Foxy,

<<Do you know anything about the
institutions of learning in the US?”>>
Apart from the fact that they are overwhelmingly left-leaning, quota-driven and that affirmative action is one of the major keys to advancement?”

<<Do you anything about
their Senate Judiciary Committee or the nomination
process for the Supreme Court?>>
Apart from the fact that the President gets to nominate who he thinks will best reflect his own political agenda?

<<Do you know what it
takes to become Dean of the Harvard Law School?>>
Apart from being the beneficiary of quota systems and affirmative action?

<<Do you know what it takes to become Solicitor General
of the United States?>>
Apart from the fact that the President gets to nominate who he thinks will best reflect his own political agenda?

<<Do you know when you bring in
a person from an underrepresented social group that
they will bring in a different perspective.>>
“Diverse” perspectives.
Where is the merit in this?
Are you seriously suggesting that the Supreme Court should be a microcosm of American society along gender, ethnic and (presumably) sexual orientation lines?
The only thing that should matter is the candidate’s proven ability to interpret and uphold the law.

<< Did you know
thst women are more adept to make decisions that reflect
group preferences, rather than individual preferences?>>
What do group preferences have to do with it?
Cannot an individual be right in their interpretation of the law and a group be wrong?
Do you advocate subverting the constitution to better reflect the preferences of “underrepresented” groups?

<<Yet you still insist that women will enforce their own
views on Government?>>
Not women. Judicial activists, male or female.

Dear Proxy,

You don't become Dean of the Harvard Law
School or Solicitor General of the US,
or A Supreme Court Justice,
through "affirmative action."
You achieve those positions through merit.

You can go on believing whatever you want.
It won't change the facts. Elena Kagan's
achievements are her own, and as the US
President stated, she embodies - excellence,
independence, integrity, and a passion for
the law, which she will bring with her to
the Supreme Court.

Foxy,
<<You don't become ... A Supreme Court Justice,
through "affirmative action."
You achieve those positions through merit.>>
Are you trying to tell me, that of all the people Obama could have picked, on merit, it just happens that 6/9 were women for his first appointment and 5/9 were women for this appointment?
Of the non-females shortlisted, 2/3 and 2/4 were Hispanic.
How can it be that all these women and Hispanics just happened to be the most meritorious in a sea of white male candidates?
Elena Kagan said in 2007:
"“Richard Posner is the most important legal thinker of our time, and for generations to come legal scholars will dissect and analyze, will praise and criticize, his distinctive legal vision...Rifle through the pages of whatever casebook you have at hand (nearly any subject, common law or statutory, will do) and you will find a grossly disproportionate number of Posner opinions. Perhaps consciously, perhaps not, Judge Posner writes for the casebooks: for two and a half decades, he has produced simply remarkable teaching materials. Love them, hate them, agree or disagree with them, Judge Posner’s opinions make people think -about what the law is doing, about what the law should be doing, about why it all matters. Law professors – actually, anyone who cares about our legal system – should esteem these opinions for this quality.”"
http://biggovernment.com/jwales/2010/05/12/judge-richard-posner-vs-academic-elena-kagan/
Yet he failed to make the list!
But wait. He's a conservative white male.
Forget delusions of merit.
Think correct politics, correct gender and or ethnicity.
Doesn't the cognitive dissonance get you down sometimes?
Or are you genuinely unable to cognise?

Dear Proxy,

Take a look at yourself for once
starting with your opening post on
this thread.
"Kagan whose ONLY qualification appears to
be that she is a radical who went to Harvard
with Obama...:

"little experience..."

You suggest that her achievements were as a
result of "affirmative action..." and so on.

Well, let's have a look at the facts:

Elena Kagan attended:
1) Princeton.
2) Oxford.
3) Harvard Law School.
4) Completed Federal and Supreme Court clerkships.
5) Was Professor at the University of Chicago
Law School.
6) Associate White House Cousel.
7) Policy Adviser under President Clinton.
8) Professor of Harvard Law School.
9) Dean of Harvard Law School.
10) Solicitor General of the United States.
11) Grew up with a strong knowledge and love of the law.
Her father was a famous lawyer.
12) She received Princeton's Daniel M. Sachs Class of
1960 Graduating Scholarship - one of the highest awards
conferred by the University which enabled her to study at
Worcester College and Oxford University. She earned a
Master's of Philosophy from Oxford. She received a
Juris Doctor, magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.
13) She was Supervisory Editor of the "Harvard Law Review,"
and was described as "Kagan stood out from the start as one
with a formidable mind." The Princeton Faculty said Kagan
was "one of the foremost legal minds in the country."

As for her being a "radical," Elena Kagan while studying
at Princeton wrote a senior thesis studying the socialist
movement in New York City in the early 20th Century.
However she didn't defend socialism, she was interested in it.
To study something is not to endorse it.

She's had a varied and excellent legal background.
Her law experience covers a wide range from working
for Judge Abner Mikva in the US Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia to working for distinguished
Justice Thurgood Marshall of the US Supreme Court,
to private practice as an Associate at the Washington
D.C. law firm of Williams and Connelly.

I'm sorry Proxy - but frankly you're going to have
to do better.

cont'd ...

By the way - for your information -
Elena Kagan will only be the 4TH
female Supreme Court Justice in the
United States.

Considering the vast amount of females
that graduate from Law Schools every year
and work and contribute to the profession
that's a very small amount.

No. In the United States every matter worth over $20 has an as of right entitlement to jury trial. The judges are the people, not the Capital J Judges created by the Parliaments of Australia. Watch out for the sleeping tiger.

The Constitution of Australia provides judges too, and as soon as the Christian majority and Tony Abbott wake up to the fact that S 79 Constitution has only once been judicially examined by the Supreme Court in New South Wales,and judges, not a Judge should rule, then judicial tyranny will end.

Christianity in its true form is the mother of democracy. It prohibits individual Judges, as they tried these in the Old Testament and found them wanting. The judges of the New Testament are 12 members of the community, and by s 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Holy Bible is admissible as evidence in a court to prove this.

We have tyrant Judges, in civil cases in Australia. They should be very afraid. They are aristocrats, and the French dealt with theirs in a most brutal way.