/Unitedbank
/Eedition
Elena Kagan (AP image)

Tell us a little about yourself

Posted by
Walter Geiger
in Opinion
Wednesday, May 12. 2010
Comments (16)
The Augusta Chronicle

Supreme Court confirmations, even foreordained ones, should not be done lightly or quickly.

So, as inevitable as Elena Kagan's Senate approval seems to be, and as quickly as the president would like to see it finished, it pays to go slowly, deliberately and thoroughly.

Please login or register to read the rest of this story.
Bookmark and Share
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
#1 H B on 05/12/10 at 08:47 AM
I dont believe this lady brings a lot of court room experience to the party. I see her as a theorist, which I feel those are persons we can do without.
I always think of a friend of mine who put into force, what our professor had told us. It blew back into his face, and he was embarassed. He approached the professor and was told, it was only a theory.
Is this what this lady is bringing to the party? I fear that if it is, we can expect different results from the court, which may be difficult for all of us. We have enough theroticians, we need more practical experience to help us thru these times.
#2 Anonymous on 05/12/10 at 08:59 AM
She will be put through the ringer..as they all are.
#3 Anonymous on 05/12/10 at 09:51 AM
"From a historical perspective"..."it wasn't until recently that prior court experience mattered so much for a Supreme Court nominee. As the progressive Media Matters has pointed out, 40 of the nation's 111 Supreme Court Justices never had judicial experience prior to their confirmation."

"You have Justice Rehnquist, he never was a judge, he didn't do trial work," ... "You had Justice [Robert] Jackson, Justice [Thurgood] Marshall, Justice Hugo Black. Thank God there are people other than just circuit court of appeals judges. I think it is a great asset she has."

Sam Stein of Huffpo


KAGAN:
1986-87: Clerk for Judge Abner Mikva, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
1987-88: Clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court
1989-91: Associate in Private Practice, Williams & Connolly
1991-97: Assistant Professor and Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1991-94 as assistant professor)
1995-96: Associate White House Counsel
1997-99: Deputy Assistant to the President, Domestic Policy Council
1999-01: Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
2001-03: Professor, Harvard Law School
2003-09: Dean of Harvard Law School
2009-10: Solicitor General of the United States

REHNQUIST:
1952-1953: Clerk For Justice Robert Jackson
1953-1969: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
1969-1971: Assistant USAG, Office of Legal Counsel


Some of the best Supreme Court Justices did not have prior circuit court experience on which to judge their views. Maybe they were the best because of their unconditioned thinking.
I am more than sure she will be thoroughly vetted.
#4 Anonymous on 05/12/10 at 09:53 AM
Why don't Obama just nominate himself. That way he can be prez and a justice which should let him dance on the constitution. I'm positive the liberal media would support it. Then they can all have a blame Bush party and Pelosi can pop out of a cake.
#5 Anonymous on 05/12/10 at 01:10 PM
I am sure President Obama knows well the views of who he appoints to the Supreme Court. What happens with each administration is the stacking of the deck of our nation’s highest court. Cards to be played that will insure their ideological views for years to come, well after the present executive branch has come and gone. Every administration does it and we should expect nothing different in the future. I believe it has never been about keeping a static civilization because change has always been the only constant. Our concern should be if this person has the insight to help navigate this nation in the direction that will empower us all to be all that is humanly possible.
#6 Anonymous on 05/12/10 at 07:31 PM
Obama won't nominate himself cause he doesn,t want to be around if Biden is in charge
#7 the truth on 05/13/10 at 05:17 AM
courious george nominate himself.now thats funny, his whole admistration has been a complete joke sence day one.
#8 momofone on 05/13/10 at 07:15 AM
I'm NOT sure Obama knows well the views of who he appoints to the supreme court- He "didn't know" the views of the preacher he had been listening to for years!!!
#9 Anonymous on 05/13/10 at 11:10 AM
Right on target!
#10 Anonymous on 05/13/10 at 11:11 AM
I sure do miss the days when our country was being run into the ground by a TRUE patriot! President George W. "my pet goat, mission accomplished, watch this drive, Iraq War, Katrina, every child left behind, Harriet Miers nominating, Enron, patriot act, economic collapse, shoe target..." Bush.
None of that matters now, we have a scape goat. Obama is the perfect person on which to let out 8 years of built-up frustration because it was unpatriotic to question Dubya.
#11 Anonymous on 05/13/10 at 06:53 PM
I'm sure he knew his minister's view but back then it didn't matter and some of what was said had a trace of tuth to it. I listen to some of the bigots screaming from the pulpit around this neck of the woods and I wonder how they could ever believe they were a man of God.
#12 bobo on 05/14/10 at 07:08 AM
It was not unpatriotic to question Bush. Where have you been? The whole time he was in office everyone had a field day with him, from Letterman to Leno. He caught a lot of flak off Katrina, and rightly so. I don't think anyone here can truthfully say that we didn't have problems under the Bush administration. But, compared to what we have now, which is multi-trillion dollar spending in one year of administration, double digit unemployment, stagnant economic growth (regardless of what the media tells you, it is stagnant), Bush looks like a miracle worker. Quit the man-love and see the real picture! And that picture ain't pretty!
#13 Anonymous on 05/14/10 at 10:00 AM
Did you watch Fox news?
#14 Anonymous on 05/14/10 at 12:01 PM
So you must not go to a southern Baptist Church.
#15 TTerry on 05/20/10 at 05:09 AM
If you Obama-butts would do research on this woman's college papers she has posted,you will find she thinks it is OK to curve your first amendment rights,when it comes to you saying true things about the gov. May-be one day she will curve your tongue if you ever become dissatisfied with the present regime. Oh I forgot, you are probably the same people that think you will get something for nothing. AINT GONA HAPPEN.
You people on the Fox-news--They have more leftest people on their show than all of the rest of the Obama media has right wingers on theirs.Do the research and then run your mouth
#16 MM on 05/21/10 at 01:30 AM
I still have contempt for those who voted against Robert Bork, who would have been a great justice. Overrated Sam Nunn voted against him and for all of Clinton's hideous nominees. Nunn turned out to be a liberal himself. Don't forget - federal judges serve for life also and they are usually the farm team for the Supremes.
It's good to see ultraliberal Stevens, appointed by the clueless Gerald Ford, depart the Court, but he will be replaced by someone as bad.
Remember in 1976 when the liberal press claimed Ford could win in November for the Repubs but Reagan could not? Voters believed their lies and rejected Reagan - a big mistake. The opposite was true. Never follow the advice of liberals.
Only registered users may comment on stories. Please login or register to post comments. Your browser must support cookies.
The author does not allow comments to this entry
Copyright © 2008-2011 The Herald-Gazette