I see you are aware of the fact that Supreme Court Justices in the past have had little to no judicial experience, but did you know this?
Number of Supreme Court Justices since 1790: 111
Number with judicial experience: 71
Number without judicial experience: 40
That means that since its inception into legal history that over a third of all Supreme Court Justices have had little to no judicial experience. The most recent without judicial experience was appointed by then President Richard M. Nixon, and later appointed by then President Ronald Reagan to Chief Justice. His name was William H. Rehnquist.
I do not believe that judicial experience necessarily makes for a promising Supreme Court Justice. As evidenced by a history of over 200 years men and women have proven to be exceptional Justices without the privilege of prior experience.
Prior judicial experience has not necessarily proven to be beneficial in respect to those who appointed them. Though a President should never expect to have a Justice in their “corner” it is however “expected” that Justices appointed by a particular President will more often than not make decisions based on their similar beliefs. In other words a conservative president should feel confident that an appointee would have a more conservative view while on the court. This has not proven to be true of several appointees. Take for example President Ronald Reagan’s appointee Sandra Day O’Connor. She was appointed for her more conservative views and also because Reagan wanted to appoint a woman to the highest court. For the most part O’Connor would render many decisions that favored a conservative view, but later would shift to render many decisions that seemed less and less conservative, even to her own peers. In 1992, after rendering many decisions in line with fellow conservative Clarence Thomas, Ms. O’Connor would render every single decisions opposite of him. A total of 28 decisions that year alone.
Prior experience is obviously not an indicator of whether a Supreme Court appointee will be a good one. Neither will it prove to benefit either view. In fact it doesn’t seem to prove much of anything.
Conservatives are simply upset that they don’t have a whole lot to argue in the way of prior decisions where Kagan is concerned, and are simply grasping for anything to oppose Obama’s decision.
By the way Kaz your first statement is entirely inaccurate. “Kagan would become the only justice who had no prior experience as a judge.” I don’t know who or what your sources were for the use of this statement, but I suggest you not use it again. There have been more than a few Justices who not only had limited legal experience, but several who never even practiced in the private sector. Some Justices were simply senators, governors, or other statesmen having no judicial experience at all!
I have no problem paying my share (reasonable amount) of taxes to fund our government which provides some great benefits for all of the people. (Highways and defense come to mind). What I have a problem with is nearly half the country paying absolutely nothing and a large number of people actually getting paid to exist. That's right, many people actually receive tax refunds that far exceed their contributions (Witholdings). The entitled are growing in numbers and if 50% doesn't scare you, you fear nothing.
Think I'm full of $hit?( http://tinyurl.com/ybzc8x5 )
"Kagan would become the only justice who had no prior experience as a judge. The other justices all served previously as federal appeals court judges. She was named to a federal appeals court by President Bill Clinton, but the Senate never brought that nomination to a vote.
That means Kagan has a smaller paper trail than other recent nominees since there are no prior decisions to scrutinize." (Source: http://tinyurl.com/2d6rq5y )
I'm fully aware that there have been Supreme Court Justices in the past that didn't have judicial experience but something about this makes me very uneasy. As the quote above states, it's pretty difficult to scrutinize a nominee's record when there isn't a judicial record to scrutinize.
Only time will tell but I have a feeling this story will grow some legs.
By the way, if anyone notices that I have placed no actual differences or comparisons between Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform explosion it is for one simple reason. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. If you wish to draw you own conclusions and show some semblance of a brain then look it up yourself. It is simply beneath me to dignify such a ridiculous request with anything that resembles a comparison of any kind.
