6/29/2010
PLEASE tune into the Senate confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagen. You will become very familiar with the court this year and hopefully see them in action in D.C. Below is an NPR link to the hearings - please feel free to share other links especially if this does not work.
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=128172317&m=128172522
What are the requirements to becoming a Supreme Court justice? What do you think should be the prerequisites to becoming a Supreme Court Justice? Do you think that Elena Kagen has the experience necessary for the court?
gw
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To be a Supreme Court justice, one must be knowledgeable of the law and, specifically, the constitution. Sen. Orrin Hatch stated, "Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy. The law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law. I have concluded that, based on evidence rather than blind faith, General Kagan regrettably does not meet this standard and that, therefore, I cannot support her appointment.” I agree with this statement. Elena Kagan appears to be way to bias to be in the position of a justice. Her extreme democratic views were proven when “she cried and got drunk when Ronald Reagan won.” Kagan is too far to the left and has such extreme abortion views that she cannot be considered for this position. While in college, Kagan wrote a thesis on socialism: worrying about how the socialist ideas were depreciating. She is a socialist, liberal: another Obama recruit.
ReplyDeleteHelpful:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010/07/gops-hatch-to-vote-against-elena-kagan-for-supreme-court.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704293604575342963622702410.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Sorry to burst your bubble Heath, but I do not agree with you regarding Kagen's experience. It seems to me that she is very apt for the job due to her unique political prowess and work as dean of Harvard. You said that she is, "way to bias to be in the position of a justice...too far to the left." Sure she may have some strongly opinionated views, but she has instilled within her that, "As a judge, you are on nobody's team." Kagen also stated, "I would put on that robe and be independent and not favor any political party." Obviously she realizes that her views will not control or set the tone for the actions and decisions of the Supreme Court and this idea is one reason why she is commendable for the job. Also, Reagan won the presidency in 1981. I am sure that Kagen has had a little time to mature since then.
ReplyDeleteHelpful:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128201249
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128201249
ReplyDeleteHere, Kagan explains her view on the recent political battles in which she states that the focus must be in the present while not looking ahead into the future...As the article flows into multiple situations where one can see Kagan's point of view with various laws that were proposed such as abortion and a requirement of vegetable consumption. She clearly state her opinions in each about how against she is of each yet Kagan views the world in a narrow perspective. I want to focus on this path she has laid out for this nation about dealing with the now and not thinking what is to come.Is this not troublesome to others? I would suspect so because with a narrow outlook, is the future not all the more uncertain? Kagan has a nice objective with dealing with the present but what about the road ahead as she says? What do we do about the next generation?
Oops, wrong response on the last post of mine... I posted it when we were supposed to have things on the development of the case...
ReplyDeleteI must agree with Connor because I read in the same article about her history under Clinton and how she has done quite a bit of work with the law and constitution. I also see where you come from with her possibly being excessively bias but I must say she does go for what she believes in and many others do, too so why not add some more voices to the courtroom. Is the Supreme Court not supposed to have every voice heard? I believe every single one should be and so why not her's, who can speak for many others? Although I do not agree with some her points I do think she could be a good addition to this politcal arena due to her determination in her own beliefs.
All I care to say about Mrs. Kagan is that I would be much more inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt if she truthfully explained her views and biases. No politician can be expected to do that, and nobody on earth is without bias.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in order to be a Supreme Court Justice, one must have a deep and thorough understanding of the Constitution and how it applies to the present United States. I also believe that a Supreme Court Justice should be able to understand that whatever is decided and ruled today may bring up another problem tomorrow. This foresight should be used to interpret the Constitution in such a way that it keeps America out of turmoil, confusion, and harm.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunatly for Mrs. Kagan, her view is 'one day at a time', with absolutely no foresight. I do think she is smart enough to be a Justice, but her lack of foresight and planning is not what we need in our Supreme Court. Her slight biasness and strong learning of the Constitution do make her a worthy candidate, so long as at least a few people in the Supreme Court have the common sense to keep an eye on the future to keep her narrow-mindedness directed down the right path.
There are no specific requirements in becoming a Supreme Court Justice, but obviously one must know the Constitution like the back of his/her hand. A Supreme Court Justice must have plenty of political experience; most have served as members of Congress, were governors or held other high political offices. The President nominates a candidate for the office and then the Senate must approve his choice. President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to fill the spot left by Justice John Paul Stevens. I believe that there should be prerequisites for becoming a Supreme Court Justice because it is a lifetime term and one should be adequately prepared for such a high position. In my opinion the candidates must have served on lower courts before and possibly been members of Congress as well. They must have good records, clear understanding of the Constitution and clear views on the subjects of the day. These things are necessary to even be considered. The Supreme Court Justices must be chosen very carefully because a mistake could be devastating. On the subject of Elena Kagan, from what I have read, she seems like a qualified candidate. She is quite young, historically, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t capable. She has a lot of experience with different Presidents, as Dean of Harvard, clerks for other justices and more. She has also received support from a both Democrats and Republicans (although not evenly), which is a good sign. Most of America is not familiar with Kagan and her ideas, which I believe is part of the reason she doesn’t have as much support as other past Justices. She does have strong ideas about abortion, gay rights and other subjects, but at least they are hers and she believes in them. Like Mary said, it is good to have someone that believes in their ideas and isn’t wishy-washy on what their opinions are on political matters. Differing opinions are important in government because seeing all sides is necessary when deciding which is the ‘right’ side. I think that if the public becomes more familiarized with Kagan, she may gain more support. I haven’t heard of any other nominees that are as qualified as Kagan, but I do wish that I still knew more about her.
