All Things SCOTUS

[PraetorianND]

She’s got experience. She’s just heavily indexed to academia.

I’d prefer more practical application, but I don’t think it’s disqualifying at all. There are plenty of judges who don’t seem to understand the law at all and make decisions based on their feelings. Happens constantly.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I recall in her 2017 appointment hearing, she couldn't name three cases she worked on. that seems a little weird for a legal wiz.

I mean I guess I would like a SCOTUS to have numerous years of trial experience and judging before even being able to be considered. It seems ridiculous that a person with as little courtroom experience is even able to be nominated.... and YEEEESSSSSS that would include Kagan too....

Then Kagan (Obama's) doesn't fit either.

I'm OK with the narrative if it were applied across the board.

^

 

[Irish YJ]

She’s got experience. She’s just heavily indexed to academia.

I’d prefer more practical application, but I don’t think it’s disqualifying at all. There are plenty of judges who don’t seem to understand the law at all and make decisions based on their feelings. Happens constantly.

I'm more concerned that academia teaches what they have never done. To many pure "thinkers"

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

She’s got experience. She’s just heavily indexed to academia.

I’d prefer more practical application, but I don’t think it’s disqualifying at all. There are plenty of judges who don’t seem to understand the law at all and make decisions based on their feelings. Happens constantly.

It makes sense to me to have some tiered level of qualifications instead of what we have. I’d like to see these implemented for each federal level of courts. Right now with our confirmation process, if you want judges with no experience judging major cases that affect millions of people then the appearance of a partisan court is what you will get.

 

[Irish YJ]

^

I see Kagan as qualified though too, even without years on the bench.

Like I said, I'd be OK with the requirement, but that's just not how it's worked, now, or in the past. Not sure of the history, but doubt Kagan is the first with zero bench experience.

 

[ACamp1900]

She’s hot and went to ND tho,... just grin and Barrett Cack,...

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I see Kagan as qualified though too, even without years on the bench.

Like I said, I'd be OK with the requirement, but that's just not how it's worked, now, or in the past. Not sure of the history, but doubt Kagan is the first with zero bench experience.

IIRC ACB is the least experienced in 30+ years. Kagan was at least White House Counsel and Dean of aLaw school amongst her 15 years full time teaching.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

She’s hot and went to ND tho,... just grin and Barrett Cack,...

Hah.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I'm more concerned that academia teaches what they have never done. To many pure "thinkers"

Isnt this EXACTLY what ACB is? An academic with no practical experience? A pure thinker who is smart as hell?

 

[Irish YJ]

It makes sense to me to have some tiered level of qualifications instead of what we have. I’d like to see these implemented for each federal level of courts. Right now with our confirmation process, if you want judges with no experience judging major cases that affect millions of people then the appearance of a partisan court is what you will get.

She's been a prof for 15 years or so, teaching constitutional law, and others. Her legal acumen/mind is formed. She's done 3 years on the bench and wrote 79 majority opinions so she's fine procedurally. Not sure additional time on the bench does anything more for her. Not sure picking someone with 10 years, or whatever your threshold is, will do anything to change the partisan attributes.

 

[Irish YJ]

Isnt this EXACTLY what ACB is? An academic with no practical experience? A pure thinker who is smart as hell?

Except Judges are more or less there to think, know the the law, and write opinions. Right? Unless you think she'll be like some of my econ teachers who never worked a day, and wanted to talk about the pros of Marxism than about economic applications in business.

 

[Irish YJ]

IIRC ACB is the least experienced in 30+ years. Kagan was at least White House Counsel and Dean of aLaw school amongst her 15 years full time teaching.

Ah, so a political post and zero time on the bench is OK for an Obama appointee. Got it Cack.

 

[drayer54]

Isnt this EXACTLY what ACB is? An academic with no practical experience? A pure thinker who is smart as hell?

No.

There's a reason the Democrats weren't able to lay a finger on her.

