REPORT: Kagan's legal experience comparable to Rehnquist, Thomas, Roberts
Right-wing media have claimed that Solicitor General Elena Kagan has insufficient experience to be a Supreme Court justice. In fact, Kagan's legal experience is comparable to that of several recent conservative justices at the time of their nominations: William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts.
Kagan's legal experience comparable to conservative justices
Right-wing media falsely claim Kagan is "unqualified." In a May 10 article, the right-wing website Newsmax wrote: "Rush Limbaugh attacked President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court, calling her a 'liberal elitist' who is unqualified for the court and has no clue about how ordinary Americans live."
But at least 38 justices -- including Rehnquist -- had no judicial experience before being nominated to the Supreme Court. While right-wing media have objected to the fact that Kagan has not previously served as a judge, University of Virginia government professor emeritus Henry J. Abraham has found that 38 justices -- more than a third of the 111 who have served on the Supreme Court -- had no prior judicial experience. Findlaw.com's Supreme Court Center similarly reports that 40 justices had no prior judicial experience. Rehnquist and Earl Warren -- two of the past four chief justices -- had never been judges before their original appointments as justices. Both were nominated by Republican presidents.
Thomas and Roberts had little judicial experience before being nominated to Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas had served as a judge for 16 months and John Roberts had served for roughly two years at the time they were nominated to the Supreme Court by Republican presidents.
Kagan's legal experience is comparable to that of Rehnquist, Thomas, and Roberts at the time of their nominations. Kagan has 23 years of legal experience (after law school). Rehnquist had 20 years of legal experience at the time of his nomination. Thomas had 17 years of legal experience at the time of his nomination. Roberts had 26 years of legal experience at the time of his nomination. None had served more than two years as a judge.
The above chart was compiled using the following biographical information:
1952
LL.B.,
Stanford
1952-1953 Law clerk for
Justice Robert H. Jackson
1953-1969 Private law
practice in Phoenix,
AZ
1969-1971 Assistant
Attorney General of Office of Legal Counsel
1971 Nominated by
President Nixon to the Supreme Court (later elevated to chief justice by
President Reagan)
1974 J.D., Yale University
1974-1977 Missouri
Assistant Attorney General
1977-1979 Attorney with
Monsanto Company in St.
Louis
1979-1981 Legislative
Assistant for Sen. John Danforth (R-MO)
1981-1982 Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S.
Department of
Education
1982-1990 Chairman of
U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity
Commission
1990-1991
Judge on the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit
1991 Nominated by
President George H.W. Bush to the Supreme Court
1979 J.D., Harvard University
1979-1980 Law Clerk for
Judge Henry Friendly on the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 2nd Circuit
1980-1981 Clerked for
then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist
1981-1982 Special
Assistant to the U.S. Attorney
General
1982-1986 Associate
Counsel to the President
1986-1989 Private law
practice (associate at Hogan & Hartson)
1989-1993
Principal Deputy Solicitor
General in the U.S.
Department of
Justice
1993-2003 Private law
practice (partner at Hogan & Hartson)
2003-2005 Judge on the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit
2005 Nominated by
President George W. Bush to the Supreme Court
1986 J.D., Harvard University
1986-1987 Law clerk for
Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
D.C. Circuit
1987-1988 Law clerk for
Justice Thurgood Marshall
1989-1991 Private
practice (associate at Williams & Connolly)
1991-1995 Professor at
University of Chicago Law
School
1995-1996 Associate
White House Counsel
1997-1999 Deputy
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
1999-2001 Visiting
professor at Harvard Law
School
2001-2003 Professor at
Harvard
Law School
2003-2009 Dean of
Harvard
Law School
2009-Present U.S. Solicitor
General
2010 Nominated by
President Obama to the Supreme Court
Conservatives, legal experts, journalists agree: Kagan is qualified
Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried endorsed Kagan's nomination, describing her as "supremely intelligent," "an effective, powerful person," "and a very hardworking and serious person." The Huffington Post reported on April 9 that Charles Fried -- solicitor general during the Reagan administration -- "said that he'd support a Kagan pick." Fried reportedly said: "She is a supremely intelligent person, really one of the most intelligent people I have encountered, and I have met a lot of them, as one does in this business. She is very adroit politically. ... She has quite a strong personality and a winning personality. I think she's an effective, powerful person and a very, very intelligent person, and a very hardworking and serious person." Fried reportedly added that Kagan was "not ideological" and advised Republicans to support her.
Bush judicial nominee Estrada: Kagan is "a rigorous lawyer" who "should be confirmed" as the next Supreme Court justice. A May 10 New York Times article quoted Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada endorsing Kagan for Supreme Court justice:
"I would think that the president is looking for a bona fide left-of-center candidate with a progressive personal outlook who is a rigorous lawyer -- and he hit pay dirt," said Miguel Estrada, who was nominated to a federal appeals court by President George W. Bush but was never confirmed. "She's highly capable and should be confirmed."
Fox's Bream: Kagan has a "fantastic resume." During Fox News' breaking Supreme Court coverage, reporter Shannon Bream predicted that "no one will argue anything [against Kagan] but that she is a brilliant individual, she's got a fantastic resume, and she is known to be a consensus builder."
Fox's Napolitano: Kagan's "credentials are impeccable." On the May 10 edition of Fox News Radio's Brian & The Judge, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said that Kagan's "credentials are impeccable."
