Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

GOP's `judicial experience' argument hits snag

The argument from Republicans that Elena Kagan may lack the judicial experience to sit on the Supreme Court is getting tougher and tougher to sustain.

The problem is that too many Republicans failed to apply this standard to nominees they supported. Here, for instance, is what Sen. Richard Shelby told the Associated Press about highly inexperienced Bush nominee Harriet Miers in 2005 (via Nexis):

"It looks to me at first glance that Harriet Miers is qualified to be on the Supreme Court, but I really don't know her," Shelby said in an interview. "If you look back, about a third of the people that have served on the Supreme Court have never had previous judicial experience. Some of them have never even practiced law. I think we're entitled to know more than we know. But she could, if confirmed, make an outstanding justice on the court."

And here's what John McCain told the Akron Beacon Journal about Miers' lack of experience at the time (via Nexis):

''I think she's a great choice,'' McCain said. ''She's highly qualified.''

Separately, Sam Stein compared the resumes of Kagan and William Renquist before he ascended to the court, and concluded that the latter "would be considered something of a novice by the standards some are applying to Kagan."

Also complicating things is the fact that some Kagan opponents are explicitly comparing Miers and Kagan as a way to argue against her. Some are calling Kagan "Obama's Harriet Miers."

Yet GOP Senators are already on record claiming Miers' lack of experience wasn't an issue at all. It's hard to imagine that this line of attack on Kagan is going to hold up much longer.

By Greg Sargent  |  May 11, 2010; 1:46 PM ET
Categories:  Senate Republicans , Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why Sestak might really pull it off
Next: Obama wants "limited flexibility" on Miranda

Comments

@Greg: "Lack of experience wasn't an issue at all. It's hard to imagine that this line of attack on Kagan is going to hold up much longer."

Now don't get me wrong - I think Kagan should be confirmed. But I DO think that the lack of judicial experience is an argument that resonates with the public.

Posted by: sbj3 | May 11, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Greg says, "It's hard to imagine that this line of attack on Kagan is going to hold up much longer."

That suggests it had been holding up. I think many would not see it that way. It's been a transparent, preposterously bogus argument from the get-go.

Posted by: jzap | May 11, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

The republicans have been caught being hypocritical so many times, I think that people expect it from them. The 25-30% of people that are hardcore supporters don't really care if republicans change positions every other minute. They will still vote republican. This 25% is becoming the only group that will support republicans now, as the republicans become a southern, regressive, anti immigrant, racially intolerant, minority party.

Posted by: srw3 | May 11, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"But I DO think that the lack of judicial experience is an argument that resonates with the public."

Which is ONLY reason Republicans are spewing that line. If Greg is correct that the meme is sinking expect another line of attack imminently. Did we say not enough judicial experience? What we MEANT was too much East Coast elitism. The GOP doesn't have principles any more: it has polls and marketing campaigns. Utterly craven and totally irresponsible. The GOP is the BP of American politics.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 11, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Another example of the essentially pre-Google thinking of those within the GOP. While a lack of judicial experience may resonate with the public to a certain degree, the obvious hypocritical double standard being applied by the GOP in this instance will not resonate.

There is no way that Miers was qualified and Kagan is not. In comparison with Miers, many houseplants were/are more qualified for nomination to the Supreme Court. Maybe McCain and Shelby would like to explain what their definition of "qualified" actually means.

Another epic FAIL for the GOP.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 11, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"But I DO think that the lack of judicial experience is an argument that resonates with the public."

"Which is ONLY reason Republicans are spewing that line."

So it is wrong for the Repubs to express the concerns of a segment of the population?

Posted by: sbj3 | May 11, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"So it is wrong for the Repubs to express the concerns of a segment of the population?"

Ho! Ho! Ho! That's a funny way of describing demagoguery. If the GOP BELIEVED it that would be different. But pandering is not principled opposition. The GOP no longer sees the difference; that is the nub of the problem.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 11, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Is it now the official position of the Republican Party, that only people with prior experience as judges should be nominated to the Supreme Court? Ask them if that is their Official position, and if they will oppose any future nominees, from any future Republican presidents, if they select any nominees without prior judicial experience.

Put the hypocritical bastards on the spot. Ask them to take the pledge, now!

Posted by: Liam-still | May 11, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"But I DO think that the lack of judicial experience is an argument that resonates with the public."

sbj, what are you basing this comment on?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 11, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

sbj,
What of the fine "principled" stance of Shelby and McCain? They sure ain't basing their complaints based upon actual experience.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 11, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Ho ho ho: So have Shelby and McCain argued that Kagan lacks the required experience?

I think that these questions - do you have the necessary experience - are important to be asked and answered in public at the confirmation hearings. That's one of the purposes of such hearings (isn't it?) - to assure the public that the nominee is qualified.

Posted by: sbj3 | May 11, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

The Solictor General, which Ms. Kagan currently is; has offices in The Supreme Court, and the position is often referred to as: "The Tenth Justice"

Democrats: Resonate that with the public.

Posted by: Liam-still | May 11, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen this argument coming from Republicans. More like another case of Greg trying to manufacture an issue.

But we do know that Kagan herself wrote 15 years ago that SC nominees should have proven themselves at the crafting of judging.

Oops. A shame how these claims of hypocrisy boomerang.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 11, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

That is right SBJ. Until you reminded them of that, the Senate was not going to hold hearings and ask Ms. Kagan any questions.

Posted by: Liam-still | May 11, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

@sue:

"Most Americans say they are not concerned about the personal characteristics of the next Supreme Court justice - but they have very firm opinions about that person's experience and legal credentials, according to a new survey.

"Nearly nine in ten Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday say that it is important to them that President Barack Obama's nominee for the high court have some experience as a judge."

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/18/poll-judicial-experience-key-for-next-supreme-court-justice/

Posted by: sbj3 | May 11, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

There's about a dozen of those Harriet Meyers quotes floating around from various Senators.

ThinkProgress hit a few also.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/11/mcconnell-demint-miers/

MCCONNELL: “Ms. Miers has an exemplary record of service to our country. She will bring to the Court a lifetime of experience in various levels of government, and at the highest levels of the legal profession. She is a woman of tremendous ability and very sound judgment. … Ms. Miers has great experience in government as well, at the local, state, and federal levels. …She is well qualified to join the nation’s highest court. … She will make a fine addition to the Supreme Court, and I look forward to her confirmation.”

DEMINT: “Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience to the Supreme Court. I expect she will show that she has the intelligence, fairness, and open-mindedness needed to serve on the Court.”

Posted by: mikefromArlington | May 11, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Greg cites the Senators who said they questioned Ms. Kagan's lack of judicial experience, and Toon Town Lawyer says; "Perhaps I missed it".

What An Ultra Maroon!!!!

Posted by: Liam-still | May 11, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

@QB: "But we do know that Kagan herself wrote 15 years ago that SC nominees should have proven themselves at the crafting of judging."

Great point, QB - I'm sure Greg just forgot that.

However, her opinion has "evolved" since then - and liberals see such "evolution" as a plus - not as a clear example of hypocrisy.

Posted by: sbj3 | May 11, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

@sue: "President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court misses the mark on one of the public's key criteria for nominees: she lacks judicial experience. A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted in late April found seven in 10 said experience on the bench was a positive factor in considering a nominee to the high court."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/05/the_judicial_experience_factor.html?wprss=behind-the-numbers

Posted by: sbj3 | May 11, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

SBJ,

Do you want Ms. Kagan to not be confirmed because she has no prior judicial experience?

Yes or No?

Posted by: Liam-still | May 11, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Greg,
I hope you're keeping an eye on the Senate floor right now. The GOP Freddie/Fannie amendment is a big deal. I hope Senate Dems were prepared for this.

Posted by: Andy94 | May 11, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

DEMINT: “Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience to the Supreme Court.


Oh. I thought the Teapublicans thought "personal experience" was verboten for the Court.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 11, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

quarterbrain,
You might want to extract your head from wherever it is that you keep it before you make posts that are so easily swatted down.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS of Alabama, top R on the Judiciary Committee, on CBS's "Early Show": "She's got a good academic background, but not much actual practical experience. Most of her actual legal experience has been in sort of political law -- been within the Clinton administration or the Obama administration. We need to know that she's got the personal discipline that good judges and good lawyers have so that day after day, week after week, it won't be her politics or her ideology, but the law and her fidelity to it, that will decide how she handles her cases."

Now, unless you’ve got late breaking news that Sessions is switching parties, your rather unambiguous and definitive statement hard to explain: “Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen this argument coming from Republicans. More like another case of Greg trying to manufacture an issue.”

You are either too lazy to actually do any research (which seems rather unlikely since you are such a fine lawyer) or you are a liar. Your statement above was demonstrably false. Which is it; liar or quack?

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 11, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Well, she certainly lacks judicial experience compared to the "career jurists like John Roberts"--with his overwhelming TWO YEARS on the bench before being named Chief Justice.

I don't recall experience on the bench wasn't so important when it was Sonia "on the bench since '91" Sotomayor's nomination we were considering.

Republicans claim every Democrat elected to pretty much any office is an unqualified, out-of-touch liberal elitist (except the unqualified handful who are where they are today because of special treatment as poor Latinas). And every damn time the Republicans make these baseless arguments, the media breathlessly repeats them.

It's simply amazing that no matter how often Republicans prove themselves shockingly incompetent in actual governance, the media reflexively treats the GOP brand as the "grownup" brand.

They freaking INVENT qualifications for Republicans! To the point where Politico, casting about for the "career jurist" on the Supreme Court, assumes John Roberts should be their poster boy. Just unreal.

