Will a failed bar exam also be a bar to the Supreme Court?
posted at 3:41 pm on May 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Among the people on the short list to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court is Kathleen Sullivan, currently a professor of law at Stanford University. Sullivan would fill two demographic check boxes for Barack Obama; Sullivan would add a second female to the highest court, and would also make a historic entry as the first openly gay Supreme Court justice. Sullivan could make another kind of history, too, as the Hill points out:
If Stanford Law professor Kathleen Sullivan is nominated to the Supreme Court, she’ll likely have to answer at least one embarrassing question during her confirmation hearing: How did she fail the California bar exam?
Sullivan, who’s rumored to be on Obama’s SCOTUS short list, failed the test just four years ago while serving as a professor at Stanford Law School.
If Sullivan got a slot at Stanford Law, she’s certainly bright and capable enough, and the California exam is notoriously tough. However, that poses another question: did Sullivan slough off her preparation? She told the LA Times that she cracked the books hard on her second attempt, but that begs the question of whether she took it seriously the first time.
Obama will likely select Sonia Sotomayor anyway, as he will want to pick the first Hispanic justice (although some say Benjamin Cardozo, with his Portuguese ancestry, qualified already). If he picks Sullivan instead, or later, expect this to be a topic that will come under scrutiny, especially given the critical barbs aimed at some of George Bush’s appointments to the appellate bench. If Sullivan didn’t take the bar exam seriously when her livelihood depended on it, doesn’t that reflect a casualness and procrastination that doesn’t recommend one for the highest court?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Everyone keeps talking as if qualifications matter….
Vashta.Nerada on May 12, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Nothing to see here…..move along…she’s a Democrat…move along, folks….
NoFanofLibs on May 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM
She needs empathy, but from us, not for us.
portlandon on May 12, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Why would the Moron in Chief want to penalize somebody else for failing a test when he has never published his own college transcripts.
One would think that he would be proud of good grades, wouldn’t one?
notagool on May 12, 2009 at 3:45 PM
She’s female, she’s gay, therefore she’s qualified.
Daggett on May 12, 2009 at 3:46 PM
I don’t see why the bar exam failure should be an issue. She passed it the second time around.
Besides, I don’t want the gay mafia to dump all over me for opposing a gay candidate, no matter how valid the reason.
myrenovations on May 12, 2009 at 3:46 PM
How does a law professor fail the bar exam???
Illinidiva on May 12, 2009 at 3:46 PM
I went to law school at the University of Oklahoma, in the early 80′s. 95% of my professors couldn’t find a courthouse, if their lives depended on it. When I read or hear – law professor – I think of them, and of Obama.
People who know nothing about the real world, let alone about the law.
OhEssYouCowboys on May 12, 2009 at 3:46 PM
That bar exam is obviously biased against lesbians.
She has “real life experiences” that’s all that matters.
Brat on May 12, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Ah…um..who needs experience ah..or pass the bar..
um..ah,just look at me,ah..only 2 years ah..umm..as
President,so um..ah,as a liberal..um..ah..anything ah..
is um..ah..um..possible!(Sarc).
canopfor on May 12, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Since there is no requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be an attorney, her needing two tries to pass the bar will get no traction in the MSM…unless, of course, a Republican President nominates her at a later date…
ladyingray on May 12, 2009 at 3:48 PM
My guess is that she is a ringer to appease certain interest groups, and will be discarded in favor of a less controversial, but just as liberal alternative.
Vashta.Nerada on May 12, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Oh Lord … she’s the worst of the bunch. Ascended through affirmative action, arrogant, and not very bright.
darwin on May 12, 2009 at 3:49 PM
If he appoints an openly gay woman to the Supreme Court, will it buy him time with the gay groups so as not to have to repeal DOMA, DADT or support gay marriage?
I would think that would trump the hispanic vote for now. He’s going to get Stephens seat and Ginsbergs too.
myrenovations on May 12, 2009 at 3:49 PM
“Those who can’t do, teach; those who can’t teach, teach gym.” – Woody Allen
apostic on May 12, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Ed,
If you can find something more insignificant to post about, please do so. I think it is important to exceed other’s expectations in important life skills. I suppose finding mind-numbingly irrelevant topics is a life skill.
thuja on May 12, 2009 at 3:50 PM
How does she feeeeeeel about things–that’s what’s important here. Preparation? Please. Sponanteity would me more salient wouldn’t it?
smellthecoffee on May 12, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Normally I would fully support anyone who has learned from their failures…
…but if Obama thinks she’s qualified, then I don’t want her anywhere NEAR the Supreme Court.