We all know post-Kavanaugh the most important pre-req is a clean high school yearbook, an organized and intact day planner, and support from the majority party.

This is a dead-end road.

 

[drayer54]

Clarence Thomas will swear her in tonight. It's going to be beautiful.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Ah, so a political post and zero time on the bench is OK for an Obama appointee. Got it Cack.

Seriously bruh where did I say it was ok? Please point that out to me. FFS... This is horseshit

 

[Irish YJ]

Seriously bruh where did I say it was ok? Please point that out me. FFS...

You just seem more flexible, and soft on the no bench part with Kagan lol..

Calm down. No need for "ffs"

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

You just seem more flexible, and soft on the no bench part with Kagan lol..

Calm down. No need for "ffs"

No it is totally called for. I cant even post a single post that isnt somehow misconstrued or taken out of context. . I have at no point taken a softer stance on Kagen vs ACB in any of my posts. I even bolded my post where I said that Kagen was similar to ACB.

Praet mentioned practical qualifications. I looked and found that yes, in fact as far as SCOTUS appointments go, ACB has the LEAST amount of PRACTICAL experience in the last 30 years (including KAGAN who worked as a DEAN, practicing lawyer and WH Counsel. These facts are not biased nor am I taking a side.


FFS all this tit for tat oneup whataboutism is fucking tiresome.

 

[Irish YJ]

No it is totally called for. I cant even post a single post that isnt somehow misconstrued or taken out of context. . I have at no point equivocated Kagen vs ACB in any of my posts. I even bolded my post where I said that Kagen was similar to ACB.

Praet mentioned practical qualifications. I looked and found that yes, in fact as far as SCOTUS appointments go, ACB has the LEAST amount of PRACTICAL experience in the last 30 years (including KAGAN who worked as a DEAN, practicing lawyer and WH Counsel. These facts are not biased nor am I taking a side.


FFS all this tit for tat oneup whataboutism is fucking tiresome.

You did phrase IIRC "at least Kagan was WHC" after calling ACB the least qualified in XX years. If you call WHC practical experience for SCOTUS, not sure what to tell you. When Obama nominated her for SG, she had never argued a case. It's not oneup anything.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

You did phrase IIRC "at least Kagan was WHC" after calling ACB the least qualified in XX years. If you call WHC practical experience for SCOTUS, not sure what to tell you. When Obama nominated her for SG, she had never argued a case. It's not oneup anything.

AND I SAID SHE WAS SIMILAR TO ACB.


Working the White House Counsel as a practicing lawyer dealing with federal laws IS FUCKING PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE.

My stating ACB has the least amount of PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE IN THE LAST 30 YEARS is a fact. Sorry if it hurts your feels on the matter. I am not negating ACB's quality as a judge. I am not elevating Kegan over her which what you are really trying to say I am doing.

"Well Dems this, Dems that...." its fucking tired.

 

[Irish YJ]

AND I SAID SHE WAS SIMILAR TO ACB.


Working the White House Counsel as a practicing lawyer dealing with federal laws IS FUCKING PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE.

My stating ACB has the least amount of PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE IN THE LAST 30 YEARS is a fact. Sorry if it hurts your feels on the matter. I am not negating ACB's quality as a judge. I am not elevating Kegan over her which what you are really trying to say I am doing.

"Well Dems this, Dems that...." its fucking tired.

In her time as WHC, she worked to defend Clinton against the Whitewater and Jones scandals. Not sure how that is practical experience for SCOTUS bench?

Cack, you came in here earlier not knowing a thing about ACB. And all of sudden based on Motherjones blurb, you're questioning qualifications?

Did you know that 9 of the CHIEF JUSTICES of the SC, which is more than half, never had judicial experience before? Yes, the CJs...

https://law.marquette.edu/facultybl...tly more,had very limited judicial experience.

 

[drayer54]

This is stupid.

No sane person would question the qualifications of Kagan or Barrett.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

In her time as WHC, she worked to defend Clinton against the Whitewater and Jones scandals. Not sure how that is practical experience for SCOTUS bench?

