Up to a point, at least, I agree with you on that, GM.

“…Lawmakers also criticized proposed efforts to seal the well by injecting rubber debris down the top, including old golf balls and bits of tires.

‘The American people expect a response on par with the Apollo Project, not Project Runway,” said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.’”

In her visible role as the government’s chief advocate in the Supreme Court, she says she will defend any statute or government action “as long as there is a colorable argument to be made,” meaning as long as there is a plausible argument. That is her duty, she says, even if she personally doesn’t agree with the policy she is defending. The only exceptions would be if Congress has enacted a statute that tramples on the powers of the president — for example, if it sought to regulate the pardon power.

There are, however, notable examples of solicitors general who have refused to sign a brief or argue a case because they thought the government’s view unconscionable. In the 1950s, Solicitor General Simon Sobeloff, for example, famously refused to defend the government’s contention that the so-called loyalty board could fire public employees based on the statements of unidentified informants. The Supreme Court subsequently struck down the practice by a vote of 8-to-1.

Solicitor General Kagan implies she would not stay on if she faced a similar dilemma.

“I think that if there are positions that you can’t argue … then the responsibility is probably to resign,” she says. “If one’s own conscience is opposed to the requirements and responsibilities of the job, then it’s time to leave the job.”
————————————————————–

I don’t think she is the right person for the Supreme Court. (Along with all the partisan, reactionary crazies now on board). The job demands someone who IS in an ivory tower. Not a materialist. It demands that one BE the conscience of the government– its Jimeney Cricket. Her response even about her role as solicitor general is chilling…make the case no matter what for the boss even if it really is your job to warn them they don’t have a case and stand on that principle. Her view is to quit if she can’t squeeze even a weak argument.

Shudder.

I was skimming a lot of stuff on her and must have confused Frankfurter with someone else. SOMEONE refused her a clerkship because she was a woman…I think!???

Here is some more nuance on her views from an interview:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121712227

From this…I, personally, find her shilly shallying a red flag. I would have to concede that Marc’s calling her a ‘careerist’ tres apt.

As I pointed out on another forum, it will be Obama’s fifth, sixth, and seventh appointments that will be the most important, but they probably won’t occur until sometime in the twelfth through seventeenth years of his presidency.

Kagan was five when Frankfurter died and two when he retired.

“Government is itself an art, one of the subtlest of the arts.”

I think thats pretty interesting given her career path and where she is now headed…to become a craftswoman of government.

This is pretty basic stuff in terms of valuing people who have a commitment to education or public life – and seeing Kagan’s career dragged through mud is petty and childish. But that’s what we’ve learned to expect. Kagan is obviously ambitious and she’s been extremely well-paid by working-class standards, but she deserves respect and appreciation of what she’s achieved and the choices she’s been making compared to what her life would be like at this point if she’d put the same talent and ambition into corporate law. Accepting nomination to the Supreme Court means the woman wants to be reading briefs and listening to arguments well into her 70s – maybe even her 80s.

Nothing snide about it. You asked an honest question and I provided examples of effective justices that had no judicial experience.

I’m neither a supporter of nor am I an opponent of Kagan. You asked, I answered.

Check the definition of red herring:

something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.

Lack of judicial experience is the red herring. My providing five examples off the top of my head of those who served without judicial experience shows it to be a red herring.

Don’t be so defensive and at least address the examples I provided. Sheesh.

Randy, I asked an honest question and your snide “red herring” comment implies that the question had a hidden agenda, it didn’t.

Mavis, actually, I’m a bit of a constitutionalist on the question of USSC justices. I do not believe that it is necessary that a nominee be a judge. Anna is right, their sole qualification should be that they understand the constitution, that they are able to interpret the issues before them in terms of is it constitutional or not and not “does it make good or bad policy.” There have been some great judges without prior experience, the previously mentioned Justice Frankfurter was and excellent example. Judge Rehnquist not so much. The Senate, has politicized the confirmation process long ago and that is a shame.

Elections do have consequences and one of them is the ability to appoint judges. I do not think that the senate has done anyone any good by doing anything other than affirm that the nominee meets the constitutional requirement to be a Justice, that the proposed Justice is committed to answering questions as to the constitutionality of any issue before them in an impartial manner and that’s pretty much it. The battles over liberal/conservative, Democrat Appointee/Republican Appointee, etc. has really gone too far. And before anyone gets on their high horses… Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of that damnable process.

The politicing over the nominee is bullsh** and the issue of being gay is bullsh**, and the issue of right v. left is bullsh**. The president appoints who he appoints.

The notion – to the extent that it’s a real “belief” as opposed to an opportunistic talking point in this case – that the Supreme Court Justices should be picked from appellate judges is fairly recent.

GM, I don’t really have a good response to your question. Does a federal judgeship offer better preparation for the Supreme Court than other career paths? I don’t know. I would definitely not like a court where most members hadn’t worked as judges, but having a breadth of experience seems like a valuable enough thing and she’s clearly done some work as a legal scholar and some as a litigator – both appropriate alternate paths. I am open to being convinced that such a view is incorrect and that previous judging experience is essential though I’d like to hear some reasons why.

Nope, they pore over innocuous EULAs looking for silly bits of errata to object to because they don’t have enough shit to do, and need to justify their presence, all while making life for small businesses more costly and more difficult.