Religious_Zealot on May 12, 2009 at 3:50 PM
would
mebe more salient. grr.smellthecoffee on May 12, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Great how the left chooses on a basis of race, gender and sexuality, instead of more qualifying standards.
darwin on May 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM
this administration brings “miserable failure” to life
lorien1973 on May 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Is this like the bar exams we’re tax dollar funding in China? How can you fail that???
Shy Guy on May 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Supreme Court picks aren’t important?
darwin on May 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM
And Fox showed a video of her last week that should sink her for sure. Not sure if the clip is on Fox’s website or not, but she said something real stupid and real controversial.
That’s why the Precedent will pick her.
Knucklehead on May 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM
If she hadn’t gone to law school in California, she might not have been familiar with the CA law stuff on the bar exam. She can be a professor of a specific kind of law without being familiar with all of the various state bar exam materials.
myrenovations on May 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Can’t be. California offers a special bar exam for gays and lesbians.
Cicero43 on May 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM
You mean you’re going to throw a little thing like THAT up in her face? Next you’ll be asking about her taxes, her domestic help…God knows what. Have you no shame????
Blaise on May 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Kalifornia
Gay
Stupid
Perfect
izoneguy on May 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I’m beginning to think I need to disconnect my home from the Internet and stop watching television. These stories, piled up on one another, are going to give me a heart attack. I can feel my blood pressure increasing, and there’s not much I can do to stop it at this point.
I need a stiff drink. Or three.
cannonball on May 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM
So when do we get to hear that Sykes is a contender?
apostic on May 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM
The California bar is notoriously hard? In comparison to what?
TTheoLogan on May 12, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Well, she failed her bar exam, but she’s gay, and we don’t want to look homophobic, so let’s cut her a break. No one could ever accuse the gay community of getting a raw deal if they’re allowed to fail a bar exam and still get a seat on the Supreme Court.
That oughta shut ‘em up.
manwithblackhat on May 12, 2009 at 3:57 PM
The problem with taking the bar exam after you have been in the workforce for some time is that it becomes very difficult to put aside the necessary time to study. Because most people take the exam right after law school, they spend the entire summer studying, usually 8 hours per day for two months. So, while this is a fair question to ask, I do not think this is that big a deal.
RedSoxNation on May 12, 2009 at 3:57 PM
I’m tired of giving these people the benefit of the doubt. If she flunked her bar exam, maybe she’s just stupid!
If Obama says stupid things, day in and day out, maybe he’s just stupid!
If Joe Biden … oh nevermind… No doubt there…
gridlock2 on May 12, 2009 at 3:58 PM
No, it doesn’t beg the question.
corona on May 12, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Yes, if a conservative even had those thoughts… the thought police would scream RAAAACISSSST!
Double standards, hypocrisy only apply and the law is irrelevant…. oops…. I mean if you have empathy for other people’s feelings and situations you are qualified.
kthomas8268 on May 12, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Would this really count as THE Gay appointment? Souter wasn’t of course ;) Has she been a lesbian all her life or is did she convert in middle age after a bad relationship?
We need to know for Wikipedia you understand.
Rocks on May 12, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Once she’s on the bench, she’ll have to specialize in gay cases. A gay person certainly can’t have the proper empathy to understand the way a straight person looks at things, after all.
Cicero43 on May 12, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Are you kidding me? I’ve always been told that people of Purtuguese and Brazilian descent are excluded from the Hispanic block. I am 1/2 Portuguese. I’m going to start working the system for my share of the pie!
mrsmwp on May 12, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Um, this would give me pause. This isn’t a case of a newly minted law school grad failing the bar. That happens all the time. We’re talking about a practicing attorney who was already admitted in New York and Massachusetts, which are also notoriously tough bars to pass. The only thing I can reasonably conclude from her failure of the CA bar is that she didn’t take studying for it very seriously, which speaks volumes of her work ethic.
Of course, I wouldn’t want her even if she DID pass with flying colors. Or any of Obama’s other socialist picks either.
NoLeftTurn on May 12, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Let’s see the list of current and prior SCOTUS justices who failed the bar.
Christien on May 12, 2009 at 4:03 PM
RedSoxNation, you’re right on the money.
However, Ed, need I remind you that promotion on the Left is hardly tied to intellect? By your logic (suggesting she’s qualified b/c she was hired by Stanford Law), the current president is qualified to lead the country because he won an election. And I know you wouldn’t fall for that line.
