Interesting.

Does he realize that until this past century, most Supreme Court Justices had never served as a judge - ever?

What a fucking bitch that guy is.

"...a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court doesn’t strike me as the right starting point for someone who has served as a political advocate rather than as a neutral, unbiased arbiter."

Exactly how is this a starting point, Dino? She received her law degree from Harvard. She became a law clerk, then went into private practice, then became an assistant (then tenured) professor at a university. Later she was nominated by the President to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

That sounds like an awful lot of law experience to me, but then I'm no law student, and I'm sure you're more of an expert than most of us. What is your legal experience again? I mean, other than your multiple allegations of shady doings regarding your campaign fund raising, that is.

It's funny because I was thinking the exact same thing about Rossi. He's an ok politician, In fact, I could possibly support his appointment to a lower office. Like one of those secretary jobs or something, pretty boy figure head. One of those lower offices where he can play these politics all year long and no one would have to care.

So I guess he thought Chief Justice Rehnquist couldn't hack it either.

This is actually one of the more well-reasoned responses to Kagan's nomination. Conservatives usually spout the usual bullshit about her being a radical and most democrats reflexively support her even though she has avoided sharing her opinion on just about everything. I've never agreed with Rossi before, but most of his reasoning here makes sense. Before I hear Kagan's beliefs on gay marriage, abortion rights and federal vs. state power, I don't believe that there's enough information out there on her to warrant her being on the Supreme Court.

@4 maybe we should appoint him dogcatcher and see how he's doing after 20 years. At an annual salary of say ... $35,000.

Her lack of experience is utter bullshit. Lots of Supreme Court Justices haven't been judges prior to their appointment. She clerked under one of the most prominent justices of the last century. She was a professor of constitutional law, and the head of the most prestigious law school in the country. It is laughable to say she doesn't know what she's doing.

The lack of transparency is a slightly better argument. But she did exactly the same thing every nominee has done since Bork (including every republican nominee); said as little as possible. This is hardly new. It has become standard practice. She herself had bemoaned this practice. But that seems to be the only way you can get past the nominating committee these days. She played the game exactly as she had to.

If Dino would not except Kagan, he is obviously just voting party line, and would not vote for any nominee by a democrat. Dumbass.

I agree that Rossi is just voting on party lines but he did articulate his reasoning FAR better than any other republican. My beef with Kagan isn't so much with her, but with Obama for not choosing a legitimate progressive judge that could balance the court a little bit more.

Diane Wood anyone?

I believe Obama chose Kagan because of her incredibly open stance on federal power, and because she really has not explicitly shared any views on major topics. Republicans cannot attack him for the nomination because she hasn't articulated any views for them to attack her on.

Sure it wasn't that photo of her playing softball, Dino?

Translation:

"I oppose her nomination because it is my duty as a republican to vote "no" on everything the democrats propose or support."

It's truly unfortunate that she does not need his approval - any more than he needs her approval to frequently masturbate and to say stupid things.

I might support Dino Rossi as an attendent at a public restroom but that's about it.

@15 ooh, that's going a bit far .. I have a feeling he might sell the toilet paper and replace it with cheaper stuff to pay for beer.

Another occasion to notice the irony. Yep, Republicans complain that Kagan has never served as a judge before -- conveniently overlooking the fact that the Republican senate failed to bring her appellate-court nomination by President Clinton to a vote.

I hate to admit it, but I agree with Rossi, or his conclusion at least.

At least with a sitting judge, you have a judicial record to look through to get a sense of not just professional competence but judicial philosophy. With someone who has never sat as a judge, you can only rely on past work, which the nominee will quickly distance themselves from on the grounds of serving their employer, and past writings/statements, which the nominee will quickly distance themselves from on the grounds of youthful naivety.

Compound that with nominees' chronic avoidance of anything in their nomination hearings that might describe just who's being nominated (aside from a focus-tested life story), and basically what we get are a bunch of dark horses.

The president's party will always claim the president should get his or her nominee as long as they meet some minimal qualifications. That may apply for other federal courts, but I'm sorry, that doesn't fly when you're talking about a lifetime position, accounting for 1/9 of the most powerful judicial body in the country. Elections matter, but not one election for decades. "Advice and consent" is the standard, not "verifications of qualifications".

Until nominees start providing straight answers to questions like deconstructing past court decisions, and until the Judicial Committee starts demanding answers to useful questions, instead of exploiting the attention by making self-serving speeches, I would have abstained from every Supreme Court nomination vote of modern times, regardless of party affiliation.

Frankly, Kagan has more experience with Law, than does Rossi with winning elections.

Also Rossi just does whatever you tell/pay him to do. 1st rule of being in someones pocket is to do it quietly