Kagan may get confirmed, but Thurgood Marshall can forget it

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062805129.html?hpid=topnews

Oppo researchers digging into Elena Kagan’s past didn’t get the goods on the Supreme Court nominee – but they did get the Thurgood.

As confirmation hearings opened Monday afternoon, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee took the unusual approach of attacking Kagan because she admired the late justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked more than two decades ago.

“Justice Marshall’s judicial philosophy,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, “is not what I would consider to be mainstream.” Kyl – the lone member of the panel in shirtsleeves for the big event – was ready for a scrap. Marshall “might be the epitome of a results-oriented judge,” he said.

It was, to say the least, a curious strategy to go after Marshall, the iconic civil rights lawyer who successfully argued Brown vs. Board of Education. Did Republicans think it would help their cause to criticize the first African American on the Supreme Court, a revered figure who has been celebrated with an airport, a postage stamp and a Broadway show? The guy is a saint – literally. Marshall this spring was added to the Episcopal Church’s list of “Holy Women and Holy Men,” which the Episcopal Diocese of New York says “is akin to being granted sainthood.”

Opinion piece. I guess they didn't want to report on her SNAFU regarding the Solomon Amendment (which the court overruled with a 9-0 decision).

The article points out that Marshall argued 32 cases before the SCOTUS. How many did Kagan argue?

This article makes her out to be the greatest legal mind since John Mashall.

[quote="jjdrury81, post:1, topic:203665"]
The guy is a saint -- literally. Marshall this spring was added to the Episcopal Church's list of "Holy Women and Holy Men," which the Episcopal Diocese of New York says "is akin to being granted sainthood."

[/quote]

So promoting abortion and supporting Roe v. Wade is saintly now? :rolleyes:

are you also claiming that Marshall was not both a great lawyer and supreme court justice?

I love the title of this thread. LOL

[quote="jjdrury81, post:1, topic:203665"]
%between%The guy is a saint -- literally.

[/quote]

Well that seems totally objective.

[quote="jjdrury81, post:4, topic:203665"]
are you also claiming that Marshall was not both a great lawyer and supreme court justice?

[/quote]

Any man that contributes to the establishment of the the murdering of children as part of the law of the land cannot be objectively considered good.

No matter what other good deeds he may or may not have done in his life. This one act is so permanent and so grievious that it counter balances all others.

The fact that he supported his decision (Roe v Wade) until the day he died adds weight to my arguement.

So to answer your question. No I don't consider him a great lawyer or a great supreme court justice any more than I consider Chief Justice Roger B. Taney a great lawyer or great supreme court justice. In many ways, Thurgood Marshall's decison is worse. Those children had no chance ever to live free. A slave at least may become free if their master allows it. All those millions of children who were murdered and are still being murdered have no chance to live at all.

[quote="jjdrury81, post:4, topic:203665"]
are you also claiming that Marshall was not both a great lawyer and supreme court justice?

[/quote]

Anyone who supports abortion would make a lousy Supreme Court Justice. Because the legalization of the murder of innocent children is not in line with true Justice.

For all those who thought that the senate hearings were not just political posturing, I offer the gratuitous slamming of a judge dead for 17 years.

"Oppo researchers digging into Elena Kagan's past didn't get the goods on the Supreme Court nominee -- but they did get the Thurgood.

As confirmation hearings opened Monday afternoon, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee took the unusual approach of attacking Kagan because she admired the late justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked more than two decades ago.

"Justice Marshall's judicial philosophy," said Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, "is not what I would consider to be mainstream." Kyl -- the lone member of the panel in shirtsleeves for the big event -- was ready for a scrap. Marshall "might be the epitome of a results-oriented judge," he said.

It was, to say the least, a curious strategy to go after Marshall, the iconic civil rights lawyer who successfully argued Brown vs. Board of Education. Did Republicans think it would help their cause to criticize the first African American on the Supreme Court, a revered figure who has been celebrated with an airport, a postage stamp and a Broadway show? The guy is a saint -- literally. Marshall this spring was added to the Episcopal Church's list of "Holy Women and Holy Men," which the Episcopal Diocese of New York says "is akin to being granted sainthood."

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062805129.html?nav=rss_email/components

May we now get to Kagan's qualifications?