(As many others have pointed out, Heaven forbid a conservative have ever failed so much as a spelling test in the first grade!)
cackcon on May 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Did she pay her taxes?
originalpechanga on May 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Consequences of a Presidential election!
canopfor on May 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM
I don’t care what anybody says. I’m Italian and I tell everybody I’m Latino. If an Italian isn’t Latino then nobody is.
Rocks on May 12, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Yes and I’m sure all her students who are paying the school good money and going into serious debt to teach them law and prepare them for their bar exams are thrilled that their professor apparently failed the bar exam.
Illinidiva on May 12, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Heh, when a tax cheat is the only one who can do the job of Sec Treas, this is small potatoes.
edshepp on May 12, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Out of necessity, that requirement has been dropped.
Cicero43 on May 12, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Fact check:
Hispanic means relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America.
Portugal is not Spain.
You should check whether being a member of the State Bar of California is a requirement for being a law professor at Stanford before making this statement.
slp on May 12, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Failed the bar CA 1st try, but passed the 2nd.
I remember campaign Hillary testing the waters floating Bill for the SCOTUS after being impeached and disbarred.
maverick muse on May 12, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Yeah what do you want to be Hispanic for anyway when you can be Latino?
Rocks on May 12, 2009 at 4:07 PM
As long as she hates contracts and loves gov’t tyranny, she’ll be a shoo-in. (It worked with Chrysler debt holders, now they’re doing it with GM.)
Rae on May 12, 2009 at 4:10 PM
A SCOTUS justice who failed the bar … what a friggin’ joke. The fact that such a moron is on faculty of any law school is an even worse joke, though less dangerous.
But, I guess The Precedent/Traitor-in-Chief only cares if she is empathetic. After all, he’s borderline retarded, himself.
Every time I think things couldn’t get more pathetic … they do. What’s next? I shudder to think.
progressoverpeace on May 12, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Obama’s “best and brightest” picks just keep on coming, don’t they?
Seriously, the SCOTUS is supposed to be the highest legal position in the land. Harriet Myers was opposed (justifiably) because she simply wasn’t someone who functioned at that level.
Maybe I could overlook flunking the bar if it was something that happened soon after graduation, followed by years of distinguished service so that the failure faded into the background. Four years ago?
Try again in 10-20 years.
cs89 on May 12, 2009 at 4:11 PM
So very, very true. Typical law prof career path: undergrad, law school (and graduate in the top 10%), clerk for a state supreme court, a federal judge, a federal circuit court or SCOTUS then back to school to “teach.” I took as many classes as possible from adjuncts because they actually knew how to practice law. Sorry to generalize, but career law profs are usually arrogant and ignorant to an amazing degree.
exlibris on May 12, 2009 at 4:12 PM
My husband passed the New Jersey bar exam two years ago, at age 49. He finished law school 15 years ago. He spent about 4 months studying hard. It isn’t THAT hard to pass a state bar exam in mid-career.
rockmom on May 12, 2009 at 4:12 PM
And Portugal settled Brazil, we understand.
But when Christopher Columbus set sail, Spain and Portugal were united by marriage.
It’s wrong to call the natives of America Indians. But fact check: we have. Try explaining that to our native tribes and to legal immigrant Indian-American children who know better.
maverick muse on May 12, 2009 at 4:14 PM
He doesn’t have to pick her now…wouldn’t be prudent. He’ll have at least one more slot to fill.
SouthernGent on May 12, 2009 at 4:15 PM
I doubt that Ed knows much if anything about you.
Patrick S on May 12, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Congratulations.
But there are some state bar exams that are easier than others; ask Hillary.
maverick muse on May 12, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Patrick S on May 12, 2009 at 4:15 PM
You’re the newbe.
Surprised you don’t know thuja.
maverick muse on May 12, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Hmmmm. Does that make her ignorant and not intellectually curious?
littleguy on May 12, 2009 at 4:18 PM
maverick muse on May 12, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Actually I’ve been here for several years now…
Patrick S on May 12, 2009 at 4:20 PM
That might be a good excuse for Joe Shmoe (though I don’t even accept that the regular, run-of-the-mill lawyer), but that excuse doesn’t go anywhere for someone who is supposed to have an intellect worthy of the SCOTUS. I would only look forward to her awful decisions on the SCOTUS with the same sort of excuse – and the real question is whether she knew that she didn’t know enough to pass at the time or if she thought she was good to go. I have a feeling that she thought she knew enough to pass – which makes it all triply pathetic.
But, she is exactly the sort of moron that this admin likes to hire. There’s not an intelligent person in the whole cabinet. Not a one. Why not put some idiot on the SCOTUS? I guess the comic relief will be a little return, at least.
progressoverpeace on May 12, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Don’t put the emphasis on the exams when it should be on those taking them. No one who has half a brain should fail any state bar.
progressoverpeace on May 12, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Law professors usually have none of the plain main-street lawyer legal knowledge the bar exam tests. They are eggheads more interested in their narrow field and publishing than practical lawyering (or teaching, but that’s another topic).
No excuse though, study hard and pass it. Thousands do it every year.
brak on May 12, 2009 at 4:23 PM
When Gov. Perry recently splashed the national news scene, the MSM interviewed a Perry spokesman and a ‘distinguished’ UT law professor. The names didn’t stick with me, but given the lively debate, the impression stuck of the professor sitting back with his mouth shut tight so as not to grant any credence to the facts that he didn’t like, smirking as the journalist was trying to score.
maverick muse on May 12, 2009 at 4:23 PM
It always floored me just how few of my law profs had ever practiced law or even taken a bar exam. Doesn’t surprise me to read that Sullivan doesn’t have one. It’s very typical to get the JD, clerk for an appellate or supreme court judge for a term or two and then enter the legal academic system with the only “real world” litigation experience coming from legal clinics and 1L and (maybe) 2L summer positions with a firm.
esperpento on May 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Cool it, Mr. Judgmental.
maverick muse on May 12, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Hosebag comes to mind.
kens on May 12, 2009 at 4:27 PM
If I am not mistaken, one does not have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court. Please let me know if this is correct.
Pardonme on May 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Patrick S on May 12, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Yes, so you know that thuja was here when you came. And if you have followed thuja’s comments, have recognized intelligence that Ed would have noticed, as well.
maverick muse on May 12, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Hey, I passed the PA bar exam while working full time as a lawyer in another state. It was miserable and I cut a lot of corners on the prep, but you only need to get a D to pass.
That being said, the bar exam bears absolutely no relationship to actually practicing law. A lot of stupid people pass it. And some smart people fail it. If Sullivan’s an Obama nominee and a Stanford professor, I’m sure there are a lot more meaningful objections to her nomination to SCOTUS than the stupid bar exam.
patriette on May 12, 2009 at 4:30 PM
esperpento on May 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM
You noted that she passed 2nd try.
maverick muse on May 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM
What will happen will be a radical pick that will draw lots of controversy. After awhile this pick will be withdrawn and a similarly liberal pick will be the replacement with the attitude of “This is our compromise pick.”. Either way, liberal activist win. This strategy is similar to other appointments.
AnotherOpinion on May 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Nothing wrong with being judgmental when we’re talking about a potential top judge – who couldn’t pass a bar and was too stupid to realize she would fail, putting it off until she was “ready”.
As to regular lawyers and the bar, I still don’t see any excuse for failing. None. Calling me judgmental doesn’t change the fact that failing a bar exam is pathetic.
progressoverpeace on May 12, 2009 at 4:32 PM
correct, no Const. requirement that they be lawyers
brak on May 12, 2009 at 4:32 PM
He’s going to choose that Kagen woman, who has absolutely not qualifications or experience being a judge or even in the court.
He likes people with absolutely no experience–means he can mend them to poll opinions.
Enoxo on May 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM
patriette on May 12, 2009 at 4:30 PM
She’s in the news all the time. Her lectures on record, papers, and particularly court cases she argued before the SCOTUS are what we want to know.
maverick muse on May 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Boy, if only she was a minority, too, she’d be the only person in America who could do the job, eh?
BobMbx on May 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Over reach.
maverick muse on May 12, 2009 at 4:35 PM
One look at that make up job definitely shows a lack of ‘focus’.
jeanie on May 12, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Bar passage rates are over 70% nationwide. If thousands can do it while working full time every year, a law prof should have the dedication to do it, especially if she wants to be considered for a judicial appointment.
brak on May 12, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Back in 58 my then room mate had just gotten out of law school. He had already decided he despised the law and wouldn’t practice. He thought he would take the exam anyway. He studied at night while working full time that summer and he passed the CA exam the first time. He never went back to law. My former room mate is very bright; it doesn’t seem that Sullivan is bright.
burt on May 12, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Let me put it this way: I wouldn’t want to hire a lawyer who failed the bar on the fist try, since my case has only one try. Call it whatever you want.
progressoverpeace on May 12, 2009 at 4:42 PM
So, she passed it on the second try?
How many times have you passed a bar exam?
tick. tock.
pabarge on May 12, 2009 at 4:42 PM
I am a lawyer, and if you want to take a bar exam for a state, you get state-specific study materials, like Micromash and BarBri. It’s called study/preparation, not walking in off the cuff. Stupid, shortsighted or arrogant, and she failed because of it. Like a math teacher failing a math test.
