Skip to comments.Solicitor General Pick Has One Glaring Gap on Resume [never argued a case before the Supreme Court]
Posted on 01/13/2009 12:03:49 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Solicitor General Pick Has One Glaring Gap on Resume Tony Mauro 01-12-2009
Top-drawer legal practices have been built, enviable careers have been charted, and much ink has been spilled, based on a proposition that is rarely disputed: Arguing before the Supreme Court ain't for amateurs.
The justices themselves have fueled this perception by turning oral argument into an extreme sport that subjects the advocate to a barrage of questions -- each of which must be answered strategically, accurately and, most of all, immediately. In their body language and their rulings, the justices often make it clear that they are happier when the target of their fusillade is a familiar face.
If confirmed, Elena Kagan will soon walk into this club as solicitor general, without a single Supreme Court oral argument to point to in her past -- or, it appears, any other appellate experience. President-elect Barack Obama said last week he would nominate the Harvard Law School president to the position.
Suddenly, that glaring gap in her resume seems not to matter at all to the specialists, who have uniformly greeted her nomination with high praise.
"Appellate advocacy is only one of the talents needed," says Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe, a veteran advocate.
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
Kind of like voting for a candidate that has no Executive experience. Oops, that no longer matters. Nevermind!
Is it a requirement that the Solicitor General already have experience before SCOTUS? Certainly it’s desired, but if it’s not required.. well, then Obama’s SG will more likely screw up his pleadings.
January 20, 2009—The beginning of an error.
Exactly, the voters no longer give a damn about any experience. As long as the joker they are voting for gives good speeches and has nice clothes.
A pop culture president for a pop culture country.
I say “great”. This is the best news we’ve had in weeks. If Obama wants to pick an absolutely inexperienced mouthpiece to argue his socialist agenda in front of SCOTUS , more power to him.
Conservatives went ballistic when Bush nominated Harriet Myers. She was not a constitutional scholar nor did she have federal or appellate experience.
You cannot adequately represent the United States in court when you have never litigated at the federal level.
Yes, but if Obama wants an inexperienced litigant before SCOTUS to push his liberal agenda...
The era of OJT.
Considering the side that any Obama appointee will be arguing before the Supreme Court, I want someone as inexperienced as possible. If we can get Skippy who is doing really well in his pre-law classes as solicitor general I would take him.
Even if the latter, it helps if the SG would be able to tell who would do an effective job.
But somehow it is SUPREMELY important if the candidate is the VP and a woman and a conservative.
Hey, he’s practicing law ... someday he’ll get it right.
I see Zero is hitting another foul.
She is more skilled at keeping college transcripts under wraps than arguing cases.
Good line. It will be a “Reign of Error”.