|
ElenaKagan 13 - 16 Jun 2010 - Main.DanKarmel
|
| | Is anyone else disappointed with this nomination (from a non liberal/conservative point of view)?
I think it is terribly disappointing that we keep getting these Ivy League judges on the Supreme Court. Sure, Kagan has no "bench" experience, so in that aspect she is diverse. She is also female, which may be needed. But, she is still what at least 7 out of the other 8 are on the court: legal intellectuals. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen (and would like to see in the future) non-intellectuals grace the halls of the court again. There used to be a time when one did not have to go to an Ivy league law school to be on the court. Now, it is a prerequisite. And, I can't think of a nominee that would be a bigger intellectual than Kagan: law prof turned Harvard Law School Dean. But, I don't know the woman, so, maybe I'm wrong. | | | -- MatthewZorn - 19 May 2010 | |
>
> | I think you can argue that the elitism of the Supreme Court is one of its strengths. In addition to the role it plays in the Federal Government's separation of powers, the Supreme Court helps perpetuate an idea of objective law and justice. I realize that this is a myth, and one that people accept to varying to degrees, but the almost sacred place it holds in the public consciousness actually does add a certain degree of stability to society. Part of why I don't think that myth is dangerous is precisely because the Supreme Court is so political. Citizens do affect the Court through their election of presidents and other politicians. They simply do so more slowly and over a longer time frame. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | Also, why doesn't it bother you that we keep having Ivy League presidents? We haven't had a president in over 20 years who didn't go to Yale or Harvard. | | | -- DanKarmel - 16 Jun 2010 |
|
|
ElenaKagan 12 - 16 Jun 2010 - Main.MatthewZorn
|
| | Is anyone else disappointed with this nomination (from a non liberal/conservative point of view)?
I think it is terribly disappointing that we keep getting these Ivy League judges on the Supreme Court. Sure, Kagan has no "bench" experience, so in that aspect she is diverse. She is also female, which may be needed. But, she is still what at least 7 out of the other 8 are on the court: legal intellectuals. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen (and would like to see in the future) non-intellectuals grace the halls of the court again. There used to be a time when one did not have to go to an Ivy league law school to be on the court. Now, it is a prerequisite. And, I can't think of a nominee that would be a bigger intellectual than Kagan: law prof turned Harvard Law School Dean. But, I don't know the woman, so, maybe I'm wrong. | | |
-- DanKarmel - 16 Jun 2010 | |
>
> |
I sort of slept on this...I'll start with my main 2
Critique 1: The author, in my mind, overestimates the meritocracy of the system. Now that everyone has received their grades back in many of their classes, and seen how exam prep and knowledge correlates with grades, maybe we can see the point--there is a good deal of random luck involved. Even if one does suppose that getting top-grades is not luck, why the hell does the ability to ace a 4 page issue spotter make you qualified for a Supreme Court seat. Oh wait, it doesn't.
Of course, there is more to excelling than 1L grades. But within law school, 1L grades are so influential its just hard to ignore them and in my mind inflicts a devastating blow on anyone who claims "law school success" is equivalent to "knows how to be a good judge."
The other argument against "eliteness" on the meritocracy front is that while Harvard/Yale/Stanford on down house the best and the brightest, the next 50 schools all contain equally capable candidates. In my mind, a top 10% student at Harvard will be able to exercise the same level of legal analysis as the top student at say, Montana or Florida. Which leads me to #2...
Critique 2: Being a justice requires competent legal analysis, not brilliance. Most of all, a Supreme Court justice should be just and fair. And, I see no evidence that Harvard students have any greater notion of fairness than a Georgetown student. Of course, this point is moot if you are of the school of "the law leads a person to the correct outcome." Of course, only the most delusional and ignorant believe that constitutional law is based on a set of formal rules and that the rules dictate the outcome. This has it backwards--the outcomes determine the rules. As such, a person who can perform a brilliant analysis is only better insomuch as that person can disguise the outcomes through opaque recitations of doctrine. There is no evidence to indicate that Harvard alums are better a judging, i.e., applying law to fact.
