Howard Dean said :We will treat this nominee with all the courtesy McConnell gave Merrick Garland.”
Christophersays
That wasn’t so much a liberal case ideologically as a “he’s qualified” case, which he is.
doublemansays
It’s very similar to Neal Katyal’s case for Gorsuch, which also came out in the NYT within hours of the nomination. I understand that it’s not a case for Kavanaugh being liberal, but that he’s a good and qualified jurist who should be on the court. I think that is despicable because this man, like Gorsuch, will do real damage to the lives of countless people for a generation. That does not make for a “superb nominee” as Amar states. But, this is also the same guy who was on TV last week saying that Justice Kennedy has a bigger heart than anyone in Washington. It’s all a game or intellectual exercise to people like Amar (and to far too many judges and law professors). We’d be better served by non-lawyers on the Court who have lived real life experiences.
Christophersays
I’m not sure I’d go as far as non-lawyers, although I’d be open to academic constitutional scholars.
doublemansays
I want academics far away from the court. That law is treated academically at the highest levels has been a disaster.
Christophersays
SCOTUS is the last place for amateurs. You’re treading dangerously close to the anti-expertise attitude we often get from the other side.
jconwaysays
I think doubleman is trying to say that stacking the court with graduates of the same two law schools who have long academic and appeals court pedigrees, but little practical experience with policymaking, has led to many elitist decisions.
Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall were will known private lawyers. Hugo Black was a sitting Senator. Earl Warren and Frank Murphy were sitting Governors. Robert Jackson didn’t even go to law school! He was the last Justice to “read law” like Lincoln before him and nearly single handedly invented human rights law at Nuremberg. We want experts, ideally ones with real world experience not insulated from the consequences of decision making.
doublemansays
I want real expertise and academia ain’t the be all end all when it comes to that. How many Justices have overseen a jury trial as a judge? How many have even represented a client in a trial? Sotomayor has. Who else?
Even just in the practice of law, the experience of the current justices (always Harvard/Yale, multiple clerkships, high level government appellate work or academia, circuit level position) can be lacking.
There are thousands and thousands of people with more valuable experience to be applied to interpreting the law on the most important issues than most of the current court. Many are lawyers, many are not.
I’m not anti-expertise. I am pro-experience and very much pro-diversity.
petrsays
Wow. Kavanaugh must be Irish for ‘epicenter’…
Was intimately involved in:
— Elian Gonzalez legal case
— Florida recount in 2002
— Terry Schiavo legal case.
Drafted the “Starr report. ”
May have had a role in drafting the detention and interrogation policies for President George W Bush and was accused of lying about it in 2007 by a sitting Senator.
Was responsible for vetting many of the judges appointed during the Bush administration.. So we can thank him for Sam Alito and John Roberts.
His fingerprints are all over some of the worst episodes of the past 30 years: Either he’s a complete muppet with no will of his own, or he’s Professor Moriarty… And he’s certainly not qualified: Much like Gorsuch, anybody who would take the position under the circumstances cares little at all about Constitutional principles and, instead, is just about raw power. This is in keeping with his previous legal work, apparently…
Truly, as someone aptly put it, “The death eaters have taken over the ministry…”
Christophersays
I believe that is why Dick Durbin has called him the Forrest Gump of the judiciary – always on hand for major events.
His demographic profile is hardly the concern. It’s how he will vote on SCOTUS.
And just like clockwork, the NY Times publishes someone making a despicable “A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh.”
All of this is a game to some people.
Howard Dean said :We will treat this nominee with all the courtesy McConnell gave Merrick Garland.”
That wasn’t so much a liberal case ideologically as a “he’s qualified” case, which he is.
It’s very similar to Neal Katyal’s case for Gorsuch, which also came out in the NYT within hours of the nomination. I understand that it’s not a case for Kavanaugh being liberal, but that he’s a good and qualified jurist who should be on the court. I think that is despicable because this man, like Gorsuch, will do real damage to the lives of countless people for a generation. That does not make for a “superb nominee” as Amar states. But, this is also the same guy who was on TV last week saying that Justice Kennedy has a bigger heart than anyone in Washington. It’s all a game or intellectual exercise to people like Amar (and to far too many judges and law professors). We’d be better served by non-lawyers on the Court who have lived real life experiences.
I’m not sure I’d go as far as non-lawyers, although I’d be open to academic constitutional scholars.
I want academics far away from the court. That law is treated academically at the highest levels has been a disaster.
SCOTUS is the last place for amateurs. You’re treading dangerously close to the anti-expertise attitude we often get from the other side.
I think doubleman is trying to say that stacking the court with graduates of the same two law schools who have long academic and appeals court pedigrees, but little practical experience with policymaking, has led to many elitist decisions.
Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall were will known private lawyers. Hugo Black was a sitting Senator. Earl Warren and Frank Murphy were sitting Governors. Robert Jackson didn’t even go to law school! He was the last Justice to “read law” like Lincoln before him and nearly single handedly invented human rights law at Nuremberg. We want experts, ideally ones with real world experience not insulated from the consequences of decision making.
I want real expertise and academia ain’t the be all end all when it comes to that. How many Justices have overseen a jury trial as a judge? How many have even represented a client in a trial? Sotomayor has. Who else?
Even just in the practice of law, the experience of the current justices (always Harvard/Yale, multiple clerkships, high level government appellate work or academia, circuit level position) can be lacking.
There are thousands and thousands of people with more valuable experience to be applied to interpreting the law on the most important issues than most of the current court. Many are lawyers, many are not.
I’m not anti-expertise. I am pro-experience and very much pro-diversity.
Wow. Kavanaugh must be Irish for ‘epicenter’…
Was intimately involved in:
— Elian Gonzalez legal case
— Florida recount in 2002
— Terry Schiavo legal case.
Drafted the “Starr report. ”
May have had a role in drafting the detention and interrogation policies for President George W Bush and was accused of lying about it in 2007 by a sitting Senator.
Was responsible for vetting many of the judges appointed during the Bush administration.. So we can thank him for Sam Alito and John Roberts.
His fingerprints are all over some of the worst episodes of the past 30 years: Either he’s a complete muppet with no will of his own, or he’s Professor Moriarty… And he’s certainly not qualified: Much like Gorsuch, anybody who would take the position under the circumstances cares little at all about Constitutional principles and, instead, is just about raw power. This is in keeping with his previous legal work, apparently…
Truly, as someone aptly put it, “The death eaters have taken over the ministry…”
I believe that is why Dick Durbin has called him the Forrest Gump of the judiciary – always on hand for major events.