No Experience Necessary

by

This is rather painful for me to write.  No one would confuse me with a big Obama supporter.  I didn’t feel he was experienced enough to handle the job.  Nothing more than an empty suit that look’s and sounds good, but of little or not real substance.  The Country could feasibly survive such a President.  We’ve have survived worse than just naive Presidents, we have survived tyrannical Presidents such as Lincoln.

But what is really bothering me is the President is not only experienced in nothing but the academic world, 90% of his advisory staff is also zero in the real life experience area and now we get a supreme court nominee with the exact same credentials, none!

Before Kagan became Solicitor General just a year ago, she had never argued any case anywhere.  Her real-world experience in legal practice had consisted of roughly two years as a junior associate two decades ago (1989-1991).”  This does not seem to me as anything more than more of the same.  Another unqualified individual suggesting more or another unqualified individual being supported to a position for no other reason than being inside the Obama loop.

Does that sound harsh?  Let’s ask Ms Kagan what she thinks should be a litmus test for anyone nominated as far as experience;  “It is an embarrassment that the President and Senate do not always insist, as a threshold requirement, that a nominee’s previous accomplishments evidence an ability not merely to handle but to master the “craft” aspects of being a judge.  In this respect President Clinton’s appointments stand as models.  No one can say of his nominees, as no one ought to be able to say of any, that they lack the training, skills, and aptitude to do the work of a judge at the highest level. ” This is her words from her law-review article on the Supreme Court confirmation process—“Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” 62 U. Chi. L. Rev. 919 (1995)

I leave it to you to figure out if she meets her own threshold or not.  Keep in mind if this is/was her opinion then if she doesn’t withdraw her name, because she does not meet her OWN standards, then that speaks volumes of her own integrity and character.

I also tend to be leery of  those who openly exhibit disdain for established law.  Ms Kagan openly opposes the law of the land in “Don’t ask, don’t tell” the official policy of the Military on gays serving in the military, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act.  She has worked to undermine both of these policies but will she be questioned about her stances?  If she so opposed Abortions, which is the law of the land, do you think she would even get a fair chance at being heard?

While Dean of Law at Harvard she opposed Military Recruiters being on the Harvard Campus even though the law of the land was/is “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, it appears that she attempted to ban the military from recruiting there, even knowing that the law also said that you must allow it if you receive Federal Funding, which Harvard does.

The bottom line here is this.  Her being a liberal leaning individual, is not unexpected.  You know this President is going to appoint a left wing Judge, (Some guy on CNN was complaining that the Dems are the ONLY ones who have to appoint moderates.  🙄  ).  Since this does not really change the balance of the Court, I don’t have to like her, because like Sottomayor it has little or no impact.

What I DO mind, is that yet another person with no experience is put into a position of power by this Administration.  And even worse, it is a life time appointment!  For what will most likely be the rest of my life, Kagan will be OJT in the highest court of the land.  Since when is the the fact you have no experience a good thing for what is arguably one of the most powerful positions in the Federal Government?

The 90% of no experience people of Obama will be gone in 2012, hopefully, this appointment could be around for as many as 3 decades.  I  just don’t happen to believe that the USSC is the place to LEARN to be a Judge.

chas

“Rebellion to Tyranny is Obedience to God”

Advertisements

23 Responses to “No Experience Necessary”

  1. chas Says:

    Thanks for reading my friend. It does seem rather foolish to have such a position of power, such as President, and not surround yourself or avail yourself of some of the best minds the Country has to offer.

    How many people would turn him down? Talk about padding your resume`.

    chas

  2. Horsefly Says:

    Great post Chas. I don’t think Kagan would qualify for anything much beyond a bookworm. Usually a head football coach who has been successful is one who surrounded himself with astute subordinates who are experienced advisors. It appears Obama, I will never call him the President, has and is doing the opposite.