There is no comparison between the two. Once again the media has blown things out of proportion and in reality has placed much blame where it ABSOLUTELY does not belong. Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster. The Deepwater Horizon drilling explosion was a tragedy brought on by the fault of man, whether it was purposeful or simply just an accident. I’m sure like most I am greatly upset over the loss of lives due to the explosion, but the fact is the federal government held no responsibility for this occurrence. Natural disasters that cause either extensive property damage or hamper the well being of our citizens are events which call for local, state, and federal responsibility. The best recent example being Hurricane Katrina which practically flooded most of the city of New Orleans and several other coastal areas in other states. The Deepwater Horizon drilling explosion was NOT a natural disaster. The local, state, and federal governments are not responsible for the fault of the explosion. Neither in turn are they responsible for the clean up of the disaster. That responsibility lies DIRECTLY with the companies (British Petroleum/TransOcean/Anadarko Petroleum/Cameron International/and Halliburton)
that own or operate the platform. The most notable being British Petroleum. Our local, state, and federal governments are responsible only for two very key instances. Once it was realized that the information concerning the leak was greatly underestimated, that the previous estimate of a 1,000 barrels per day was incorrect, that in fact it was actually more than 5,000 barrels a day, it became evident that the governments would have to become involved to help British Petroleum somehow get a handle on this tragedy. At this point it was realized that the oil slick would soon not only endanger plant and fish life, but the lives of Americans as well. The federal government then realized it would have to help BP and others clean up their mess. And they are. They have not done what is required of them, but what was asked of them instead.
So far five state attorneys general have requested that the federal government assist them in all possible information gathering so that when the necessity arises they can file suit to attain restitution for the peoples of their states. These states are Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. All the states that may incur damages from the approaching oil slick. The federal government is and should be responsible for helping these five attorneys general build the necessary case in order to file suit against the guilty parties involved. They are in the process of doing just this.
Here is the absolute truth. The federal government had no initial response to this tragedy because it was NOT required, by law or otherwise. Response to the tragedy was wholly the responsibilities of the companies that own the platform. Only once it was discovered the magnitude of the spill and the fact that it would reach American soil before BP could get a handle on it, was it necessary for the federal government to become involved. And they did. None of this can be disputed by the attorneys general which is why the letter of intent sent to the President contained no language of possible litigation against any federal agency or commission. The only possible litigation mentioned was that against any of the companies involved in the ownership of the New Horizon drilling platform. Reason being because it was THEIR responsibility for the tragedy, THEIR responsibility for the clean-up, and THEIR responsibility for any restitution as a result of the spill itself. NOT the responsibility of the federal government.
Ummm. These types of morons have been doing this for years, ever since games like this became such venues on television. What did we do before the age of tasers? Oh, I know. We caught them and escorted them off of the field. The use of a taser was just simply put, UNJUSTIFIED, and a lazy use of apprehension. Kids will be kids for god's sake. The cop overreacted and used a force that should have been used as a last resort.
Relics were faked on a regular basis when the shroud was made (according to radio carbon dating). They brought in lots of money for churches back in day. And besides, anyone notice the face looks really strange? The "artist's" work left much to be desired.
Oh my God!! Are you serious?! Do you guys realize how often this has been said since the death of Jesus Christ! After every major flood, earthquake, volcano eruption, ebola outbreak, aids outbreak, and everything else "bad" since then has been labeled by some QUACK as a sign of the apocalypse. Nothing, I repeat nothing that has happened recently is anywhere close to a description in the bible to concern with the "end of days". Seriously, have any of you ever read the Book of Revelations or this chapter with it’s various other names? I have yet to see or hear of the “Lamb of God” approaching the seven churches. Have any of you? Just curious, as this is one of the first acts before any judgment is laid or seal is opened. All right Jeff, you’ve had your fun. I sincerely hope this was just for purpose of entertainment.
Number of Supreme Court Justices since 1790: 111
Number with judicial experience: 71
Number without judicial experience: 40
That means that since its inception into legal history that over a third of all Supreme Court Justices have had little to no judicial experience. The most recent without judicial experience was appointed by then President Richard M. Nixon, and later appointed by then President Ronald Reagan to Chief Justice. His name was William H. Rehnquist.
