A three-fer – a non-judge, with as much actual legal experience as most notary publics, being appointed to be a judge on the Supreme Court.

On that note, I’d like to be appointed as Obama’s nominee to be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. No, I don’t have any banking, monetary policy, or economics experience – I just like fondling money. That makes me just as unqualified as her, right? Right. I’ll be waiting for my limo to pick me up…

Harriet Miers was a joke and an embarrassment of a nomination, and was rightly shot down by Republicans (that’s called “integrity”, for you Dems — look it up.)

Funny how all those Dems who screamed bloody murder over *her* are the same ones who’ll likely be blurt out at her confirmation hearing “(sob) I love you, man” and run from the room in tears. And we can look forward to Sen. Franken asking such hard-hitting questions as “How did you get to be so great?” – the esteemed Senator should be asked to keep his hands visible at all times …

Stay away from the Huffington Post, Lovisa, they contaminate your mind with fluff – being “Dean of a Law school” is not “Legal Experience”, any more than George Bush being President of the Texas Rangers made him a baseball player.

Rehnquist had years of legal experience in private practice – and I suppose you just pulled John Marshall’s name because you were personal friends, right? And William O. Douglas at least taught law – he also argued in a minority opinion that inanimate objects have a right to sue. Other examples of his brilliance was that, uh, he was the target of two impeachment attempts – surely, all the signs of a brilliant legal jurist. But he at least has a history of defending First Amendment rights, something that Kagan has a (thin) history of opposing (everything about her history is ‘thin’.)

What derailed Mier’s was her lack of experience and lack of intellect, not her position as Bush’s attorney. Funny thing is, what sank her were her writings, of which Kagan doesn’t even have any, except an article decrying the death of socialism after Reagan was elected, and her thesis in which she said “Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. ” But don’t call her a Socialist!

And just love her defense of civil liberties -in her only case she ever argued before the Supreme Court, in which she tried to claim that the government had the right to censor political speech.

Here ya go: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/10/kagan_botches_oral_argument_in_supreme_court_appearance_at_citizens_united_lawsuit.html

Here’s what Justice Roberts had to say about her position:

The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts. “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

Idiot,
Harriet Miers did not have the right stuff for the bench. Neither does Kagan. Running a Law school does not prepare one for sitting on the bench. Working as a Lawyer and a Judge does. Kagan has done Niether. Miers at least did operate as an attourney.

If she were soo successful in the legal community, why is it the the best thing they can find to say about her is that she provided free lunches for the professors at Harvard Law?

Saying that you needn’t be a judge or a practicing lawyer to be prepared for the Supreme Court is kind of like saying you don’t need actually need to have performed surgery to be qualified to perform open-heart surgery. Don’t you think *some* kind of relevant experience is appropriate for the highest court in the land? Shouldn’t the people that go there be experienced in the practice of law? Don’t you think there are hundreds of thousands of practicing attorneys and judges who also have “analytical ability”? Shouldn’t she be among the very best qualified? And not just some politically connected blank slate who’s qualified because, uh, well, because the administration says so? Do you think if she were a member of, say, the Pacific Legal foundation, we’d even be having this conversation?

Assertions without proof (like saying she’s one of the best legal minds in the all the land) don’t work in the courts, why should they work when appointing someone to one?

Re Clarence Thomas

I’ll never forget the TV picture of pres. Bush coming out of a door at his Maine retreat and presenting Clarence Thomas as the “most qualified person” to be on the Supreme Court. WOW!

He’s the one who never talks or asks questions. As the old saying goes: “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.”

In fact, Clarence Thomas is the laughing stock of the Supreme Court – both among clerks and justices as well as Supreme Court practitioners/watchers.

Lloyd, Could you share your “in the know” information, the people are waiting for your inside information.

You guys lay off of Lloyd. He does some good stuff on his own blog. See the 30 April “Anyone Else Have Any Ideas” and 5 May “The New King of Embarrassment.” Nice, short, sharp chops to the gut aimed at both Barney Frank and Stevens Miller. Looks good to me.

And, of course, you do know how to keep an idiot in suspense, don’t you?