Yesterday President Obama nominated Elena Kagan for a seat on our nation’s highest court to replace the outgoing John Paul Stevens. Her impending confirmation is already met with the usual assortment of diatribes and denouncements from various members of the political community.
An oft repeated critique stems from her lack of judicial experience, which was the case with previous justices, Thurgood Marshall and Earl Warren. Another critique is that her constitutional interpretations depart from the founding values of this nation. Others argue her brief tenure as Solicitor General – often given the moniker of the “tenth justice” – provides insight into the court’s current ideological landscape.
Coupling this recent experience, with her prior 5 year post as Dean of Harvard Law School, many feel she possesses the unique skill of bringing people together. Lady Justice continues to research what Ms. Kagan’s core constitutional beliefs are, and will update you with any breaking developments in the confirmation process.
I would love to believe that this new nominee would support the core values
of the constitution as they were intended by our forefathers. The constitution is NOT a living breathing
document…to slant interpretations to
fit the progressive agenda.
I guess we’ll just wait and see…
The “lack of experience” is an invalid excuse to get rid of someone. One does not need any experience to be a judge. I could do it easily. Each justice has a whole staff of lawyers to research and expose points of law. Constitutional Law is only what the nine Justices sitting at the time say it is.
Kagan does not need any experience. Obama had NO experience being President. Justice Roberts had NO experience being Chief Justice. Barbra Streisand had NO experience (and not even one singing lesson) when she became a singer.
I want a layperson put on the Supreme Court – we’d probably get some fine decisions.