I do not believe that judicial experience necessarily makes for a promising Supreme Court Justice. As evidenced by a history of over 200 years men and women have proven to be exceptional Justices without the privilege of prior experience.
Prior judicial experience has not necessarily proven to be beneficial in respect to those who appointed them. Though a President should never expect to have a Justice in their “corner” it is however “expected” that Justices appointed by a particular President will more often than not make decisions based on their similar beliefs. In other words a conservative president should feel confident that an appointee would have a more conservative view while on the court. This has not proven to be true of several appointees. Take for example President Ronald Reagan’s appointee Sandra Day O’Connor. She was appointed for her more conservative views and also because Reagan wanted to appoint a woman to the highest court. For the most part O’Connor would render many decisions that favored a conservative view, but later would shift to render many decisions that seemed less and less conservative, even to her own peers. In 1992, after rendering many decisions in line with fellow conservative Clarence Thomas, Ms. O’Connor would render every single decisions opposite of him. A total of 28 decisions that year alone.
Prior experience is obviously not an indicator of whether a Supreme Court appointee will be a good one. Neither will it prove to benefit either view. In fact it doesn’t seem to prove much of anything.
Conservatives are simply upset that they don’t have a whole lot to argue in the way of prior decisions where Kagan is concerned, and are simply grasping for anything to oppose Obama’s decision.
By the way Kaz your first statement is entirely inaccurate. “Kagan would become the only justice who had no prior experience as a judge.” I don’t know who or what your sources were for the use of this statement, but I suggest you not use it again. There have been more than a few Justices who not only had limited legal experience, but several who never even practiced in the private sector. Some Justices were simply senators, governors, or other statesmen having no judicial experience at all!
Think I'm full of $hit?( http://tinyurl.com/ybzc8x5 )
That means Kagan has a smaller paper trail than other recent nominees since there are no prior decisions to scrutinize." (Source: http://tinyurl.com/2d6rq5y )
I'm fully aware that there have been Supreme Court Justices in the past that didn't have judicial experience but something about this makes me very uneasy. As the quote above states, it's pretty difficult to scrutinize a nominee's record when there isn't a judicial record to scrutinize.
Only time will tell but I have a feeling this story will grow some legs.
that own or operate the platform. The most notable being British Petroleum. Our local, state, and federal governments are responsible only for two very key instances. Once it was realized that the information concerning the leak was greatly underestimated, that the previous estimate of a 1,000 barrels per day was incorrect, that in fact it was actually more than 5,000 barrels a day, it became evident that the governments would have to become involved to help British Petroleum somehow get a handle on this tragedy. At this point it was realized that the oil slick would soon not only endanger plant and fish life, but the lives of Americans as well. The federal government then realized it would have to help BP and others clean up their mess. And they are. They have not done what is required of them, but what was asked of them instead.
So far five state attorneys general have requested that the federal government assist them in all possible information gathering so that when the necessity arises they can file suit to attain restitution for the peoples of their states. These states are Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. All the states that may incur damages from the approaching oil slick. The federal government is and should be responsible for helping these five attorneys general build the necessary case in order to file suit against the guilty parties involved. They are in the process of doing just this.
Here is the absolute truth. The federal government had no initial response to this tragedy because it was NOT required, by law or otherwise. Response to the tragedy was wholly the responsibilities of the companies that own the platform. Only once it was discovered the magnitude of the spill and the fact that it would reach American soil before BP could get a handle on it, was it necessary for the federal government to become involved. And they did. None of this can be disputed by the attorneys general which is why the letter of intent sent to the President contained no language of possible litigation against any federal agency or commission. The only possible litigation mentioned was that against any of the companies involved in the ownership of the New Horizon drilling platform. Reason being because it was THEIR responsibility for the tragedy, THEIR responsibility for the clean-up, and THEIR responsibility for any restitution as a result of the spill itself. NOT the responsibility of the federal government.