Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Hiring Supreme Court Justice: No Experience Necessary

I have been following this story on Barack Obama's latest Supreme Court nominee, and I have to say that it is a very odd selection. First, she has never even heard a single case as a judge. I'm wondering in what industries would having no experience at all is considered an asset? Judge Judy would have been a more qualified selection! Then of course we also find out that she worked as a teaching colleague of Obama back in Chicago, and that it is her experience in academia that is supposed to be her greatest asset. So you take someone who lives their entire life in a hypothetical theoretical thought bubble with no practical experience, make her solicitor general for a year and then rush her into the Supreme Court? It is more than just a little bit crazy.

There are some serious red flags with this judicial nominee, and I might care if I lived in the United States. If Iggy were to become Prime Minister and then nominate a teaching buddy with no experience to the Supreme Court, I'd be upset. This is what happens when you elect academics lacking real world experience to political leadership.

Earlier today I put this question to a webpoll, and thus far the results are:

Should an individual have previous experience as a judge before being named to the Supreme Court?

Yes (87%)
No (9%)
Undecided (3%)

10 comments:

  1. Have a look at the Harper government. JAmes Rajotte is the chair of the House of Commons Industry committee. He has zero experience in industry. He was an riding office worker and then got elected when his boss retired. Lack of experience is pathetic. Helena Guergis was the same story. No experience in trade and yet there she is in cabinet. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To be fair Anonymous, it is not an adequate comparison to liken the junior minister for the status of women to a Supreme Court Justice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And how about the fact that there will be no Protestant judge on the Supreme Court. What are we, chopped liver?

    ReplyDelete
  4. she is an obama cut out. that is why she was selected. she is a socialist and believes the court should be used for social change. she is dangerous to the freedom of u.s. citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And her name is ___?

    Judge Judy, btw, was an actual judge. I'm a law student, and I'm a fan.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obama had lots of experience before he became POTUS so he should know better. Oh wait.....never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Iceman, Cabinet minsoters influence our lives infinitely more than the Supreme Court. Alsao, cabinet is the genesis of all laws that judges must operate within. When JAmes |Rajotte talsk about copyright reform he influences all of us and whole industries. No Supreme Court decision could alter the landscape in such a sweeping way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Major ministries like Finance and Industry, sure, but the junior minister for the status of women does very little to affect the lives of everyday Canadians.

    ReplyDelete
  9. She has a vote at the table like every other cabinet minister. "Junior" is not part of any official title. That is your editorializing.

    But, if she is as small and irrelevant as you suggest then why do we bloat our cabinet with weaklings and irrelevant people?

    The fact remains that James Rajotte is the most inexperienced person in the country (literally zero experience in industry of any kind) and he is the chair of the Industry committee. That is sad.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "She has a vote at the table like every other cabinet minister."

    I admire your dedication anonymous, but it might shock you to know that cabinet doesn't vote on government legislation. I don't think cabinet votes on anything in any government in Canadian history.

    ReplyDelete