LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
+1 jsdinTexas, Why would you appoint someone to a position with no real experience?Originally Posted by jsdinTexas
What every happened to Justices like John Jay?
By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7
| |  |
+1 jsdinTexas, Why would you appoint someone to a position with no real experience?
Because the appointing was DONE by someone with no experience? Besides, a more experienced or even more conservative person might question BHO's eligibility.+1 jsdinTexas, Why would you appoint someone to a position with no real experience?
Point well taken wolfhunter.
I don't have a problem with her having no prior judging experience, if that was her only shortcoming. The Constitution is easy enough to read, it's just a matter of interpreting it honestly. You can be an honest interpreter with no prior experience, or a dishonest interpreter with tons of experience. I believe the latter to be far more dangerous than the former. Kagan is neither, which makes her about the most dangerous.
I DO have a problem with Kagan stumbling on simple questions like "can the govt. force you to eat vegetables?" or the atrocious explanation of why it's OK for the govt. to have the power to ban books.
So, no she should not be confirmed, but not because of her judicial experience. Unfortunately, I think she'll sail right in.
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson
I have a problem with anyone not experienced enough for a particular job. I wouldn't go to a Doctor who had only read the books on their practice without having actually applied them in real life, and they wouldn't have a license to practice without prior experience. Now I know Kagan has a license to practice law, but is she the best candidate for the position? Does she have practical experience as a judge? These are the area's of her career that trouble me.
No, but that is apparent in her answers to the questions she was asked in her confirmation hearings. I am sure she will turn out to be a radical activist judge, rather that an honest interpreter of the Constitution. She's not the first justice nominee to have had such little experience.
Again, I think she is a horrible pick, but not because of her resume.
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson
Posting Permissions