Cack, you came in here earlier not knowing a thing about ACB. And all of sudden based on Motherjones blurb, you're questioning qualifications?

Did you know that 9 of the CHIEF JUSTICES of the SC, which is more than half, never had judicial experience before? Yes, the CJs...

https://law.marquette.edu/facultybl...tly more,had very limited judicial experience.

I can’t even .... fuck it it’s not worth it

 

[PraetorianND]

Men, always trying to keep women down.... Sad.

 

[Irish YJ]

Good blurb about purely the Chief Justice position.

None of the men appointed Chief Justice in the 19th century (Marshall, Taney, Chase, Waite, and Fuller) possessed any prior judicial experience, and only four of the eight appointed in the 20th century (White, Taft, Vinson, and Burger) had previously served as judges at any level below the Supreme Court.

Moreover, other than the three who were promoted from the ranks of Associate Justices (White, Stone, and Rehnquist), only three Chief Justices (Rutledge, Burger, and Roberts) were sitting judges at the time that they were appointed Chief Justice, and one of them, John Rutledge, had his appointment rejected by the Senate, requiring him to step down after less than six months in office.

Several of the best known Chief Justices—John Marshall, Roger Taney, Charles Evans Hughes, and Earl Warren—had no prior judicial experience at all before their appointment to the Supreme Court, but this lack of time on the bench did not work to deny them entry into the pantheon of great Supreme Court justices.

In all, 40 (CJs and Associate) have been appointed without prior bench experience

https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

 

[NorthDakota]

AND I SAID SHE WAS SIMILAR TO ACB.


Working the White House Counsel as a practicing lawyer dealing with federal laws IS FUCKING PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE.

My stating ACB has the least amount of PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE IN THE LAST 30 YEARS is a fact. Sorry if it hurts your feels on the matter. I am not negating ACB's quality as a judge. I am not elevating Kegan over her which what you are really trying to say I am doing.

"Well Dems this, Dems that...." its fucking tired.

I'm sure having hands-on experience is great. I'd rather have it than not have it, but yeah Presidents seem comfortable picking people without it so that's cool. The legal profession seems like one of the fields where a large number of the "best and brightest" mostly work on the academic side anyway.

One of my professors last year worked for the Justice Department for about 5 years total. Clerked for SCOTUS. Now teaches at a good, not great law school even though he could probably get hired at any firm or court system in the country.

Appears to be a fairly similar path to ACB actually lol I should stay in touch with him

 

[PraetorianND]

Chuck Schumer threatening Republicans that when they get the majority they are going to be angry and do what they want...

Damn dude.

Schumer stood up there and said Amy Barrett is qualified. He stood up there and said he won't be voting for her because he doesn't like her views on the constitution... He even said no rules were broken at all... He just simply doesn't like her views on the constitution.

Wow. At least they openly admit it I guess.

52 yes votes. Amy Barrett your first Notre Dame justice and the only sitting justice to not have attended Harvard or Yale.

 

[NorthDakota]

Doug Jones must be acknowledging defeat in his upcoming race. Voted no. Lol.

 

[PraetorianND]

Doug Jones must be acknowledging defeat in his upcoming race. Voted no. Lol.

Apparently Collins wants to be primaried as well.

 

[NorthDakota]

huge for Notre Dame, for textualism, for originalism, and for Judge Barrett's family.

Really nice to have someone outside the T-14 law schools as well. I think Thomas has made a point to hire clerks from regular schools for purposes like this.

Absolutely thrilling. Wonder if ND will climb up law rankings as a result. Gotta think this will help get more upper tier kids and faculty interested in the school.

 

[NorthDakota]

Apparently Collins wants to be primaried as well.

Collins is in a dogfight for her seat right now. I think this tells the independents in Maine that she is willing to buck the party. I dont think it would be wise to ever primary her. She's been very popular with Mainers until recently.