My instincts, though, tell me that Kagan is a person who may lose the forest through the trees. This (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2010/05/marshall_kagan_a_knucklehead_o.html) sort of solidifies this opinion. Of course, she may have changed.
-- MatthewZorn - 16 Jun 2010 | | | |
|
|
ElenaKagan 11 - 16 Jun 2010 - Main.DanKarmel
|
| | Is anyone else disappointed with this nomination (from a non liberal/conservative point of view)?
I think it is terribly disappointing that we keep getting these Ivy League judges on the Supreme Court. Sure, Kagan has no "bench" experience, so in that aspect she is diverse. She is also female, which may be needed. But, she is still what at least 7 out of the other 8 are on the court: legal intellectuals. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen (and would like to see in the future) non-intellectuals grace the halls of the court again. There used to be a time when one did not have to go to an Ivy league law school to be on the court. Now, it is a prerequisite. And, I can't think of a nominee that would be a bigger intellectual than Kagan: law prof turned Harvard Law School Dean. But, I don't know the woman, so, maybe I'm wrong. | | | I think though, that his article is extremely valuable and supportive...of my position.
-- MatthewZorn - 19 May 2010 | |
>
> |
-- DanKarmel - 16 Jun 2010 | | | |
|
|
ElenaKagan 10 - 19 May 2010 - Main.MatthewZorn
|
| | Is anyone else disappointed with this nomination (from a non liberal/conservative point of view)?
I think it is terribly disappointing that we keep getting these Ivy League judges on the Supreme Court. Sure, Kagan has no "bench" experience, so in that aspect she is diverse. She is also female, which may be needed. But, she is still what at least 7 out of the other 8 are on the court: legal intellectuals. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen (and would like to see in the future) non-intellectuals grace the halls of the court again. There used to be a time when one did not have to go to an Ivy league law school to be on the court. Now, it is a prerequisite. And, I can't think of a nominee that would be a bigger intellectual than Kagan: law prof turned Harvard Law School Dean. But, I don't know the woman, so, maybe I'm wrong. | | | -- SaswatMisra - 16 May 2010 | |
>
> |
I will write a more extended response in a couple days. Suffice to say, though, that it is hard to argue with the Dean of Berkeley Law (and HLS Alum) when you make devastating assumptions.
First, that getting into an elite institution (i.e. doing well on filling in bubbles) is demonstrative of one's ability to understand and apply the law. Second, that student evaluation while within law school is determinative of ability. Third, and most disturbingly he creates a an elephant sized strawman--nobody is arguing that there should be no elites on the court (i.e. that "elites do not belong"). Rather, the argument is that the court should not be exclusively elites. As it happens, he is arguing against nobody.
I think though, that his article is extremely valuable and supportive...of my position.
-- MatthewZorn - 19 May 2010 | | | |
|
|
ElenaKagan 9 - 16 May 2010 - Main.SaswatMisra
|
| | Is anyone else disappointed with this nomination (from a non liberal/conservative point of view)?
I think it is terribly disappointing that we keep getting these Ivy League judges on the Supreme Court. Sure, Kagan has no "bench" experience, so in that aspect she is diverse. She is also female, which may be needed. But, she is still what at least 7 out of the other 8 are on the court: legal intellectuals. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen (and would like to see in the future) non-intellectuals grace the halls of the court again. There used to be a time when one did not have to go to an Ivy league law school to be on the court. Now, it is a prerequisite. And, I can't think of a nominee that would be a bigger intellectual than Kagan: law prof turned Harvard Law School Dean. But, I don't know the woman, so, maybe I'm wrong. | | | For anyone that is interested, I highly recommend watching the West Wing episode "The Short List." It deals with a lot of the issues that have been raised here - albeit with a more political tilt and the brilliantly-written dialogue of Aaron Sorkin.
-- TaylorMcGowan - 16 May 2010 | |
>
> | Today's Washington Post presents an argument
for nominating only elites to the Supreme Court. I guess that Supreme Court justices are nominated based on the same criteria used to hire in most professions (and from which we will all benefit from at some point in our careers) - comfort with the candidate on a personal level and risk-minimization on a professional level.
-- SaswatMisra - 16 May 2010 | | | |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|