Posted on Oct 27, 2020
Amy Coney Barrett is the least-experienced Supreme Court nominee in 30 years
1.01K
45
16
7
7
0
She's smart. I'll give her that but she's too inexperienced to leapfrog to the highest court in the land. What's done is done. Standards have been lowered for practically everything under this administration so why should anyone be surprised.
Barrett has spent virtually all of her professional life in academia. Until President Trump nominated her to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, she had never been a judge, never worked in the government as a prosecutor, defense lawyer, solicitor general, or attorney general, or served as counsel to any legislative body—the usual professional channels that Supreme Court nominees tend to hail from. A graduate of Notre Dame law school, Barrett has almost no experience practicing law whatsoever—a hole in her resume so glaring that during her 7th Circuit confirmation hearing in 2017, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were dismayed that she couldn’t recall more than three cases she’d worked on during her brief two years in private practice. Nominees are asked to provide details on 10.
Barrett has spent virtually all of her professional life in academia. Until President Trump nominated her to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, she had never been a judge, never worked in the government as a prosecutor, defense lawyer, solicitor general, or attorney general, or served as counsel to any legislative body—the usual professional channels that Supreme Court nominees tend to hail from. A graduate of Notre Dame law school, Barrett has almost no experience practicing law whatsoever—a hole in her resume so glaring that during her 7th Circuit confirmation hearing in 2017, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were dismayed that she couldn’t recall more than three cases she’d worked on during her brief two years in private practice. Nominees are asked to provide details on 10.
Amy Coney Barrett is the least-experienced Supreme Court nominee in 30 years
Posted from motherjones.com
Judiciary
Republicans
Supreme Court
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
7
7
0
I think you'll find that Elena Kagan holds that distinction. Her only accomplishment of note was falsifying evidence on behalf of President Clinton
(7)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Well that's according to you. Kagan's legal experience was more extensive than Barrett's. "Barrett has never tried a case to verdict or argued an appeal in any court, nor has she ever performed any notable pro bono work, even during law school." It's almost like...oh I don't know....being an OPFOR commander but never deploying. All of a sudden they decide to make you the Corps commander. Barrett has been a judge for 3 years. Actually practiced private law for 2 years. Has never argued an appeal. Most of her work was civil not criminal and she's been teaching at a law school the rest of the time (15 years). Only reason she was nominated was because of her abortion stance. It's all ideology.
https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/kagan0509.pdf
https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/kagan0509.pdf
%íw+¡µã{ºGô(ÑÆ~N%Æ^KÏb«:_ÜÞ[oE{D/ïkcªqåÞïöûÿj«ùú{yJZ.#KÎWTªî»k»ôö'56_îaÇQrMµùùL5öÝ(ßs[Í9ï»sÑVêq^Sµì(ÕçR#l)ªojYZëY;uïÜæj«l:§oÕ§ÒVsKù#ÇZÏ9ª¶sÔºÕïµÌ[ûÞѪösØjÎ1r«9Ç8GÌ9Æ«ÖµcØã?="tâËj-ã^Ó9býsb{æG|ðÁÓë[wÏËmo;ã6õÓO_~þêÕ|ðÃ3zëÚ¶Çe=Äx0#!D"*çsÅáÜpn87Î g¶·ÞÛC`Ø1ìv;ÃaÇÔsÇyà
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SSG (Join to see) - How about Kagan's experience as a judge, an appellate judge, compared to Barrett's?
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - ah well what do I know. I'm just a former SSG in the United States Army. Republicans got a conservative female on the bench. As Castaneda said "she'll figure it out."
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) -
As CPT Jack Durish noted, Barrett's judicial experience is greater than Kagan's was.
Kagan was in private practice and taught law for almost her entire career. She was a solicitor general for 15 months before being nominated for the Supreme Court, she was never a judge or on an appeals court prior to that.
Barrett had written approx 100 opinions in the years she was on an appeals court.
There is a history of Supreme Court Justices without prior experience as a judge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan#Early_career
https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
As CPT Jack Durish noted, Barrett's judicial experience is greater than Kagan's was.
Kagan was in private practice and taught law for almost her entire career. She was a solicitor general for 15 months before being nominated for the Supreme Court, she was never a judge or on an appeals court prior to that.
Barrett had written approx 100 opinions in the years she was on an appeals court.
There is a history of Supreme Court Justices without prior experience as a judge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan#Early_career
https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
You do realize the Constitution doesn't even require a law degree right?
That's your opinion and MotherJones isn't exactly an unbiased source.
That's your opinion and MotherJones isn't exactly an unbiased source.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
What? I like when people learn some random bit of useless facts and throws it in a conversation like it has any bearing. The Constitution doesn't require a law degree for judges. How many federal judges do you know that don't have a law degree? Just because there isn't a formal requirement doesn't mean there aren't standards (as there should be).
(1)
(0)
PO1 John F. Johnson
SSG (Join to see) A quick search of the prior seated Justices will inform you that there have been many Justices that have come from areas other than behind a bench with a law degree. Just because you don’t like it or don’t want it doesn’t mean it hasn’t or shouldn’t happen.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Patricia Miner
PO1 John F. Johnson you're right. You don't have to sit on a bench to know the law. I'll take a professor who is a Constitutionalist over someone who litigates from the bench any day. For instance, Jonathan Turley is a constitutional law professor and a democrat. In his case I don't care about the democrat part of him. He has trashed the left's agenda for the last four years based on what the Constitution says and precedent.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google