In fact, Kagan's appointment encourages renewed national dialogue about what qualities are important to become one of the nation's elite judges in general. For example, does it matter that the Court, with Kagan, would be comprised of 8 Ivy League jurists educated at either Harvard or Yale, or that 4 of the 9 justices are from New York, or that 6 are Catholic and 3 are Jewish? Does diversity in Court composition matter?
After reading the article linked below please answer any one or more of the following question, making reference to the article in at least one comment posted:
- Do you think prior experience as a judge should be a requirement of any potential nominee to the Supreme Court?
- Is diversity in Supreme Court composition important, and if so, to what extent?
- Do you think President Obama made a good choice in picking Elena Kagan for the next Supreme Court justice of the Untied States? Why or why not?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051001116.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR&sid=ST2010050903614
34 comments:
I definitely think that it is importatnt for a Supreme Court justice to have prior judicial experience. However, I don't necessarily think it should be required. I was against Kagan being nominated until I read the article and looked at all she's done. I mean she's been a lawyer, she's been the Dean of Harvard Law, and she's served with two Presidents. My concern was just that she wouldn't know the law as well as someone who served as a judge and wouldn't know the constitutional role of a Supreme Court justice as well either. But after reading the article, I can see that she is a well-qualified candidate. While I still believe Supreme Court justice nominees should have prior experience, I don't think it should be required necessarily. Diversity I think is also an important thing for the Supreme Court. This way more people are being represented in a way when their cases are being handled in the Court. Also, this way there are more ideas and different viewpoints that come into play when there is more diversity, which can really help in deciding a big case.
Personally i don't think that experience as a judge is necessary to be a supreme court justice mostly because a lot of the decisions that the supreme court decides are different than other judgeships. It isn't like Kagan doesn't know anything about law, as the article says, being the first female dean of Harvard law school and serving as the solicitor general for a year, she just hasn't been a judge which in my opinion could be a good thing. Having someone who hasn't been a judge could offer an opinion outside of the "judicial monestary" as it has been called. I think it could be a nice refresher to see how she rules on some of the hotter caseses, especially since we don't know how she will rule. It could turn out that Obama will regret this decision for years to come.
I agree with Kyle that a Supreme Court justice does not necessarily need judicial experience to be an excellent justice. I also agree with his point that it will hopefully bring a fresh perspective to issues. She also is obviously well qualified as a candidate and is very familiar with the law. But the Supreme Court generally interprets the Constituionallity of something, rather than "lawy" law or state regulations and such, which for me means it is less necessary that a justice would need judicial experience. I think it is important to have diversity on the Supreme Court if only for the fact that it brings different perspectives and ideas to perhaps stale or hot issues. Our country is diverse, why should our Supreme Court not be? On the other hand, all on the Supreme Court, whether I agree with them or not are qualified candidates with impressive resumes, so I don't necessarily think that their high education and similar backgrounds should have to rule them out.
Woah why are they all catholic or Jewish when all the presidents are protestant. That's really funny. Anyways, It should be important that they have judicial experience, but a Supreme Court justice isn't like any other judge. the job shares very few actual similarities, since Supreme Court hearings are far from what a criminal court proceeding is like. Of course it would be nice for them to have prior experience as a judge, but considering her background, I think it's just fine to make an exception.
I agree with Kyle and Ellen that experience as a judge isn't necessary in order to be a Supreme Court Justice. I think that would be better if the nominee had prior experience as a judge, but it definitely shouldn't be required. All that is important to me is that the the nominee is familiar and experienced with the law. I think that President Obama made an excellent choice in picking Elena Kagan for the next Supreme Court Justice. Kagan is a very well qualified candidate and seems very knowledgeable about the law seeing as how she was the Dean of Harvard Law, a lawyer, and is currently the Solicitor General. I think diversity is important, because it allows for different groups to be represented and brings new perspectives and ideas into decision making. Although, diversity can be difficult to force upon people, especially in the courts because justices are appointed for life and we shouldn't be excluding intelligent, well qualified potential nominees just to bring diversity into the Court.