  3. chas Says:

    Olin,

    When the Founders vested the power of appointments of Judges they no doubt felt that only men of great character would ever occupy the position of President.

    As history has shown us, that has not only been the case. That so many have been so wrong over history and yet we survive, says more for the system the Founders put in place than the people that live under that system.

    chas

  4. steflrb Says:

    Here i am! 🙂
    Happy Sunday!

  5. olinl Says:

    As I read the Constitution, I see no qualifications whatsoever for judges. It is the power vested in the President to appoint anyone he chooses to be a Supreme Court Justice. It does speak volumes to the character of the man that does the appointing. If anyone that voted for Obama is doubting his appointment of Kagan, they should have considered that before casting their ballot. If they didn’t vote, they have no beef!!

  6. chas Says:

    cap,

    You are way too kind Sir. But I thank you.

    As to Kagan’s quotes, I note that not a one of them comes from a legal ruling from the Bench, mostly because she has never sat the Bench. She can say what she wants, I still have no base of knowledge to believe that she will be anything other than a liberal appointee of a left wing President.

    Which is the very reason that she is the choice. Other than she has no experience, appointed by someone who has the same amount of experience, there is little to question.

    Which Sir, was the entire point.

    chas

  7. Salvatore Says:

    Sorry about that…Morning Cap.
    ==============================
    Morning, My Friend. Yeah, I agree with much of chas’s thoughts there. Of course, at the rate Obama is going, it might be easier to oust him in ’12 than orginally thought, because he is losing support amoung his own sorts rapidly.

  8. Salvatore Says:

    Good Morning Chas,
    “what is really bothering me is the President is not only experienced in nothing but the academic world, 90% of his advisory staff is also zero in the real life experience area and now we get a supreme court nominee with the exact same credentials, none’
    ——————–
    and with some hard work…..he will be GONE in 2012.

  9. Salvatore Says:

    Good Morning Chas,
    I couldn’t agree with you more,
    Great Post Chas.
    =========================
    Agree regarding…. which??? Everything?

    cap

  10. capmotion Says:

    So, which of the following sentiments of/from Kagan do you believe disqualifies her from being on the supreme court? I do not phrase the question in terms of “left” or “right,” because those were not poles which animated the Framers; they were concerned with tyranny, at the one end, and anarchy at the other – the things we discuss as left and right these days are both far closer to the tyranny end of their spectrum than the Framers would have tolerated! But which of the following causes distress about Kagan?
    ============================================

    “I think a judge should try to the greatest extent possible to separate constitutional interpretation from his or her own values and beliefs.”

    “I think it is a great deal better for the elected branches to take the lead in creating a more just society than for courts to do so.”

    “I am fully prepared to argue, consistent with Supreme Court precedents, that the death penalty is constitutional.”

    “There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’”

    “It seems now utterly wrong to me to say that religious organizations generally should be precluded from receiving funds for providing the kinds of services contemplated by the Adolescent Family Life Act.” [Confessing that a memo she wrote for Justice Marshall that public funds could not be used for religious organizations providing a secular service was wrong.]

    “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
    ===================================
    The fact that some of us might have written such things differently, or whatever, is not the point – which of those positions makes you think she is ideologically unfit?

  11. Frank C Says:

    Condemned by her own words Chas…it is amazing how little real world experience the appointments of Oappointer have.

  12. chas Says:

    Stormin’,

    My brother. Welcome my oldest friend.

    I’m afraid there is very little chance of either. Kagan while not a Ginsberg, most certainly has all the background of being committed to the left ideology.

    chas

  13. Stormin' Says:

    The right can not derail this nominee. Only the left can. (see Meyers/Alito story).
    Advice and consent. The first is over, no? The second is votes. No filibuster
    unless there’s not yet know problems.
    The right gave the left Souter AND Stevens. The right just better hope there is Karma and they get one back.

