to be any more liberal than Stevens. That is my pragmatic view, I would really prefer someone who believes that the words in the Constitution meant something when it was ratified and that if anyone wants to change them it should be through an amendment. I would like to hear her explain the purpose of the 10th amendment and what limits on Federal power actually exist.
Pretty dumb criticism. I’d guess Republicans think Lewis Powell and Rehnquist worked out okay. I actually wish Obama had gone a little further out of the legal mainstream. Kagan hasn’t been a judge, but she has a been a law school professor and dean. So she’s been imersed in the profession’s jargon and dogma her entire working life. I’d have preferred someone from the political sphere who has experience with making law.
What a stupid article. This is the epitome of “We’re going to bash anything Obama does, regardless of whether we even have time to decide if it’s a good move or not.” 66 of the previous 111 Justices weren’t judges! Over half! Do a little research before firing off an ignorant blog next time.
“We’re going to bash anything Obama does”
What was your first clue, genius?
Playing fair here. The link that VA Blogger provided lists those who weren’t judges IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to being appointed to the Supreme Court. I’m looking for a list of those who NEVER were judges.
Brian, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia all have Harvard Law “pedigrees”. They don’t exactly constitute a liberal voting bloc.
FWIW, i think Kagan’s stance on the Army recruiters may be what sinks her nomination, if anything does.
Roberts, Kennedy and Scalia attended Harvard. Kagan was Dean of the Law School, appointed by admitted Democrat Lawrence Summers, who helped every Democrat from Dukakis to Clinton to Obama, and publicly attacked a department head who helped Bill Bradley run against Al Gore in 2000. I contend that being Dean requires passing a few more litmus tests than only being a graduate.
Kagan is finished: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0510/kagan_blemish_gahr.php3
Brian KirwinNo Gravatar
Posted May 10, 2010 at 8:40 AM
I knew John Marshall. John Marshall was a friend of mine. Kagan, you’re no John Marshall.
********************************************************************
What a BS response. Loser.
Not having served as a judge is her #1 qualification in my opinion. Now if only we could get some folks who didn’t go to Yale or Harvard on there.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Conservatives-Split-Over-Kagan-Nomination-3542
I suspect that her role as a Goldman Sachs advisor may hamper her confirmation. Being a very pro gay rights lesbian activist who opposed military recruiters is Obama’s briar patch imo so watch the left wing press spin this facet… It’s RINO bait.
Remember this is Obama’s pick for a reason and I don’t expect to see Obama doing anything that is good for freedom or liberty.. don’t know the true reason yet but it and others will emerge as the saga unfolds.
First off, I would have preferred Harriet Miers over Roberts but Miers wasn’t conservative enough for some so we ended up with Roberts. My gosh, Harriet Miers wasn’t conservative enough when a Republican President was doing the nominating and now that a Democrat is President some are going to belly ache that he’s not compromising and nominating a moderate.
Ahem guys. Remember Harriet? Remember how even Harriet wasn’t conservative enough for you?
I stumbled on this website looking up information. All I found was idiocy and a blatant disregard for facts. This website is a fucking disgrace and this writer is fucking embarrassment to all conservatives out there.
C.J.,
Your post proves nothing other then you know how to cuss. If your understanding is so superior then please share some of it with us. By the way, some people consider those who resort to using cuss words in a discussion automatically as being inferior in intellect because of their inability to make their point without resorting to them.
C.J. why don’t you take another hit off of your “fattie” and go spout your potty mouth over on the VB Dems blog. They will welcome you with open arms, you will find many more of your kind of people over there, and you may be able to score some more of your favorite blend.
Kagan is another Goldman Sachs alumnus along with Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel, and Tim Geithner who lobbied TARP money for Goldman Sachs. Larry Summers also fast tracked her from professor, to full professor to Dean of Harvard Law. So, there seems to be a triangulation between Harvard, Goldman Sachs and the Executive Branch with an attempt being made now on the Judicial Branch with Kagan. Is this an attempt to plant an ideologue on the Supreme Court to lock in a vote for the “fundamental transformation” agenda we have heard time and time again?
Since being a prior judge is not a requirement of being an appointed Supreme Court judge, the question is as always, what is her compass that will sway her judgments should she be appointed.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.