Was Thurgood Marshall a villain?

[Darius871]

That's according to Kagan. Is there any independent confirmation?

Now I know you're just an elaborate troll. Bravo!

Edit: fortunately your attempted DanS didn't achieve DanSness.

[Ben Kenobi]

Umm, I'm an elaborate troll because I admitted I was wrong and I got mixed up?

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm a repug and from I've heard, I kind of like Kagan. The only negative is her total lack of any experience in courtrooms. But I don't think that it's that much of a negative.

She'll clearly be perfectly qualified, I disagree personally with her (probable) constitutional views but I'm not going to agree with any Obama nominee.

[Darius871]

Umm, I'm an elaborate troll because I admitted I was wrong and I got mixed up?

See my DanS:

Edit: fortunately your attempted DanS didn't achieve DanSness.

Solomwi can corroborate that you didn't admit **** until editing about 8 minutes later. Your attempt to pretend otherwise now would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

[Hauldren Collider]

lol @ Ban

Yes, of course Obama nominated someone WHO COULDN'T PASS THE BAR.

THAT MAKES PERFECT ****ING SENSE.

[Ben Kenobi]

Solomwi can corroborate that you didn't admit **** until editing about 8 minutes later.

That's because I was busy checking stuff out. Then I found the article I had read and saw that she wasn't a judge but still a lawyer.

Anyways, proof that I can admit I was wrong. There you go.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, of course Obama nominated someone WHO COULDN'T PASS THE BAR.'

There's been some discussion about it. There's no constitutional requirement that the supreme court appointee be a lawyer.

All I am arguing is that there are plenty of liberal judges with more experience on the bench than Kagan.

[Darius871]

There's no constitutional requirement that the supreme court appointee be a lawyer.

For once you're correct, but I'm assuming HC meant that Obama's vetting team wouldn't be stupid enough to pick someone whose competence would be called into question by having failed or foregone the bar.

What made your skepticism infinitely more stupid was that judge or not, SCOTUS-qualified or not, it is common knowledge that Kagan was for a time White House Counsel and later Solicitor General, the former of which involves giving of legal advice and the latter of which involves both that and making written and oral argument before the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. What would one have to be to do any of these things without committing a crime? A licensed attorney!

[Solomwi]

See my DanS:




Solomwi can corroborate that you didn't admit **** until editing about 8 minutes later. Your attempt to pretend otherwise now would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

If memory serves, his first DanS eluded even you. What drew my response was something along the lines of "Kagan still hasn't passed the bar." Still, kudos to you, Ben, for the admission. That's one small step...

[Ben Kenobi]

What would one have to be to do any of these things without committing a crime? A licensed attorney!

I had just gotten confuzzled over the headline. Thanks for setting me straight.

[giblets]

Niether Harriet nor Kagan has passed the bar.

It's always satisfying to see Ben get destroyed.

[MrFun]

Can we create a separate thread about Ben Kenobi? Thanks, and have a nice day.

[MrFun]

That anyone who describes his judicial philosophy as doing what he thinks is right and letting the law catch up should never have been a judge.

In spite of some minority race members who are Republicans, there still seems to be a streak of racism among some white Republicans. The smearing of a civil rights activist by some Republicans during Kagan's hearing substantiates this.

[Solomwi]

Sure, if bigotry is one's habitual first resort for an explanation of the actions of others. Marshall was a civil rights activist, but also a Supreme Court justice with a judicial philosophy many, especially on the right, find odious. I haven't had a chance to see or read what was said about Marshall, but given the context, i.e., public hearings on the nomination of his former clerk to the bench, I'd be surprised if the alleged smears were based on race, rather than that philosophy.

[Darius871]

Sure, if bigotry is one's habitual first resort for an explanation of the actions of others. Marshall was a civil rights activist, but also a Supreme Court justice with a judicial philosophy many, especially on the right, find odious. I haven't had a chance to see or read what was said about Marshall, but given the context, i.e., public hearings on the nomination of his former clerk to the bench, I'd be surprised if the alleged smears were based on race, rather than that philosophy.

This. It only takes reading about a hundred SCOTUS opinions in which Marshall took part for a non-racial explanation to jump out at you.