Posted on 11/24/2014 3:53:35 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that he would nominate Leondra R. Kruger, a federal government lawyer, to the California Supreme Court.
Kruger, 38, who grew up in Pasadena, was admitted to the State Bar of California in 2002 but has not practiced law in the state since 2009, according to bar records. She has worked primarily in Washington, D.C., where she has represented the federal government in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. She would be the only African American on the court.
Kruger is a deputy assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel.
Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state’s highest court, called the appointment a “mind blower.”
“She is the youngest appointee in history,” Uelmen said. “She barely meets the constitutional qualifications ... She has never practiced law in California, and she hasn’t been in California for the last 20 years, as far as I can see.”
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Her primary qualification being that she’s a black woman. Yeah, we can see that, Jerry.
The perfect governor for California these days. Sadly.
Why not Sandra Fluke?
Black a women and a commie is the trifecta
Black, female, and almost certainly leftist. Only qualifications Dems care about are political views and identity.
Certainly, it couldn’t have been THAT hard to find a black female leftist attorney in all of California, but he picked the least experienced of all of them. Now that I think of it, what difference will it make? California is a lost cause, and nothing short of armed rebellion will change that state.
A really powerful earthquake might do the job.
Am I confused or am I seeing a pattern here?
Governor Moonbeam’s Affirmative Action California Supreme Court appointment is just another liberal Donkey Marxist of the female persuasion. Pretty obvious to all that are paying attention.
I’m surprised he didn’t go for Kamala Harris. I’m not surprised it is an identity politics pick.
I have problems with any 38 year old even if they were a Freeper.
Maybe he was told who he was going to appoint.
What quickly grabbed focus, however, was ...
www.journezine.com, 11 Mar 2012 [cached]
What quickly grabbed focus, however, was a stunning series of statements by the lawyer for the Obama Administration, Leondra Kruger, who slashed away at basic rights of religious freedom in her arguments.
Kruger, an Assistant Solicitor General in her mid-30’s, announced - quite matter-of-factly - that religious groups have no special rights of association any greater or different than, say, labor unions. To which Justice Scalia exclaimed: “That’s extraordinary. That is extraordinary. We are talking here about the Free Exercise Clause and about the Establishment Clause, and you say they have no special application? Then there were tough exchanges, evoking near disbelief even from liberal Justice Kagan.
“Do you believe, Miss Kruger, that a church has a right that’s grounded in the Free Exercise Clause and-or the Establishment Clause to institutional autonomy with respect to its employees? asked Justice Kagan. Ms. Kruger replied: “We don’t see that line of church autonomy principles in the religion clause jurisprudence as such.
In California, state judges aren’t confirmed by the state Senate. That’s how the state wound up with the abominable Supreme Court it had during the 1970’s and 1980’s. This lady will get chosen. I don’t know what to think of her abilities, maybe she’s bright, but she hasn’t practiced law in the state or even lived there for years. It seems that Freddy Kruger has better California credentials than Leondra Kruger. It won’t matter.
She’s the perfect Obama/Holder nominee. Barely qualified to wipe her legal ass. Yet look at those who have infested the California Supreme Court (as in Chief Justice Bird and friends of a feather), and you will see that minimal qualifications would be considered “normal”.
An ignorant child, and a very dangerous one at that.
She's not very experienced in California, but she's argued 12 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. She is not what I would consider an unqualified nominee.
one of Holder’s minions is what she is
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.