Experience does NOT always mean better

@laglen (19759)
United States
May 10, 2010 2:15pm CST
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/10/kagans-judicial-inexperience-minor-hurdle-despite-early-criticism/ I am having a very hard time with this. Just because she has not been a judge. How many of us here can say e know of judges that should not be? I know I can name quite a few. So why do people think that she has to have time on the bench. I am not saying that she is the most qualified, I am saying that we should look at the rest. There could be somebody out there that doesnt even have a law degree that would be perfect for the job!
1 person likes this
3 responses
Netsbridge
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
10 May 10
Very true, Laglen. As a matter of fact, the field of law is the one field of study were commonsense is directly proportional to justice.
1 person likes this
laglen
@laglen (19759)
• United States
11 May 10
true and I think there are a lot more things that would make a more effective judge than just experience on the bench.
hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
12 May 10
I don't think bench experience should be mandatory to be a Supreme Court Judge. It's her education/experience and how she interprets the Constitution that matter.
laglen
@laglen (19759)
• United States
12 May 10
lol I was just going to agree again...
hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
12 May 10
My mistake. I didn't think my first comment went through...at least I said about the same thing twice.
hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
12 May 10
I don't think the nominee has to have experience on the bench to be a good Supreme Court Justice. Her education/work and other experiences in total/her interpretation of the Constitution are what matters.
laglen
@laglen (19759)
• United States
12 May 10
I agree and there are enough questions there.