Fourth in a series
Re “Deeper You Dig, the Less Qualified Kruger Seems to be”
[img]2889|right|Leondra Kruger||no_popup[/img]In a country where there are three Jews and six Catholics monopolizing the U.S. Supreme Court, Gov. Brown has endured a firestorm of arrows aimed at his newest state Supreme Court nominee, just as he did for his other two nominees.
Curiously, liberals are screaming at Mr. Brown as loudly as his regular choruses of critics from the right and the middle.
So much for partisanship.
As if the portrait frame were built exclusively for her, Leonard R. Kruger, the 38-year-old selectee, is uncommonly young. Her cupboard of experience offers only bare shelves.
Like Mr. Brown’s other choices, she never has spent a day as a jurist.
Like the other two, she filled what appears to be the most crucial criterion: She is not white.
Gerald F. Uelman, Santa Clara University law professor, probably is the most quoted authority on California judicial nominees. He noted that Ms. Kruger squeaks through as technically qualified for the Supreme Court bench by having held her law license for 13 years. The minimum is 10. Never mind that it has been inactive for the past five years.
“Something needs to be said for experience,” said the downtown lawyer, sharply miffed that a large number of far more obviously qualified men and women were snubbed.
“Brown likes the diversity idea,” he said. “Maybe he doesn’t want to appoint someone in his 60s because he thinks the person won’t be on the court for long. Fine. But something needs to be said for people who are familiar with California law, who have shown their ability to write opinions. None of these three has any kind of track record in that area that can be evaluated.
“That, I believe, is a great mistake,” the lawyer said.
(To be continued)