Back to the diversity question, I believe the Supreme Court is probably the most important branch of government to have diversity. If you just have a bunch of old white guys on the bench that merely hate on brothas in all of their decisions, you're getting nowhere in the whole protect the rights of the people thing. At least to me, the Supreme Court is THE branch to look out for the underdog, the abused, the forgotten. They're the ones who have the best capabilities for pointing out where abuse is taking place and bothering the other branches until they fix it. Basically, I believe that this branch should be as diverse as any to ensure that no unjust harm to anyone will go unpunished.
As for Kagan, she'll do a fine job. It's not like one inexperienced justice is gonna kill the court, and she's obviously smart enough to learn the trade real quick like.
I think it is absolutely critical that supreme court justices have two characteristics: previous experience as a federal judge and impartiality. I see neither in Kagan. Although she has extensive experience in the legal field, she has never held any posision as a state or federal judge. The Supreme Court is not the place for people to learn how to be on the bench; it is a critical part of our legal system where the most important ideologigal issues are decided upon.
As well as having no previous judicial experience, Kagan has been a part of partisan politics for a very long time. It is important that justices be as impartial as possible, as many issues being debated have very stong ideological implications. Although Kagans nomination is a very savy political move on the part of the Obama administration, I think they should keep in mind that they are sacrificing the integrity of the court by putting a political puppet on the bench.
I do not think it is that important that a Supreme Court justice have judicial experience. However I do think that they should have expereience within the government and the law. I think Kagan has enough experience for the job. She was the Dean of Havard Law School and was a lawyer so she has a lot experience through that. Also I think it is good that she is a woman to help bring more diversity to the Supreme Court.
I do not think that Obama made a good decision by picking Kagan. She is a very qualified individual but I believe she is too similar to Sotomayor. As the article said, they are the same characteristics, single, no children, 50's, raised in New York, and educated by Ivy League Schools. I would think that Obama would be more into diversity, he should have chosen judges that atleast appeared to be different. No lie, like that some ladies are getting on the court, but they are the same ideology. It's the smart thing to appoint people of their same view points but in this case Obama is clearly taking advantage of his power.
I agree with what Remmy said that one bad Supreme Court Justice won't kill the court but i also don't think that Kagan is a bad candidate. I think that a lot of the opposition comming form the right is just because she was elected by a democratic president so naturally the other side will oppose the nomination. Democrats do the same thing. Because she hasn't ruled on anything i don't think its fair to say how she will rule on cases. As seen in the episode of the west wing, "the supremes," one's political ideology doesn't necessarily determine what they think is best for the country. While Kagan could be for same sex marriage that doesn't mean that she will rule in favor of it. I also disagree with Trautz's comment that Kagan has been a member of partisan politics for many years. Kagan has been in politics for many years but she hasn't even voiced her opinion about many political issues for many years. If we were going to eliminate every candidate that had participated in some form of the political process we would have no candidates left. Also Kagan seems very qualified as far as experience goes. Being a clerk under Marshall as well as Dean of Harvard Law and the solicitor general sounds like good qualifications to me. I think that judicial experience isn't even that important because most of the federal judge positions have to do with criminal cases and don't relate all that closley to the Supreme Court. Overall i think that Kagan is a good candidate and to say that she is anyway influenced by Obama seems silly.
I don't think that it is necessary for a Supreme Court justice to have prior judicial experience. Like Kyle brought up, it's not like she's unprepared. The article states "She was raised on the Upper West Side of New York, graduated from Princeton and served as Harvard's dean. She worked in the Clinton administration and recently for Obama." Clearly she has knowledge about law. I think she will bring a new fresh perspective to the court.
Kagan has extensive political ties to the democratic party, and she seems pretty set in her ideological beliefs. The question is this: will her deeply rooted beliefs affect her decision making? I believe that without any experience as an impartial judge, this may be harder for her than other supreme court nominees. Also, this is very different to other nominations because she is an active member within the president's party. She has extremely strong ties to the democratic party, and I think it would be extremely difficult for her to ignore those bonds. I was ok with Sotomayor's nomination because she seemed to have at least some impartiality and good judiciary experience. However I do not see either of these characteristics in Kagan.
Also in response to Sammy's comment Obama is not taking advantage of his power at all. First off, why would Obama pick an extreme conservative candidate to the bench? Kagan has had next to no voice in partisan politics, especially in recent years so to say that he's picking someone with the same views as him is just untrue because we don't know what her views are. And secondly by sheerly picking a woman he is adding diversity to the mostly male court, the fact that she is simmilar to Sotomayor is irrelevant because she is simmilar to almost every other candidate for the bench ever. Also to say he's abusing his power is not true. Thats why there's checks on the government. If Obama were to pick a candidate that were truley so bad and partisan, the senate wouldn't confirm her/him anyways.
I don't think that extensive experience as a judge is necessary to be on the Supreme Court. If the person is well aware of the law and well versed in the Constitution that should be enough. Diversity is important on the Supreme Court so as to represent the country as a whole, not just white males. Different kinds of people think differently, and we need opinions from all sides in order to come to the best decision. Obama made a good choice by putting a woman on the court that will be there for a long, long time. She seems qualified and that she's capable of making good choices.
I strongly agree with Remi, it is super important for the Supreme Court to be diverse because they really are THE branch that looks out for the underdog. They are the ones that will ensure justice for the underdog and like Remi said they can point out where abuse is taking place.
I agree with Ellen and Kyle in that Supreme Court Justices don't necessarily need judicial experience in order to be capable of doing their jobs. While it is important to have experience with the courts, I think that serving as a judge is not something that needs to be required because the Supreme Court is so different from other bodies of law. Although Kagan hasn't served as a judge previously, she has had experience in law and is extremely well-educated.
I don't think prior experience as a judge is necessairily a prerequisite to serving as a supreme court Justice. Arguably, it makes on more qualified; I would certainly rather have an average Joe with no political aspirations or opinions read the relatively simple document that is our constitution and apply it to the case in from of him, than a lawyer or judge who has spent years learning the mind bending legal tricks necessary to distort the constitution. For instance, I cant imagine someone with little legal experience reading the commecrce clause as empowering congress to pass something like the individual healthcare mandate (could anyone but a lawyer ever buy that a guy sitting at home on his couch, who doesnt own health insurance, is engaged in interstate commerce?). In other words, I beleive a non judege/lawyer is somewhat more likely to be a constructionalist when it comes to constitutional rulings.
On the point of diversity, I have said time and time again that this is possibly the most ridiculous standard with which to assemble any body of people, and it is certainly not worthy of the supreme court. The concept that someone can only be represented by someone with the same skin color, or with the same religion, seems to date back in America to the racist progressivism rampant in the late 1800s. This is distinct from the racism inherent in slavery because progressive racists have often argued (and do so today) that they are empowering other races by treating them differently, basing this off of some kind of mystical difference in a persons beleifs and actions based on the amount of melanin their skin produces. I beleive Justice clarence Thomas is an excellent justice and that Stevens was awful, does that not disprove the idea that we are better represented by someone of our own race?
Finally, I'm uncertain whether or not Kagan was a good choice, because frankly I don't know much about how she will rule, none of us do. Obviously I have some apprehension, based on Obama's campaign trail statements that empathy would be important in his nomination decisions, and because it seems unlikely he would pick someone he beleives will rule in a way he disagrees with. Other than those two qualms however, I cant think of many other reasons to oppose her, and I look forward hopefully to her being a surprise judicial constructionist.
Man that was a lot, in my defence I had nothing else to do in class today.
I agree with Paige that Kagan will help bring a new perspective to the court. Also I agree with Jess that it is important for the Supreme Court to be diverse because they are the ones that are looking out for the minorities and by being diverse it helps protect everyone’s rights. I think that she will do a good job as a justice.
I also think that Kagen will do a good job as a justice. I think she will bring a much needed new perspective to the court. I also think that it is very important for the Supreme Court to be diverse. This diversity will ensure equal rights and protection for all people.
Although it is pretty convincing that she was the Dean of Harvard Law School and many other prominent law-related positions, it does worry me that she was never a judge. Its true that variety is essential to a court, especially a court as important as the Supreme Court but nonetheless, she doesn't have judging experience. This might not matter if researched further, or maybe I just don't know enough on that topic but I really do think that it would be more preferable if she has some prior judging experience, after all, this is the Supreme Court!
