Thursday, August 05, 2010
After reading what you said about your "no" vote on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States, I am including a link (you click on the words "a link" and it takes you there) to a list of U.S. Supreme Court Justices that have no prior judicial experience. See how many? There are 40 of them! Did you know that there have only been 111 Supreme Court Justices, like, ever? So 40 is actually kind of a lot. In case you have trouble with fractions, (and a lot of people do so don't start tripping) that is about 36%. More than a third!
Just something to consider before making a whole speech about how you couldn't vote for Elena Kagan because she didn't have any judicial experience. Oh, and regarding your point about how, given a lack of judicial experience, you would prefer more "practical courtroom experience" than Kagan has - did you know that's kind of a dumbass point of view?
See, because if you are hiring a lawyer to sue someone who screwed you over, then yeah, you probably want a good amount of practical courtroom experience. But if you are looking for a judge for the Supreme Court of the United States, practical courtroom experience is actually not really the most important thing. Because Supreme Court judges don't argue cases. What they do is, they listen to the guys arguing cases, and then - and pay attention, Scott, because this is the important part - then, they draw upon their vast knowledge and understanding of the law, and they use it to decide who wins.
Okay, so, if you look Kagan's resume, and here it is (again, click on the words to see it) compared to former Chief Justice (the Chief Justice is like the head guy of all the Justices) Rhenquist's resume, you know, just FYI (For Your Information) on that, you can see that wow! She had some jobs where she really probably had to know a lot about the law! And not just like who-can-sue-who-type law, but really complicated law, like the kind of laws that senators vote on. And you are a senator, so you can ask one of your assistants to show you a copy of a law that you have voted on recently, and you can see for yourself that it's pretty complex and frankly, not just anyone can make head or tails of it.
Also, I don't know if you know this, and it's not bad if you don't, because it was only a news story for a couple of weeks and it's summer - right? - and who really pays attention to the news in the summer? - but Elena Kagan used to work for a Supreme Court Justice! No, she totally did!
I know, weird, right?
So anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads up, you know, so just in case you wanted to maybe cool it with what you're saying? Because it's not that smart?
p.s. And also BTW (By The Way), you can tell all your friends that when you criticize someone for not really being super open about their point of view on a lot of stuff, and you hint around that maybe they are kind of a liar, then really, if you ask me, you totally should not then go and lie about why you are not voting for that person. Are you feeling me? Just say you are not voting for her because you don't like the way she thinks about stuff. That's all. You shouldn't make up reasons that are just totally transparent. Because it makes you hypocritical. For real.
Posted by vikkitikkitavi at 3:43 PM