Sorry I haven’t posted yet today, and now I’m rushing off to lunch. But to give y’all something to chew on, I thought I’d share Lindsay Graham’s fairly positive report on his meeting yesterday with Elena Kagan:
Graham Meets with Supreme Court Nominee
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement after meeting with Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Graham is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Ms. Kagan is not someone a Republican president would have chosen for a position on the Supreme Court. However, the questions the country and Senate will be required to answer are whether she is qualified for the job, possesses the appropriate temperament, and whether her judicial philosophy is within the mainstream of American jurisprudence. It is very important for a nominee to understand the difference between the role of a judge who interprets the law and an elected official who writes the law.
“We had a good meeting and discussed her qualifications and background in the law. We also discussed legal issues related to the War on Terror and positions she has taken in her position as Solicitor General. On many of these issues, we found common agreement.”
Judicial Experience:
“I do not believe that prior judicial experience is a prerequisite for sitting on the Court. Some of the most distinguished justices in history, such as the former Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist, did not have prior experience.
“However, Ms. Kagan’s lack of a judicial record will make the hearings even more important. Because she has no judicial decisions to review, her writings and opinions on issues regarding the law will be closely scrutinized. These documents will provide the committee and country a window into her judicial philosophy, qualifications and temperament.
On Military Recruitment:
“Ms. Kagan explained to me that any position she took regarding military recruitment at Harvard should not be taken as a lack of respect for the U.S. Armed Forces. She noted that her father was a World War II veteran. I take her at her word that she respects the military and our men and women serving in uniform.”
#####
Apparently, he did NOT ask her for her views on softball. That Lindsey Graham is all business…
Related Posts
“I do not believe that prior judicial experience is a prerequisite for sitting on the Court. Some of the most distinguished justices in history, such as the former Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist, did not have prior experience.” – Sen. Lindsey Graham
Indeed, Senator Graham, since being an attorney is not a
requirement (of our U.S. Constitution) for serving in the highest judicial body, how could prior judgeship be?
Yet, senate lawyers (over 60% of the U.S. Senate) and their American Bar Association have concentrated the powers of two, supposedly independent branches of federal government to assure just the opposite.
How dare you be so dismissive, Senator!
Juan–The ABA is nowhere near as powerful as it would like you to think. The SC state bar association is vastly more so. I have been at large firms and small and around solos, and no one much cares abotu the ABA.
Now, while the US Constitution has no requirements that a judge be a member of the bar (and given the scarcity of lawyers back then, it might have been hard to scare up any wanting to serve), constitutional law is a very complex subject, and much as I would not trust my surgery to my hairdresser, as might have been the case when the Constitution was written, I would at least like justices to be lawyers.
Kathryn- Your comment is interesting compared to the history of the American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, the principal nongovernmental actor in the federal judicial selection process:
The ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary (SCFJ) has been the principal nongovernmental actor in the federal judicial selection process. The SCFJ Committee was established in 1946 following informal efforts to influence federal judicial selection. The role of the committee during various presidential administrations has included, early on, the GENERATION of NAMES for judgeships. More recently it EVALUATES candidates.
As to your assertion that the SC state bar association is vastly more powerful than the ABA, thank you for your honesty, though in this case it may be no less terrifying for South Carolinians.