- Banned
- #61
I wish she had some experience as a judge first, too, but look how many really crappy Supreme Court justices we have had who were judges first. I think other considerations are more important than that; i.e. a thorough understanding of the letter and intent of the Constitution, a proven ability to assess a situation accurately and honestly, and an ability to set aside one's personal ideology and convictions in favor of a strict interpretation of the law. I am not hearing anybody with credibility say that Kagal does not fit that job description.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist had no judicial experience and several others barely had judicial experience at the time they were nominated.
Again, would Kagal have been my first choice? No. But considering that the most liberal President that has ever held the office has the duty to nominate somebody, again, I think he could have done a whole lot worse.
See? Now this is why I enjoy FoxFyre's posts so much. While we may disagree, there's always a careful consideration of the issue at hand without a knee-jerk reaction following the talking points.
Of course I'll have to disagree with the implication of the last sentence, but that's par for the course.
Last edited: