Not Listening In Action

A comment made to the thread I cited earlier but posted afterward highlights the b.s. of concern that Goodwin Liu's alleged lack of qualifications. He seems to have an impressive c.v. to me. But, the people don't actually talk about it (even after I cited it to someone), focusing on the fact he only had a couple years at a law firm. Yeah, if Liu had ten years, well, up and down vote for sure! Give me a break.

But, this b.s. is repeatedly found in discussions of political issues. By now, it just pisses me off. The below is a back/forth with the italics the comments that I'm responding to. I already said that I think "experience" is a broad term but again this is ignored. The argument that time at a law firm isn't the only issue here is not disputed. It's not even discussed, so that the person, with snark, can carry out their self-interested talking points. So, real discussion is not the concern. I find real discussion more interesting, but I'm not always on the same page on that front.

So does that mean you know of no other similarly inexperienced candidates?

Again, I don't think he is "inexperienced" given his c.v. so I don't agree with the apparent premise of the question. But, I cited two federal judges appointed when they were in their thirties. For instance, Alex Kozinski was appointed to chief judge of the federal court of claims at age 32 and the Ninth Circuit at 35, one of several young conservative turks Reagan appointed.

2 years at a law firm does not make him qualified to be a federal judge.

There are lots of people with ten years experience at a law firm that would not be too well qualified (of course, there is no technical requirement here, so this isn't literally true) to be a judge either.   OTOH, someone who also was a law clerk, scholar, teacher of the law, worked [as Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary] in the Dept. of Education and so forth while having support from some leading conservative voices, might be a good fit for a judgeship under a Democratic President.

My sister is married to a lawyer who is doing similar work for a local law firm for a similar amount of time - should Obama make him a federal judge because he got good grades in school too?

I assume he also clerked for federal judges (including a Supreme Court justice), worked for the Department of Education, was a law professor for some years, co-wrote a book on constitutional theory, wrote various major articles on diverse legal subjects, has support from leading voices on the other side of the ideological spectrum for said appointment and so forth?

If so, he might be a good fit for the federal bench. Let's be serious here. He was opposed for ideological reasons. Democrats opposed certain judges otherwise qualified for ideological reasons. They can be good or bad reasons, but pretending his alleged lack of "qualifications" or that he didn't spend enough time at a law firm was the problem is silly.

Obama seems to have a penchant for picking academias for their idealism rather than people with practical experience.

I don't know who "academias" refer to here. Maybe, it would help if you cite some examples and I can judge it that way. Someone other than Liu, since you allude to a trend here. But, there are certain positions where scholars are good fits along with those with more practical experience. OTOH, Liu has had "practical" experience in various respects, including in some fashion in or in front of each branch of government, private practice and academia. 

[This person (who later added some more talking past me comments that kinda half-way responded to me) is cited just as an example of a broader trend, one that sometimes is present on both sides.  It is a major pet peeve of mine, the talking past each other.  We all have our presupposed notions and all but the better ones can get pass that and truly interact on various subjects.]