    And Chas, W shoulda made you the head of his Vice-Presidential search committee. Then your 8 yrs. in that office would make you well qualified to be leading this nation today.
    ==============================
    Shoot, chas would be and is well-qualified to lead it now; being W’s VP would not have increased his qualifications, and it might have diminished his credibility with others.

    cap

  14. Eileen Says:

    It will be interesting to see if she does stay in the running. Do what I say not what I do.

  15. Dan Fugate Says:

    I don’t disagree with you. I’ve known plenty of people who never made it through college but were among the brightest people I’ve ever met. The opposite is true too.

    Generally, I try to play Devil’s advocate to try and bring out the other side of an argument but here; I’ve got nothing so I just decided to pick on Harvard. After all, they employ a professor who cried race when he was caught breaking into his own home. He should have been glad that the officers would have been able to stop a break in had he been a criminal.

  16. chas Says:

    Dan,

    My thanks again for reading and leaving a comment.

    I’ve known some really well educated “stupid” people. I’ve also known some exceptionally smart people that were uneducated.

    But I am speaking a lot on character. From her own writings, by her own standards, she supposedly doesn’t consider herself qualified. That she ignores that single but very major point as she accepts the nomination, should at the very least, give rise to much concern.

    chas
    ===================================
    But then it is rather refreshing to have someone who is humble about her perceptions of herself instead of being bloviatingly arrogant about themselves; the latter usually grandly overstate their substance and hence come off as buffoons, whereas the former gain credibility by admitting that they don’t “know it all” and by inviting input from others, which enables them to accomplish much, much more in the long run than the buffoons can even imagine, let alone accomplish.

    cap

  17. Dan Fugate Says:

    Experience in the academic setting is intended to promote learning about and providing an overview of current and historical issues in a given field. She studied law to the doctorate level and graduated magna cum laude. A good education should produce a thorough, modern and working knowledge of, in this case, law. If a Harvard education can’t deliver trustworthy and competent graduates then maybe we should reassess our opinion of this ivy league school.

    I’m not saying that she’s good at or will become good at her job but if she’s not then maybe a good school pedigree doesn’t equal a good education.

  18. chas Says:

    cap,

    I have absolutely no evidence in any of my research that indicates that she will be other than a liberal replacement for Stevens.

    The largest piece if evidence is who nominated her. You could argue that other Presidents have been wrong before, but she’s been working by his side for a year now. I pretty much think he has her pulse.

    chas

  19. chas Says:

    Gwen,

    I share in that concern. This is not to say that she might not turn out to be a fine Judge, but I’m not fond of tossing darts at a board with a blindfold on and thinking I could hit a bulls-eye.

    chas

  20. capmotion Says:

    I am more concerned that she was a major honcho for Goldman-Sachs from 2005-2008 than anything she hasn’t done!

    But she ain’t mere chopped liver if she was Dean of Harvard Law School, a bigger feather in one’s juristic cap than serving as a court of appeal judge for a few [or many] years would be. And the uber-Right should actually like her, because she believes in no constitutional protections for those captured on the battlefield and supports indefinite detentions for such, making her an absolute darling of the Hannitys of the world [albeit an enemy of the Jeffersons and Adamses!].

    She also wrote: “I am fully prepared to argue, consistent with Supreme Court precedents, that the death penalty is constitutional,” and does not care what international sentiments about the matter are.

    She also wrote: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

    There are many here who should be delighted about her!

  21. GwenFL Says:

    It is very sad, Chas, to see yet another inexperienced person be nominated for a high position within this administration. Hopefully she will have enough sense to remove her name.

  22. chas Says:

    There have been a number of Justices that had no experience throughout history. And quite frankly there was a time when the bar could be lower than it is today. The Constitution continues to be under assault, and I’d prefer to have someone with at least some training before sitting in the big chair. I’d like an idea on how they think.

    chas

  23. capmotion Says:

    Of course, John Marshall had never been other than a diplomat, legislator, and soldier before becoming the chief justice!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: