Posted by sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 20, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Another consideration, in addition to competence, will be religion.
Currently 6 justices are of the Catholic Faith and two of the Jewish Faith with the only Protestant retiring.
As Protestants are the majority faith in the USA this will be an important issue-- Mormons fall under the Protestant category and are about 2-3% of the population and increasing rapidly,---- Muslims are also 2-3% of the population and also increasing rapidly.
It is amazing that Catholics and Jews, who have both been historically marginalized in the US, have come to dominate the Court way beyond their demographic proportion in the population.
Obama should also reach outside of lawyers and politicians to appoint someone who has had to make a payroll, run a business and create wealth-- someone like Bill Gates, John Chambers ( who has a law degree ) , Meg Whitman etc-- such a choice will be a game changer.
"Yoo emigrated with his parents from South Korea to the United States as an infant.
He grew up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, graduating from the Episcopal Academy in 1985.
He earned a B.A. degree summa cum laude in American history from Harvard University in 1989 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1992. Yoo clerked for D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
From 1995 to 1996, he was general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Yoo is an active member of the Federalist Society.
He is married to Elsa Arnett, the daughter of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Peter Arnett."
Posted by Catholics and Jews, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on May 3, 2010 at 8:23 pm
"It is amazing that Catholics and Jews, who have both been historically marginalized in the US, have come to dominate the Court way beyond their demographic proportion in the population."
It is not amazing. Their culture includes a strong focus on education, and both religions are steeped in deep philosophical and legal thinking. Add the constant exposure to current and historical argumentation from a young age. This allows development of legal and judging competence.
Tiger golfed from age two; it is not amazing that he's very good at the game.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 3, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Interesting question. JFK was challenged for his allegiance, Pope or US but he did not have have dual citizenship nor automatic dual citizenship, anyone in the the world has the right of return to Israel which makes some people uncomfortable-- not me, we judge people on their character, actions and statements not ethnicity.
However, as 86% of Americans declare themselves as Christian-- the majority as Protestant, 2% as Jewish, 2% as Muslim and as the SCOTUS deals with many matters of church and state we need some balance-- a Protestant makes sense but a Muslim looks likely --given demographics and balance
We still like Yoo as a candidate-- competent, Christian and Asian.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 3, 2010 at 9:14 pm
anyone of the Jewish faith has automatic dual citizenship, that used to be the case for those who had Irish, German parents etc-- probably still is--
we need a SCOTUS that has at least one Protestant American Christian on it, maybe a Mormon, but it should not be just Catholic and Jewish-- that is not the face of America-- it will loose credibility and that is serious
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 4, 2010 at 7:43 am
Sharon's comments border on the ridiculous. Her choice of John Yoo for the Supreme Court is solely put forward,not because she actually thinks that he is fit for service on the court,but to push buttons. Typical Sharon speak.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 7, 2010 at 11:21 am
Seems that earlier on this thread Sharon wrote:
"Obama should also reach outside of lawyers and politicians to appoint someone who has had to make a payroll, run a business and create wealth-- someone like Bill Gates, John Chambers ( who has a law degree ) , Meg Whitman etc-- such a choice will be a game changer."
Sharon suggested appointing someone who is not a "legal scholar"--now she is claiming that Ms Kagan is not fit because she is not a "legal scholar". So what do you want, Sharon?
Sounds to me like Sharon is going on the offensive again like she did when Obama nominated Sotomayor. You can go back and read Sharon's comments on this forum--they are part of the record now.
You will see that Ms Sotomayor was the target of constant denigration, insults and the questioning of her credentials by Sharon. Looks like we are gearing up for a repeat here. The only problem really with these nominees is that Obama is picking them.
"REALITY: Kagan consistently followed the law, and Harvard students had access to military recruiters during her entire tenure as dean. Throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Moreover, Kagan consistently followed existing law regarding access to military recruiters. Kagan briefly restricted (but did not eliminate) access to recruiters only after the U.S Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that law schools could do so. "
Seems like Sharon's post is a bit of an exaggeration. Surprised?
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 10, 2010 at 10:30 am
"Re Kagan -- she will be learning to be a judge "on the job"-- not a good idea--"
So why, Sharon, did you earlier on this thread say that Obama should reach outside of lawyers and politicians. You stated it would be a "game changer". Surely those people would learn to be a judge "on the job".
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 11, 2010 at 6:14 am
Sharon continues her assault on the latest Obama choice for the Supreme Court. She claims that a CEO or a politician with no judicial experience (and would not even have to be a lawyer) would qualify or a judge who "shows excellence and has a public judicial record".
Then she disqualifies Kagan by claiming that she has not done anything of significance. Would then Clarnece Thomas be on the court according to these requirements? Why would someone who is not evena lawyer be more qualified than Kagan?
She also repeats the myth regarding Kagan and the US military.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 13, 2010 at 6:09 am
Earl Warren and William rehnquist were not judges before being appointed to the Supreme Court. Sharon previously advocated appointing someone who is not even a lawyer or a politician and said they could learn on the job--so why does it matter that Kagan has no case or publication records?
The "rejecting US soldiers" lie is a myth--there is no truth to it. The issue deals with military recruiters and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. If Sharon wants to make an issue of that , then maybe she should stick to the facts of the matter.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2010 at 6:46 am
Well, congrats "Progressives". You have another one on the SCOTUS. Kagan was approved, by all Dems, no Repubs. I never even bothered wasting my time on posting on her, it was a done deal the day she was appointed. ( the lemmings' leaders are in charge)
Remember this Palo Alto, and watch her votes over the next 40-50 years she is on the bench.
Americans are singularly uninformed about the power of the SCOTUS. It is a pity. I recommend reading "Men in Black" by Mark Levin. Recall the movie by the same name..and yes there were women in black also in the movie and on the SCOTUS, but for you literal minded, recall the context.
Above is a link to a Rasmussen poll that says 86% of Americans believe there should be limits on what the Federal Government can do..but this lovely new Supreme actually can't even agree that the Fed Government does not have the right to tell you what to eat.. Below is a link to her answer to the simple question about if the Feds have the right to tell you what to eat.
Either she is ignorant and inarticulate ( both parts of this sentence I support) or a rabid anti-Constitutionalist ( which I also believe..you know..go by what "feels dumb or smart", not the Constitution).
Running a law school means nothing about her ability to know and apply the Constitution. I have seen this multiple times as "support" for her. Ok, then I challenge any of you to go for surgery to an MD who has done nothing but teach or run a Medical School, except for one year of surgery, in her career. ....
But that is the thinking of our Dems now.
We said the single biggest threat to our land by this POTUS was going to be the Supreme Court packing, and here we are. Stuck now with 2 full-fledged ..whatever you want to call them..on our SCOTUS. The only good news is that they are just going to keep voting the way their predecessors did, so no change there.
And our wimpy Repubs didn't have the cojones to pull the filibuster back on the Dems like they did to our nominees because WE follow the Constitution ( it is, in fact, unconstitutional to filibuster a Judicial nominee, a fact which escapes Democrats every time they do it)..
At the very least our Repubs should have filibustered ...it may have at least brought the act to light and prevented it from happening when WE bring forth a nominee.
Americans have short memories ( 9/11 is a great example). But Conservativ/Libertarians don't.
We are going to take this country back, and we are not going to let our electeds regress into full elitist government power again ( like the ones of 1994 did).. The power of the internet is immense.