Timeline for Why wasn't Elena Kagan's lack of *judicial* experience an issue?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 14, 2018 at 6:58 | history | protected | Philipp♦ | ||
| Jul 12, 2018 at 0:22 | comment | added | grovkin | @Lee you are the 1st one to bring up "judicial overreach" in this question. Unless, of course, there was a comment which got deleted. This question was about Judge Kagan's potential unwillingness to curtail legislative or executive overreach. Legislative or executive overreach is what's usually meant by "government overreach". More precisely, the question was about why this potential (without trying to suggest that there were cases where it materialized) was not given more consideration. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 4:29 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | Why do you define any use of government power as "overreach"? It makes your question seem very unbiased. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 3:57 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/1016894338201202688 | ||
| Jul 10, 2018 at 22:54 | vote | accept | grovkin | ||
| Jul 10, 2018 at 22:09 | answer | added | Brythan | timeline score: 26 | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 20:53 | answer | added | Publius | timeline score: 17 | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 20:32 | history | edited | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Jul 10, 2018 at 20:23 | comment | added | grovkin | @Avi, I said that I wasn't asking for someone in this community opining on why it's Ok. If you want your answer to go the route of advocating that it's Ok, then please, provide outside authoritative non-partisan legal references. That means legal opinions written by people who were not functioning as political operatives. As for your offer of examples, it would have to be examples of people nominated to the SCOTUS -- not just to a court. Obviously a judicial career has to start somewhere. I am not sure why it has to start at the top. | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 20:18 | comment | added | Publius | @grovkin "Appropriate" is a matter of opinion. I can provide you with a couple of examples of executive officials becoming justices without prior judicial experience, but I can't make you think that that's okay. | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 20:11 | comment | added | grovkin | @Avi, pointing to other department officials who were nominated would only answer it if they also never served as judges prior to their nominations. She was nominated to be the last stop for all judicial decisions without having ever been a judge. My question was why this was not brought up. It was not why the community thinks it's Ok that it wasn't brought up. A link to it having been brought up or to an authoritative non-partisan legal opinion showing that this is appropriate would be great. | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 20:09 | comment | added | Publius | This seems like more of a rant than a question. What kind of information would answer it? Would pointing to previous executive department officials who have been nominated address it? Or previous justices without prior judicial experience? | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 19:56 | history | asked | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |