Quote:
Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
Is it hyperbole? There are several attorneys on this board who have clerked in more prominent positions than her.
|
I'd compare this experience to learning the mechanics of the judiciary, rather than the skills necessary to excel. Which is easier to acquire later?
Quote:
Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
She lacks judicial experience, which I think is acceptable IF you are an amazing legal scholar (she isn't) or have an amazing background of cases tried (she doesn't). While I may not like the viewpoints of Scalia or Roberts, they were QUALIFIED to sit on the court. This woman is not any more qualified for the Supreme Court than a managing partner at a firm down the street. She has no significant and unique legal experience.
|
I don't actually disagree with you here - it's a subjective argument, so I can accept your rationale, but I'd like to know what you'd like to see in terms of legal scholarship to qualify as 'amazing'.
Also, I'm not sold on an 'amazing background of cases tried' - this is somewhat political, but it also relates to impartiality concerns (as well as blatant conflict of interest, potentially).