Saltyron on May 12, 2009 at 4:50 PM
When will we get to competence being the only requirement? As it now stands, the only important qualifications are gender, race, ethnicity, & agenda.
Connie on May 12, 2009 at 4:51 PM
My husband went to law school in California and plenty of his classmates failed the California bar exam on their first try, though most of them passed. (We moved back to Virginia so he never took the CA bar.) One reason you go to a law school like Stanford is its graduates’ high rate of bar exam passage. So it is especially embarrassing for a professor there to have failed it. And I suspect the only reason she took it was so she could qualify for a judgeship someday.
rockmom on May 12, 2009 at 4:52 PM
For the record, I passed the PA Bar Exam first try, my first bar passage, with a high score, and I studied 2 1/2 – 3 months for it, everyday, 8-10 hours a day.
Saltyron on May 12, 2009 at 4:52 PM
No offense, but yeah, it is. the point is to make the time. Now, if she were in tough competition for an attorney position, it would be considered, but for the USSC, it should be a dealbreaker. Plenty of other qualified selections that have passed their exams the first times.
This is the USSC, not a district magistrate hearing parking ticket cases.
Saltyron on May 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM
It’s OK………..
………….. she’s a homosexual!
What could go wrong……?
Seven Percent Solution on May 12, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Would she also be the first ever ginger Supreme Court Justice? Just think of all the identity political groups one could tick off! Just so long as she feels all warm and compassionatey, and doesn’t let her emotionalism get clouded by verbiage in old white man documents like that troublesome Constitution!
Blacklake on May 12, 2009 at 4:58 PM
I can’t imagine the CA Bar exam actually has anything referring to the actual Constitution of the United States. So I guess it doesn’t matter…as long as she’s gay, she’s just so empathetically mainstream.
kirkill on May 12, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Actually, every state has a section on its bar exam that includes the U.S. Constitution.
patriette on May 12, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Minds like Abraham Lincoln may not substantiate your original affront. Conjecture granted, he might not be the sort to pass the CA bar 1st try; but he’d make a welcome member on the SCOTUS regardless in my book. And for all those who don’t pass the 1st time, life goes on regardless.
Since she passed, her humiliation is what it is, not a mark on her having only a half brain. I’ve already stated that the greatest weapon against her will be her professional record, particularly cases contested before the SCOTUS.
Of course one wants the best protection in life, particularly in court, most particularly in the SCOTUS.
I’m most certainly not in the legal profession. But I’ve had 2 friends who did well in law school who failed their bar exams.
maverick muse on May 12, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Sorry, but the state is only part of the exam.
Both my kids passed the Ca. first time, how? They studied like mad. And after the test, were zombies for a week.
They both, between them, are qualified in 5 states, each one they had to take the exam…they didn’t go to Stanford, they studied.
If you are a prof at Stanford, you have all the materials at hand, you have all the time you need.
No excuse for not passing the first time for a prof.
And for those who don’t know, no other state is as difficult as Ca.
ABA schools is around 50%, not 70% like the rest of the nation. And Stanford is a tier 1 school, she should have breezed through the test.
right2bright on May 12, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Jesus, you couldn’t be further from the mark. When Columbus sailed to the Americas (1492) Portugal and Spain weren’t united. Spain was ruled by the Catholic Kings (Isabel and Ferdinand) and Portugal by John II. It wasn’t until 1580 that the Kingdoms were united, when Philip II (1st of Portugal), of the Invincible Armada fame, became King, after the death of the childless King Henry of Portugal.
And PS? The Portuguese (and the Spanish for that matter) aren’t “hispanics” as commonly understood in the US. That’s just a made a made up word because “mestizo” sounded to racist.
madne0 on May 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM
progressoverpeace on May 12, 2009 at 4:22 PM
You might run the numbers for the Louisiana Bar Exam. LSU has an 80% or so pass rate while other schools have around 50% pass rate. Tulane might be higher than 50%. The writers of the exam are either LSU professors or graduates. However, if you study, and study hard, you can go to an out-of-state law school and pass. I have passed LA and WI bar exams and LA’s is by far the hardest. I went to Law School in MS. so I had to learn all the variances of the LA Civil Code without the benefit of professors. And as any practicing attorney can tell you, the study of the law is very different than the actual practice of the law.
Claimsratt on May 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Ca law is 65% with the Multi state being about 35%.
Constitutional law (federal) is part of the exam, along with over a dozen other areas both fed and state.
Most of the Ca part focuses on wills, business associations, community property.
3 day, 9 to 5…
right2bright on May 12, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »