It's kind of early to have reached much if any opinion about Elena Kagan's Supreme Court qualifications. The Cleveland Plain Dealer asked readers to comment on Kagan's nomination. Many of the letters focused on whether having been a judge should be a prerequisite. Most said they didn't believe time on the bench should be necessary. One letter stood out in it's reasoning. They reasoned that Kagan may be better than most because she spent time in the real world and wasn't secluded in the world of the law and judiciary. Now I might be wrong but I don't recall hearing any positions held by Kagan outside of academia.
So the question is what's a more sheltered existence the law or academia. I believe by far academics are sheltered from the real world to a greater degree. Living ones life on campus shields them from the economic pressures that the working man must face. Raises without profitability and tenure that guarantees employment for life are just some of sheltering effects.
Kagan may well be qualified for the scotus but to claim a more worldly position than many others is ludicrous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oddly enough there are no specified qualification to serve on the SC. Unlike the presidency there is no citizenship requirement. And unlike the presidency, senate and congress there isn't even an age requirement. No need to be a sitting jurist or even a member of the Bar.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Kagan goes, she adds no additional level of intellectual diversity. In fact considering Stevens' life experiences (Navy in WWII, law firm) the court will be more homogeneous than ever with him being replaced by Kagan. Now every justice will be be Ivy school educated. Also, besides Thomas the entire court will be north easterners.
None of that should really matter. My desire for a justice is someone who has read the United States Constitution and will faithfully adhere to its contents.