Thomas Lindaman writes:
From the people who brought you Barack Obama comes Elena Kagan, the President's latest Supreme Court nominee. Let's take a look at her experience as a judge... Oh wait. She doesn't have any. Maybe it's me, but I've noticed more and more people getting elevated to positions they haven't earned because of factors that have nothing to do with ability. Invariably, the Left loves this sort of thing because, to them, experience doesn't matter so long as your ideas are in the right place. At least, not until someone from a different political persuasion lacks experience. Remember how the Left hounded former FEMA Director Michael Brown after Katrina? They just loved to point out his lack of experience in disaster management (although it didn't seem to bother them when Brown successfully oversaw the management of previous disasters) and mocked him for being a horse trainer. Now, they have a Supreme Court nominee without experience, and what do the Leftists do? They rally around her, saying "Experience doesn't matter." Pardon me for thinking that experience might be important in a role that makes legal precedent that impacts generations of Americans, especially considering that role is pretty much for life. Having someone with some actual trial experience might come in handy. Contrary to Leftist belief, experience is pretty important.
No, the reason you're not hearing any liberal outrage regarding Kagan's experience is because it's not unusual whatsoever for a Supreme Court judge to not be a former judge.
Two previous Solicitors Generals (Bork and Kenneth Starr), had no previous appellate experience at the Supreme Court. No liberal outrage there.
Remember Nixon and Rehnquist? No liberal outrage there.
Before the FDR era it was not uncommon for justices to be from a political or educational background. It is only in the last 60 years carrier judges became the norm. This is just further proof that Conservatives aren't the traditionalists they keep claiming they are.
I (and many others) think having former judges in the USSC is actually a bad thing, as they are less likely to push and expand the law than people from other fields. I'll take an academic any day. She's got more than enough of a publishing trail to compensate anyway.
If Michael Brown had been appointed by Bush to the Supreme Court, we'd have all been better off. Because regarding law, at least he had some experience in THAT field.
It's the same old formula: "People are hypocrites as these two totally different things show. I'm an Independent(tm) . Both sides are bad... so vote Republican!"
Just look at the unqualified graduate of Harvard Law who picked Kagan to serve on the USSC.
Bush had experience as a governor and we saw how well THAT turned out.
