Remember When 45, As A Candidate, Said He'll Only Pick The Best of the Best?

[sartre play]

In all fairness, Elena Kagan had very little trigger time in the court room when Obama nominated her for the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of her qualifications were academic, yet she's proved thus far to be a reasonable addition to the 9 and hasn't made any whacked out decisions deviated from the rest of the court in some way that could be attributed to inexperience.

To be perfectly frank, I know approximately dick about this nominee. That said, if this video is the only criteria you're working with, I'd say you don't really have enough information to determine whether this candidate has the legal knowledge, discernment, or raw intellect to adequately perform the functions of a circuit judge.

Your mistake regarding Kagan is that a seat in the SCOTUS is VASTLY different than a judgeship since within the SCOTUS the qualifications are PURELY academic, and not regarding experience at a jury trial or the experience in the guidelines of sentencing.

What's so different? To do the job of a SCOTUS justice, you have to know the law and the procedures relevant to SCOTUS. To be a circuit judge, you have to know the law and the procedures relevant to being a circuit judge. At some level it's all academic. The benefit you gain from education and the benefit you gain from experience all boils down to knowledge. While knowledge is more quickly attained through real world experience than through reading, there's no reason to assume that the knowledge required to be a circuit judge is somehow immune to absorption via education while the knowledge required to be on the SCOTUS bench isn't.

Sorry, but, in short, I'm not buyin what you're sellin here.

You know, there is reason people are not hired right out of college as CEO and COO and such. They have to work their way to those positions gaining experience along the way. Experience matters.

Let me ask you this, if you had to have brain surgery whom would you want to do it it, someone who had never done it before but graduated top of their class at a top med school or someone that had done it successfully 100 times in the past?

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that someone with real world experience wouldn't necessarily be preferable, or that experience isn't important. I'm simply pointing out that it's possible that this guy is fully qualified despite his lack of experience. I'm saying that the single metric presented here isn't enough, in and of itself, to determine the man's qualifications.

do we not have enough people who are both qualified & have real world experience? why not pick one of them?

 

[sartre play]

None of you seem to have answered the poll.

It looks like we can put you down for a "Yes, this is acceptable to me".

Correct?
.

I think it's completely acceptable that he attempts to pick the best among the best, rather than who happened to donate the most to the campaign or who is willing to suck his ass the most.

Can you make an argument as to why this guy wasn't the most qualified? Seems like they are asking him about something that may not be related to his job in any way. He was nominated to be a judge not a lawyer.

He was asked if he had ever heard a case. On any level. He said no.

He was asked if he personally took a deposition. No.

He could not have demonstrated a worse or weaker track record, background or skillset for this position.

That's pretty much the very definition of "qualified".
.

So you are saying that the HARVARD degree this guy has is worthless and does not qualify him in any way.

Obama had a Harvard degree. How'd that work out for you?

The nominee to be a judge is grossly unqualified, which even a tard like you would quickly realize if you watched his deer in the headlights responses to the simple questions.

Obama was a president of the country with that degree, and had little other experience.

If it's good enough for a president, it's good enough for a judge.

Look it up Obama & see what else he did beside community organizer.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

In all fairness, Elena Kagan had very little trigger time in the court room when Obama nominated her for the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of her qualifications were academic, yet she's proved thus far to be a reasonable addition to the 9 and hasn't made any whacked out decisions deviated from the rest of the court in some way that could be attributed to inexperience.

To be perfectly frank, I know approximately dick about this nominee. That said, if this video is the only criteria you're working with, I'd say you don't really have enough information to determine whether this candidate has the legal knowledge, discernment, or raw intellect to adequately perform the functions of a circuit judge.

Your mistake regarding Kagan is that a seat in the SCOTUS is VASTLY different than a judgeship since within the SCOTUS the qualifications are PURELY academic, and not regarding experience at a jury trial or the experience in the guidelines of sentencing.

What's so different? To do the job of a SCOTUS justice, you have to know the law and the procedures relevant to SCOTUS. To be a circuit judge, you have to know the law and the procedures relevant to being a circuit judge. At some level it's all academic. The benefit you gain from education and the benefit you gain from experience all boils down to knowledge. While knowledge is more quickly attained through real world experience than through reading, there's no reason to assume that the knowledge required to be a circuit judge is somehow immune to absorption via education while the knowledge required to be on the SCOTUS bench isn't.

Sorry, but, in short, I'm not buyin what you're sellin here.

You know, there is reason people are not hired right out of college as CEO and COO and such. They have to work their way to those positions gaining experience along the way. Experience matters.

Let me ask you this, if you had to have brain surgery whom would you want to do it it, someone who had never done it before but graduated top of their class at a top med school or someone that had done it successfully 100 times in the past?

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that someone with real world experience wouldn't necessarily be preferable, or that experience isn't important. I'm simply pointing out that it's possible that this guy is fully qualified despite his lack of experience. I'm saying that the single metric presented here isn't enough, in and of itself, to determine the man's qualifications.

do we not have enough people who are both qualified & have real world experience? why not pick one of them?

That's actually kind of the question I was getting at. Why wasn't someone with more courtroom experience chosen? Can you tell me? And I mean with some level of certainty, not some politically motivated gut feeling.

Do note, after having looked into the meanings of some of the terms this guy didn't understand, I'm a little less convinced that he even might be qualified, but I do stand by the principle of my defense, that being that the single metric of courtroom experience isn't, by itself, enough to make or break someone's qualification for serving as a federal judge.