AP article knocks Democrats for putting Al Franken on Judiciary Committee...

[Eric J in MN]

...since Franken isn't a lawyer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_go_co/us_the_franken_difference

Democrats wave Franken as trophy over limping GOP

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jul 7, 7:19 pm ET

...Franken, a non-lawyer and the 100th senator in seniority, will sit on the committee reviewing Sonia Sotomayor's fitness for the Supreme Court — a plum assignment not given to the 96th senator, Roland Burris, the former attorney general of Illinois. Being a lawyer, Democratic leaders quickly said, is not a requirement to sit on the Judiciary Committee.

I was a regular listener to Franken's radio show.

When John Roberts claimed he would do the job of Supreme Court justice like an "umpire," Franken said that was bogus. The job of a Justice is nothing like the job of an umpire. Franken was right.

Franken also talked about "judicial activism" and an op-ed in the NY Times which found that the conservatives on the Supreme Court are most activist in the sense of striking down statutes.

I think Franken will do fine on the Judiciary Committee.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. I don't think the article

was putting Franken's non-lawyer status down, but you didn't include a link, so I have no way of knowing what else the article said.................

[Junkdrawer]

4. Link (seems like a hit piece to me)...

Turns out that not-funny senator bit was an act.

"I'm an extremely good-looking person," satirist-turned-senator Al Franken cracked as photographers snapped his picture Tuesday after he took the oath of office.

Funny, ha-ha. But the Senate can be funny-odd, too, not to mention unforgiving.

Even as some Democrats insisted that Franken's vote as the 60th senator in their party could make it harder, not easier, to pass bills, they rewarded the man who delivered the alleged burden of a supermajority with an illustrious debut.

...

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/07/07/ap6628093.html

[Eric J in MN]

6. OK, I added a link. NT

NT

[Tangerine LaBamba]

7. Thanks - nice article -

and I have no idea what that "non-lawyer" stuff was in the opening. A rather inexperienced reporter, maybe. Lots of people on various committees aren't what the committee represents - on Agriculture Committees, I'll bet anything that none are farmers.

It's nice that Franken used Wellstone's family Bible for the ceremony. Lovely touch .................

[RoyGBiv]

2. Ummm, Burris?

They used Burris as an example?

Yeah, putting Burris in Judiciary woulda been just smooooooth sailing, something everyone applauded.

It's not like he has controversy following him or won't be serving a full term or anything.

[Cha]

3. I'm not concerned about Franken..

AP needs think outside the box.

[imdjh]

5. but lawyers are qualified to decide healthcare, morality, marriage, defense, roads, trains, planes..

.. and agriculture, the environment, public education, and I'll say it again because it's such a hoot: morality.

[aquart]

8. So cute. Trying to stir up a racism charge about Burris?

Gosh, why wouldn't we want the controversial appointment of a crooked governor on the Judiciary Committee?

[dragonlady]

9. Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin is also a nonlawyer

and he has been on the Judicary committee for years. It's probably a good thing to have a couple of senators there who were not trained to "think like a lawyer."