Solicitor General Nomination

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There are plenty of intelligent and experienced persons to sit on the bench, don't give me a goddamn academic with no real life experience. The art of a good jurist is blending wisdom with real life experience. An academic is useless in that context. If she had had say ten years of intense courtroom action plus academia, I could accept that, but as a practicing attorney i would prefer a jurist with thirty years of the best experience over a hundred of the acadecians up there. It's absurd.

She went from the Supreme Court as a law clerk to Williams & Connolly to the White House as Associate Counsel to the President. When did those positions become "academic"?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

She went from the Supreme Court as a law clerk to Williams & Connolly to the White House as Associate Counsel to the President. When did those positions become "academic"?

That's akin to inhouse counsel, and very academic. She has no or little "courtroom" experience. I want courtroom experience in the courtroom. You can be impressed with that sort of shit, I am not.

I am impressed with the University of Wyoming lawyer who kicks the shit out of the Harvard fucker in front of the jury, because the Harvard fucker doesn't know real people. Nor do memo lawyers such as White House staff attorney know a fucking thing about arguing appellate briefs or strategies.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's akin to inhouse counsel, and very academic. She has no or little "courtroom" experience. I want courtroom experience in the courtroom. You can be impressed with that sort of shit, I am not.

I am impressed with the University of Wyoming lawyer who kicks the shit out of the Harvard fucker in front of the jury, because the Harvard fucker doesn't know real people. Nor do memo lawyers such as White House staff attorney know a fucking thing about arguing appellate briefs or strategies.

I think you form categories of people and arbitrarily ascribe characteristics to those categories more than any person I have ever come across. It is really interesting, even if not logical or grounded in reality.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think you form categories of people and arbitrarily ascribe characteristics to those categories more than any person I have ever come across. It is really interesting, even if not logical or grounded in reality.

How much courtroom experience do you have? I think you just bend to apologize for your side. I can tell you seasoned litigators are not impressed with Obama's nomination for Solicitor General, even national quality trial attorneys. I'd interested in Seattle's opinion, though he does give high credence to the snob appeal of Ivy League institutions, but he is a real litigator.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How much courtroom experience do you have? I think you just bend to apologize for your side. I can tell you seasoned litigators are not impressed with Obama's nomination for Solicitor General, even national quality trial attorneys. I'd interested in Seattle's opinion, though he does give high credence to the snob appeal of Ivy League institutions, but he is a real litigator.

I don't need to apologize for her. The suggestion that she isn't qualified is laughable. She will be performing in front of the same "jury" in every single case- 9 justices with whom she is intimately familiar. She has a wealth of constitutional knowledge and certainly understands the arguments and issues. So what is left? Tricks of appellate litigation that you think she doesn't know? I have litigated long enough to know that you are either comfortable in that role or you aren't, and she seems plenty comfortable.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't need to apologize for her. The suggestion that she isn't qualified is laughable. She will be performing in front of the same "jury" in every single case- 9 justices with whom she is intimately familiar. She has a wealth of constitutional knowledge and certainly understands the arguments and issues. So what is left? Tricks of appellate litigation that you think she doesn't know? I have litigated long enough to know that you are either comfortable in that role or you aren't, and she seems plenty comfortable.

I think she's unqualified due to lack of litigation experience.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Seriously. I wish he would only appoint stupid people. Where does he get off asking smart, educated people to run things?

Stupid people are a bit more grounded in reality.