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:9, topic:203665"]

........May we now get to Kagan's qualifications?

[/quote]

Unfortunately, that will be a very short conversation.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:9, topic:203665"]

May we now get to Kagan's qualifications?

[/quote]

Yes, and what exactly are her qualifications other than being an Obama league liberal?
Keep in mind Obama selected her because she has a resume as strong as his own, which is to say a blank sheet of paper.

This country will soon be run by people who have less qualification than the janitor of the building they convene in.

[quote="SVP, post:11, topic:203665"]
Yes, and what exactly are her qualifications other than being an Obama league liberal?

[/quote]

Think acknowledged legal scholar. Didn't all those law deans say that of her? That includes the dean at Georgetown, by the way.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:12, topic:203665"]
Think acknowledged legal scholar. Didn't all those law deans say that of her? That includes the dean at Georgetown, by the way.

[/quote]

How many Harvard Law deans, or deans with little courtroom experience, and zero judicial experience, have been nominated, or approved to SCOTUS?

The issue isn't Marshall's nomination, it is how his views might shape of affect her judicial philosophy. Given her scant record, her briefs during her clerkship for Marshall are fair game.

And you do realize that this is an op-ed, right? Not sure if one would call it "a non-partisan source".

[quote="scipio337, post:13, topic:203665"]
How many Harvard Law deans, or deans with little courtroom experience, and zero judicial experience, have been nominated, or approved to SCOTUS?"

[/quote]

We've had 111 Supreme Court Justices. 40 had no judicial experience at the time of their nomination. 38 didn't even have a law degree.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:12, topic:203665"]
Think acknowledged legal scholar. Didn't all those law deans say that of her? That includes the dean at Georgetown, by the way.

[/quote]

youtube.com/watch?v=rBqdKKKRrrg&feature=player_embedded

I could care less what they say about her. You may think otherwise, being a lawyer and all, but most people are smart enough to form their own opinions regardless of what cable news channel or talk show host they listen to.

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:14, topic:203665"]
We've had 111 Supreme Court Justices. 40 had no judicial experience at the time of their nomination. 38 didn't even have a law degree.

[/quote]

As was mentioned before, Marshall, who is the red herring brought up when discussing judicial experience, argued 32 cases before the SCOTUS. Kagan's courtroom experience, on either side of the bench, is almost non-existent.

[quote="scipio337, post:16, topic:203665"]
Kagan's courtroom experience, on either side of the bench, is almost non-existent.

[/quote]

Let's not forget that her lack of judicial experience, though not unusual in terms of Supreme Court nominees, is because the Republicans refused to schedule a confirmation hearing when Clinton nominated her for the Court of Appeals in DC. She also certainly would not be the first Supreme Court Justice to have little or no courtroom experience.

[quote="gilliam, post:7, topic:203665"]
Any man that contributes to the establishment of the the murdering of children as part of the law of the land cannot be objectively considered good.

No matter what other good deeds he may or may not have done in his life. This one act is so permanent and so grievious that it counter balances all others.

The fact that he supported his decision (Roe v Wade) until the day he died adds weight to my arguement.

.

[/quote]

Unless his / her last name was Alito or Roberts?

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:17, topic:203665"]
Let's not forget that her lack of judicial experience, though not unusual in terms of Supreme Court nominees, is because the Republicans refused to schedule a confirmation hearing when Clinton nominated her for the Court of Appeals in DC. She also certainly would not be the first Supreme Court Justice to have little or no courtroom experience.

[/quote]

Red Herring. Obama did not nominate her for the court of appeals.

Her lack of judicial or courtroom experience is her lack of judicial or courtroom experience is her lack of judicial or courtroom experience, and it bucks recent (40 years) trends.

[quote="scipio337, post:19, topic:203665"]
Red Herring.

[/quote]

It's not a red herring at all. If the Republicans are going to attack her for not having judicial experience then it's only right that people know that the Republicans are responsible for her lack of judicial experience.

[quote="scipio337, post:19, topic:203665"]
Her lack of judicial or courtroom experience is her lack of judicial or courtroom experience is her lack of judicial or courtroom experience, and it bucks recent (40 years) trends.

[/quote]

So what if it "bucks recent trends." Justices have been confirmed with far less qualification.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.