- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,518
- 2,165
- Banned
- #121
I can only go off my opinions. I don't know her position, nor do I care. What I care about is that she has no Federal judicial service and that urks me!
I understand your position completely, and I do not disagree with you necessarily. But I also recognize that she is not the first SCOTUS nominee with no judicial experience and, should she be approved, not the first to serve.
The truth is, I am not sure what all the fuss is about. The fact of the matter is, it is the prerogative the sitting President who is nominated and it is the job of the Senate to approve, or not, the nominee. There is nothing we as citizens can do except hope that a particularly onerous nominee is struck down. Kagan does not appear to be particularly onerous thus far, unless the fact that she is an Obama nomination makes it so.
No, I would be far more concerned if we were facing a scenario in which the current balance was in jeopardy.
This is just politics.
The Senate's role is to offer "advise and consent." Since Bork though the paradigm has shifted to an all out political battle on every judicial nominee. So everything becomes an issue.
Bork was probably the best-qualified nominee for the Supreme Court we have ever had. But the Dums wanted to make an example of him and flex their muscles. Since then it's payback time.
And that is just politics.
Bork ranked right with Abe Fortas. Rab, the Constitution of 1801 is not the Constitution of 2010. It is organic, it has evolved, and we are a better nation for it.