Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« leaving NRA convention | Main | Chicago's handgun ban not very successful »

Banging head against wall

Posted by David Hardy · 18 May 2010 10:09 PM

From Elena Kagan's questionaire:

"d. List, by case name, all cases in courts of record, including cases before
administrative law judges, you tried to verdict, judgment, or final decision (rather
than settled),....

i. What percentage of these trials were:
1. jury;
2. non-jury.

I have never tried a case to verdict or judgment."

This is a person who has been a tenured law prof for decades, head of Harvard Law School, and now is up for the US Supreme Court. NEVER TRIED A CASE!!!! Not once. Not small claims, not a DUI, nothing.

UPDATE: settling a case isn't trying it. If there was no trial, no one tried the case. In my first year in practice, I tried, oh, 2-3 cases, maybe more, tho my first jury trial had to wait another year or so. In other positions (prosecutor or PD), they might try several misdemeanors a week or felonies a month, but in the civil area trials are fewer. I just find it staggering that a person can be head of Harvard LS and a Supreme Court nominee without every trying anything. It's as if a person became professor of surgery and head of a med school and then Surgeon General without ever having sutured a cut or picked up a scalpel.

15 Comments | Leave a comment

Jim D. | May 18, 2010 11:07 PM | Reply

The Stepford Candidate.

qwerty017 | May 19, 2010 8:28 AM | Reply

Really? No. Just no. She has tried cases before. Read the actual questionnaire next time. What that questions answer means is that in all the cases that she has tried, the sides decided to settle rather than go all the way through the court system. Considering the fact that she has no say in whether a case is settled or not since it is up to the clients, this answer means nothing other than she followed her clients wishes.

FWB | May 19, 2010 9:03 AM | Reply

Can you say:

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION


We have an AA president. We have one AA judge. These people have devolved to the lowest order.

Since 1975, US colleges and unversities have succumbed to the freaking BS of affirmative action. Students have not been subject to the rigors of a real education.

Why, oh why do you continue to sit behind the facade thinking someone who makes judgments need experience? The Bible tells us never to expect justice on Earth so what better way than to face someone who has no wisdom, no experience.

Look at the man BO himself. My dog is smarting that he.


People who believe Harvard or any of the other Ivy League schools provide a better education are fools.

Tiocafaidh ar la!

Anonymous | May 19, 2010 11:06 AM | Reply

Even more scary, she is currently Solicitor General, responsible for arguing the gov'ts position before the SCOTUS.

Prior to that position, she'd never tried a case.

Ever.

She's an academic. It's like sending in a sportswriter to quarterback at the Superbowl.

THAT is insane.

Moreover, check into her performance before the SCOTUS; she's not gotten exactly glowing reviews, especially from her now likely colleagues.

Jim W | May 19, 2010 11:07 AM | Reply

Even though most cases do settle, it's unavoidable that you'll have to go to trial. I was already going to trial within a couple of months of starting practice. And administrative hearings, those go through to final disposition all the time. It's really hard to practice law and not get this sort of experience.

dusty | May 19, 2010 12:51 PM | Reply

For my edification, did B. Obama ever try a case? Did he fill out a form like Kagan's?

Sebastian | May 19, 2010 1:11 PM | Reply

Hey, if Obama wants to nominate an incompetent justice to the Supreme Court, to replace Stevens who I think most people would argue is a sharp Justice, and was a leader for the left-leaning coalition on the Court, I say let him have a go.

SPQR | May 19, 2010 1:37 PM | Reply

After graduation from law school, and admission to the Calif bar, I had tried a muni court case to jury verdict within 8 months.

fwb | May 19, 2010 2:01 PM | Reply

Is she a member of the bar anywhere??

Mayor Joel Stoner | May 19, 2010 2:10 PM | Reply

A do nothing Supreme Court Judge, appointed by a do nothing President. Why not? Did the man vote on anything, ever?

Carl from Chicago | May 19, 2010 7:54 PM | Reply

Posted by: FWB at May 19, 2010 09:03 AM:

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

We have an AA president. We have one AA judge. These people have devolved to the lowest order.

The Bible tells us never to expect justice on Earth so what better way than to face someone who has no wisdom, no experience.

Um ... WTF are you talking about?

FWB | May 20, 2010 9:10 AM | Reply

OMFG,

Sorry, Carl. Too far over your head.

Affirmative Action made sure that unqualified, ignorant people were "given" diplomas for performing subpar. This has been standard practice for 35 years. Certain persons are unable to compete in the highest order playing field and so the standards are lowered until those people can "graduate". Without AA, these folks do not have the capacity to compete.

The Bible states explicitly that justice will never be found on Earth. Ignorant persons are unable to judge and those AA babies who obtained college "degrees" are ignorant.

Of course, those who are anointed need accomplish nothing for they are THE CHOSEN.

GMC70 | May 20, 2010 9:37 AM | Reply

I'd tried four cases to a jury before I'd even graduated law school! If she wanted to have court experience, there are MANY opportunities to do so.

That said, many good lawyers never try a case; their practice does not require it. The young lady first in my class was brilliant, but she'll never see the inside of a courtroom.

Of course, those are the same sorts of lawyers who should never be judges. Or justices on the SCOTUS.

Jim | May 21, 2010 5:25 AM | Reply

Amazing how the liberals are zipping through blog sites defending this nominee.

SPQR | May 21, 2010 10:09 AM | Reply

No, Jim, what is amazing is how incompetently they are attempting the "defense".

Leave a comment