I think that it's absolutely important that a Supreme Court Justice have prior experience. We have to remember that Kagan would be serving for life if appointed meaning that if her lack of experience proves to be bad, it won't be easy getting rid of her. But also, lack of experience means she's never taken part in the process of judging a case. This means that she hasn't experienced first-hand what it's actually like to try a case and make important decisions. Because of this, I'd say that an obscure judge from a state court is more qualified to serve than Kagan. It's in the military, a recent recruit doesn't get promoted to general because he looked up what it's like to command troops, he has to aquire years of experience through the system itself. The same thing here, judges should aquire experience by parttaking in the system itself. Therefore, I think Kagan was a poor choice, personally, I think he could have picked a liberal that at least served as a judge which would be more respectable than this. In terms of diversity, I think there should be less emphasis put on it but that there shouldn't be a court of carbon-copies either. This is because the Supreme Court should be operating on Blind Justice (Justice that doesn't take any race, sex, ethnicity, nationality, etc into account when hearing a case).
I'd like to add a little disagreement with Paige. Diversity doesn't always equal only fair rulings. It can also mean that there will be bias and a hard time coming to agreement on something. And as I previously said, having prior experience can help lessen the chances of any of those.
Once again I say that it is not important for Supreme Court justices to have judicial experience. The Supreme Court simply isn't like any other court and deals with many other different issues than a regular court. She is obviously qualified and understands the law. I agree with Remington that of all branches of government the Supreme Court should be the one with diversity. But I also agree with Claire that someone who is qualified and an excellent candidate shouldn't be ruled out for not being diverse.
I agree with Zenas last comment, except I'd take it a step further. A court that is selected based on diversity not only can have biased ruling, but in fact will probably have biased rulings. Any justice picked because of his or her race/gender/religion either a. makes the same decisions as someone with different race/gender/religion and their diversity is irrelevant, or b. takes their race/gender/religion into account when making decisions and is being blatantly biased.
I agree with Ellen and Kyle. I don't believe that just because a candidate hasn't had judicial experience means they shouldn't be considered. In my opinion at least, Kagan seems plenty qualified and experienced with the law. I do think that diversity would be beneficial to the Supreme Court, with more people represented and more view points present. However, I don't think it is necessary to purposely choose candidates based on their race or gender. I think there are better criteria to base a nomination off of and don't believe that a candidate should be discarded or chosen for the sole purpose of creating a diverse Supreme Court.
I tend to agree with Ellen's statement that the Supreme Court is unique and functions differently than regular state and federal courts. Therefore it seems unreasonable to instill a strict requirement that Supreme Court justices need to have prior judicial experience. Kagan's educational and professional background indicate that she will be more than competent if confirmed as the newest justice. That being said, I do think it can be beneficial for justices to have experience serving in a courtroom. I simply don't think it's something that should be required for all nominees to the Supreme Court.
I agree with multiple people in that because the Supreme Court is so different from the federal courts,i don't think its necessary to require a justice to have prior experience. Kagan has had experience with the law and has worked in environments allowing her to become familiar with the functions of politics and the Supreme Court, making her in my opinion a qualified candidate that would bring a new perspective to the Supreme Court.
In terms of the need for diversity on the Supreme Court, I agree with Kelsey's comment earlier that it's a difficult issue to address. While several of us have agreed that having a diverse group of justices would be ideal, I think many of us also acknowledge that forcing diversity in the Court will not bring about the desired results. What's most important is that the justices are qualified, and it seems unreasonable to rule out a deserving candidate simply because he/she is not diverse. Therefore, while I believe that more diversity would be beneficial, I don't think it's fair to choose the nominees solely based upon that criteria.
I know the question was raised of if her similar ivy league education should be considered in seeking a more diverse court, but I don't think this should be a factor. I want our government to be run by intelligent people whose educational credentials will probably look similar.
I also think that Kagan's lack of experience as a judge should not prevent her from becoming the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, her recent position as solicitor general might help her bring a different perspective to the Supreme Court. I think Kagan is a very logical decision for the court, Obama has seen her prove herself for a year and probably holds a significant amount of trust in her.
You do not need previous experience as a judge to serve on the Supreme Court. All you need is a vast amount of knowledge with the legal system. Elena's experience at Harvard School of Law clearly meets the requirement for the level of legal experience you need. Diversity on the Supreme Court creates more of a political idea of diversity, but peoples ethnicity may alter their decsion making. Although, that is not the only indicator of peoples moral compass and how they make decisions.
Post a Comment