Fox legal analyst Wiehl: Kagan "an absolute gem" with "excellent qualifications." In a May 10 FoxNews.com opinion piece, legal analyst Liz Wiehl wrote that she found Kagan "to be an absolute gem," and added: "Some will question her lack of judicial experience, but that perceived prerequis[i]te is relatively new...don't forget Justice Warren (of the Warren court) was never a judge before ascending to the Court. At Harvard, she was known as an avid listener, who could get to the heart of the matter with a measure of both logical analysis and compassion. Sound like excellent qualifications to me."
It wouldn't surprise me if instead of a Marriage License they just jumped a Broom.
When it comes to New Laws that keep Blacks & Hispanics down Justice Thomas needs no Convincing.
Self Loathing is a Dangerous Emotion, in a Sepreme Court Justice it's Tantamount to Ethnic Cleansing.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
The trogolodytes, if they had a brain in their head, would line up behind Kagan. But they don't. I hope she is rejected, personally, and Obama has to come up with somebody more reliable than she is.
And maybe thus is Obama's strategy.
Present someone the Right should be able to accept, see her savaged, then withdraw her and present someone really liberal.
It would be nice if that was the plan.
The state of the democratic party is this: Leading democrats are afraid of being called a lefty. Contrast this to folks like Bush who seemed to relish in being a far right wing wacko.
She hired thirty-two tenured and tenure-track faculty. Thirty-one of them were white. Twenty-four were men.
I don't think the dog whistles will be out from the right-wingers on this choice. Her commitment to diversity, in practice, is nonexistent.
She seems extremely professional and very business oriented. I'd like to know where she stood with regards to recent Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and ruling corporations as "people." I haven't been able to find anything about these issues, but maybe I have missed it, if anyone else is aware.
She may end up being an ally of this uprising "corporatist" party that Obama is leading. Wall St. has America by the balls, and I fear they're becoming extremely organized...
When Justice Stevens was elected, people were nominated moreso for their assets and qualifications instead of being politically motivated like every nominee has recently been. He took "conservatives" for surprise by not being an activist and actually abiding by the Constitution. This is what I hope Kagan will do.
Stevens was a major victory for the principled "liberals" of our Country, and it would be nice if Kagan turned out to be a helpful ally as well. She would only need to uphold the Constitution as written...so many people want to debate the interpretation. Some things are more clear than others, but what is VERY clear is that equal rights and due process aren't up for debate.
The right-wing runs election campaigns based on promises to deny gays equal rights...Republicans have become everything they feared the Democrats would become...they win elections based on activist Supreme Court Justices, yet they fear the left nominating activist judges. It's a horribly hypocritical dichotomy.
As for Kagan, I'm not going to rule out her possible position as an eventual ally of the right-wing, either...
READ THIS regarding Citizens United. She aruged the case for the government... and LOST. Whether this was deliberate or due to incompetence, either way she's a lousy pick.
I wanted to keep an open mind as well, but I've yet to read ANYTHING that gives me any real hope for her. She doesn't seem to understand the basic concept of free speech, she's been shown to be a cheerleader for abuses of executive power as well as for corporatism. Her nomination is nothing less than a BETRAYAL by President Obama, and a concession to the corporatists. It didn't take long after 1994 for the Republicans to become corrupt, and it hasn't taken long for the Domcrats to follow suit.
That's the MONEY influence. That the WALL STREET influence. The CORPORATE influence. That's what made Bush, and Obama, and their respective Congresses different from every other. It's why all these people whingin about taxes and the COnstituition have NO IDEA what their talking about. Corporate influence has permeated every level of the media and our political system to an unprecedented degree.
I'm ready to join all those far more liberal than I am in denouncing this nomination. This is NOT "change I can believe in." This is "$#!t I can't believe."
--------------------------------------------------------
IMHO
We, you and I, may have different goals, different agendas, but nothing botches up the whole works like HUGE AMMOUNTS OF MONEY being thrown at people, by those who would otherwise be regulated by them. It's why niether of us should be happy about the decision in Citizens United - it's not just a Republican problem.
----------------------------------------------------
IMHO
Cute little graph by mmfa...pointing out that the older one is...the more legal experience they have...real brain surgery.
The more I read about Kagan the less I like her. If I had a vote? She would not be confirmed. If I didn't know better, Id say that these ludicrous attacks by the Right are ther way of distracting us from the fact that she's far MORE palatable to them than she is to us. We're so busy defeding her from "communist" accusations, and reminding the Right about the level of experience that some of their nominees had, that we're not really realizing what a colossal mistake (betrayal might be a better world for it, actually) that Obama is committing here.
If you're a conservtaive who's opposed to Kagan on political grounds? You're an idiot. Period. You're falling for your own sides reverse-psychology. They LOVE Kagan. They just hate Obama. They want to get a relatively Conservtaive pick (which they ARE getting) and yet still have their fun bashing Obama and painting his as some kind of Socialist radical. And If you're a liberal who's supporting her? At this point I'm ready to say, "Don't."
This is a disastrous nomination for Liberals, and Kagan needs to go. I'm nigh approaching the point at which I'm not going to bother defending her from even the most absurd attacks from the Right, because this nomination needs to fail. I hope the Right succeeds in this case. And it needs to happen due to the lackluster support Obama gets from the Left. Then maybe he'll pick a "concensus builder" (which still the MOST important attribute of a SC justice) who doesn't have her head up her @$$ when it comes to free speech, corporate power, and executive power.
I wasn't ready to come down so harshly on this pick until now. (There just wasn't a whole lot of information.) But everything I read leaves me thinking that she's the worst possible choice Obama could be making - from a LIBERAL'S POV.
------------------------------------------------------------
Come on Mr. President, what was wrong with Judge Diana Wood?