Live Breaking News & Updates on Frankfurter Centre|Page 8
Stay updated with breaking news from Frankfurter centre. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Unanimous process in this day and alien is probably age is a asset. a critical component of what makes her a terrific choice. someone who understand how laws are created and the real world affects of their implementation. a reminder of why some of the greatest justice in our history were not judges before they sat on the court. among those frankfurter and brandeis. i might add she brought the same pragmatic knack for consensus building to harvard law school and found what was affect naturally acknowledged as a dysfunctional and divided campus and transformed it again into a cohesive institution winning praise from students and faculty across the ideological spectrum. ....
Elena is actually in this day anding age and in this moment of the court probably an enormous asset. frankly, i think it s a critical component of what makes her a terrific choice. someone who really understands how laws are created and the real world effects of limitation. it s a reminder that some of the greatest justices in our history were not judges before they sat on the court. among those names like frankfurter and brandice. she brought the same knack for consensus building to harvard lawsuit. there she was affectionately acknowledged and she transformed it again into a kcohesive ....
Particularly in free speech. we don t see that clarity or purpose or thought that we saw with scalia. and this business about, you know, someone who can reach over the aisle and get compromised, that s really silly. really? scalia scalia and kennedy even kennedy are not going to say, you know what, i like elena. don t debase my thought, professor. i m talking about intellectual charisma. you brought warren on the court and you joined one frankfurter and you saw inherently in the constitution that separate but equal wasn t equal. that kind of thinking. the pursuit of happiness and the same-sex marriage should be on the table. i m sorry, that s my argument. well, you know, warren was able to convince his colleagues the importance of all of the voting heavily in this regard. we re heavy. jonathan, please come back. we re out of time. ....
Spent time in the private sector, who brings that kind of background. and it may be 40 years, but you look at justice rehnquist, someone that my colleagues on the republican side have great respect for. he came on to the supreme court with no judicial experience. so i don t know what they were saying when he was nominated. i don t know what they were saying when brandeis or frankfurter, no judicial experience, were nominated. we just know that they turned out to be top-notch justices and that the fact that she doesn t have that judicial experience, i m sure it s frustrating not to have a bunch of opinions to look at for people, but you have to at some point look at what our standard should be. is she qualified? does she have the intellect? does she have the ability to do the job of supreme court? and i think in the end when my colleagues look at those questions, most of them will say yes, she does. you ll be meeting with elena kagan in a little bit. thank you very much. we appreciate ....
Can elena kagan arouse that kind of interest hanging around the court? will she be able to lead the minds over there? i don t see that in her writings. civil libertarians are uncomfortable with her writings in free speech. i don t see that type of clarity of purpose or thought we saw with scalia. this business about, you know, someone who can reach over the aisle and get compromise, i mean, that s really silly. i mean really? scalia and kennedy are not going to say, you know what, i really like elena so i m going to separate the church and state a little more. don t debase my thought, professor. i m talking about intellectual charisma. for example, when you brought earl warren on the court and joined up with frankfurter and saw inherently in the constitution that separate but equal wasn t equal. that kind of thinking. or to see the idea of pursuit of happiness and the basic founding documents said same-sex marriage should be on the table. i m sorry. ....