ReplyDeleteI do have a question though, should Supreme Court Justices serve life terms?
As Mollie said there are no specific requirements that are needed for a person to become a Supreme Court Justice. The persons must simply be nominated be the president, then the nomination is passed to the Senate Judiciary Committee. After that it moves to the Senate to be voted upon and if they receive the majority vote they are instated as a justice. But I believe that prior to being nominated by the president the nominee must met certain prerequisites such as being a judge or Senator. Also I believe that they must pass through some sort of law schooling so that they are familiar with the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
ReplyDeleteAs to Elena Kagan:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/08/05/129010435/37-votes-against-elena-kagan-is-6th-highest-since-world-war-ii
This link shows the votes against Kagan. The article states, "the 37 "no" votes is the sixth highest tally any court nominee has received since World War II, and the third most against any nominee who ultimately won confirmation." Clearly even though Kagan got the Justice the ratio within th Senate though that she wasn't best suited for the job.
And in response to Mollie's comment I believe that Supreme Court Justices shouldn't serve life terms but instead should have 6 year terms as in the Senate. They shouldn't have term limits but the 6 year breaks will allow the Senate to check and insure that the Justice is doing their job properly.
I believe that in order to become a Supreme Court justice one must have complete knowledge of the Constitution and law experience. Although technically one doesn’t have to have experience I believe it is necessary to gain the best out of someone who joins as a justice. The only requirement to become a Supreme Court justice is that they must be nominated by the President. I believe that before someone can become a Supreme Court justice they must have had experience in a lower court in order to fully know what they are getting themselves into when, or if, they actually become a Supreme Court Justice. I believe that Elena Kagen has the necessary experience to become a justice, but I believe that she is a tad biased, although some have stated that it is in the character to be a tad bit biased, and she seems to have wavered on her views at times. She has been the Dean of Harvard, worked with several presidents and has more experiences.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mollie's question, I agree with Chelsea. I also believe that Supreme Court Justices should not hold life terms. I believe that like Chelsea, 6 years-like that of the Senate-is a good number for a term. This way, not only can new opinions and topics be entered and debated on with new light, but the balance can be kept even so that there is no corruption in the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteWith the topic of "wishy-washy" people of Mollie's and Mary's comments, I believe that it is important to have everyone's voice be heard as well. Mrs. Kagen sounds like a woman who can speak her mind and stand up for what she strongly believes in, such as her view on abortion etc, so even if there is debate over whether or not she would make a good justice, she would at least offer insight on topics rather than sitting quietly not getting her thoughts on board which is very needed in person who takes position as a Supreme Court Justice.
Lastly, to offer some debate
ReplyDeleteHere are a few links that I found on NPR about Elena Kagan.
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=128650185&m=128650553
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=128650185&m=128650553
These links offer insight from when she was approved for nomination and the likes and dislikes of her.
She has never been a judge, and a few were worried about her lack of legal experience and controversial polices.
There are positives about her as she was first woman Dean of Harvard, Law clerk to Justice Marshal, and First woman appointed Solicitor General of the United States.
Although she has been accepted as a Supreme Court Justice now, Kagan was clearly debated over.
What are your personal views of Elena Kagan's views, the debated issues and her actual appointment as Justice?
Okay, I'm really bummed because my response to this was somehow deleted, but I already talked to Ms. Wulfing about it because I had posted my response before 8/9.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=112
There are no specific requirements to become a Supreme Court Justice. Normally, I would be thrilled and say that sometimes it's great to have "fresh eyes", not the same-old,same-old experienced lawyers and judges, etc. It's great to throw a scholar into the mix, one who really knows what the laws are and what she is talking about. However, what scares me about her is that as Soliciter General, she was unwilling to share her views and values (because they were "irrelevant"). She was absolutely correct. However, during the Senate proceedings to approve her or not, she still remained aloof and evasive about her values, ideas, and opinions on things. Now, she can be very opinionated on matters, as was demonstrated at her time in Harvard University, but she was really reluctant to be forthcoming and honest about her beliefs. Justices are humans, too. They can have opinions, but when they do not share them, it makes us wonder: "What have we gotten ourselves into? What is she hiding? Why won't she share her thoughts with the American public?" We don't know her beliefs and ideals. And this is a LIFETIME appointment. It looks like we opened Pandora's Box.
To be a Supreme Court justice, one must be ready to release any previous feelings towards certain sides of government. If any lingering spite or connection is felt towards certain groups, then the justice has a good chance of being biased. They must be willing to throw all of their old opinions away, and focus on only the Constitution. Only once these steps are reached, then a member of the Supreme Court can be created. When it comes to prerequisites for being a Supreme Court justice, I believe that they should have history on a lower court within the states. From this point on, if they are picked out of the crowd to be a Supreme Court justice, they deserve it. When it comes to Elena Kagen, I completely agree that she is a good candidate for the Supreme Court position. According to:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Elena_Kagan
She has had more than enough experience in similar fields, including a position as a law dean at Harvard University. Although never formally a judge, as I had implied should be a Supreme Court prerequisite, her activities at Harvard law are more than satisfactory. I believe she will have a long and successful career as a Supreme Court Justice.