Posted by: theorajones1 | May 11, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"I think that these questions - do you have the necessary experience - are important to be asked and answered in public at the confirmation hearings."

Sure thing. But please spare us the GOP's marketing campaign. If I'm not mistaken, the talk over the past few years on both the Left and Right is that SCOTUS needs some people NOT from the judiciary. Of course, for the GOP that only holds until Obama actually does it; then, whoa nellie! Sort of like that deficit commission the GOP loved . . . until Obama proposed it.

According to my own personal poll 72% of the American people think the GOP has lost both its morals and its marbles. The other 28% are Teabaggers who pine for the Good Ol'
Days when Bush was wrecking the country and the world. (I want my country back -- to finish it off completely. Thanks, but no thanks.)

Posted by: wbgonne | May 11, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Let's put judicial experience in context. Say you have a year or two on the Fourth Circuit under your belt. You've heard lawyers argue say 100 cases on a bunch of different issues, about 2 of which would attract the least bit of attention at the Supreme Court, let alone get there. You were on the prevailing side in the votes on several dozen of those, and assigned the majority opinion in a dozen or so of those. You are now appointed to the Supreme Court. What's your experience worth in the first case you hear, the subject of which is unique, like all Supreme Court cases are, by and large? Not a whole lot. Every case is unique, and the first case Kagan hears will require original analysis and research by her and her clerks, an intellectual debate with the other eight during deliberations, and some skill in writing opinions. A couple years on a circuit appellate court won't help her listen better, read better, think better, argue better, or write better. Being a professor who has to teach an entire body of constitutional law is actually tougher. Having to brief and argue dozens of cases in the Supreme Court as Solicitor General is more relevant experience than being even a circuit appellate court, ruling on issues regarding routine trials that aren't even eligible for Supreme Court review.

the experience issue is a non issue.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 11, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Greg,
I hope you're keeping an eye on the Senate floor right now. The GOP Freddie/Fannie amendment is a big deal. I hope Senate Dems were prepared for this.

Posted by: Andy94
********************************

"Hey! Look over here! Now, this is MUCH more interesting than the foolish idiocies our other Senators are issuing about Kagan!"

Posted by: abqcleve | May 11, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"Greg cites the Senators who said they questioned Ms. Kagan's lack of judicial experience, and Toon Town Lawyer says; "Perhaps I missed it". "

Um, no, Greg didn't. He just referred to "an argument from Republicans."

As for Gasbag, I suggest you read what you posted with a little more care. The statement by Sessions does not fit Greg's characterization.

So I put the question back to you: Liar or fool?

And, btw, you should look up "unambiguous" and "definitive" before using those words again.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 11, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Where was all of the concern with a lack of judicial experience for William Rehnquist? Prior to his nomination for the SCOTUS, he was never a judge and arguably had less experience that Kagan.

This is just another example of the brainless reflexive opposition of the GOP to anything President Obama does. Clearly no thought had been applied to this meme before it was trotted out.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 11, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

SBJ, Again:

You can run, but you can not hide forever.


SBJ,

Do you want Ms. Kagan to not be confirmed, because she has no prior judicial experience?

Yes or No?

Posted by: Liam-still | May 11, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"However, her opinion has "evolved" since then - and liberals see such "evolution" as a plus - not as a clear example of hypocrisy."

It's like compound hypocrisy -- what is hypocrisy for thee is thoughtful maturation for me!

On the whole, I think the "experience" question is one to be considered. Kagan has spent her whole adult life in a rather tight academic/political bubble. I don't doubt she has plenty of experience with briefs and oral arguments. To me it is more whether her experience has produced the kind of judge we want rather than whether it "qualifies" her to be a Justice.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 11, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

If we're going to play small ball I'd prefer watching the Angels and the Twins duke it out on the field. Is this really that much of an issue?

Posted by: lmsinca | May 11, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

@Greg I understand the Kagan story is near the top of the newspile right now. Alas as you have reported there really isn't much doubt she'll be confirmed and there is even less doubt that she is qualified.

I know it's tough on slow news days, and I don't mean to nitpick...but this story simply lacks drama...especially for someone sitting on the West Coast of Florida watching a humongous oil spill growing larger by the day....or someone who recently read that the Pentagon has serious doubts about McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan. Karzai is in town...how much more money...how many more lives are we going to waste in Afghanistan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/pentagon-doubts-grow-on-m_n_570479.html

As a progressive I'm getting weary...
Obama promised to veto any HCR bill without a P.O. in the campaign..in reality he actually may have killed what was a popular part of HCR among the public and a growing number of Senators.

He promised to get us out of Iraq and take care of Afghanistan...at what point can we progressives say...knock off the absolute wasteful spending...give us the P.O. cut the defense budget and begin to work on the deficit just as the tea partiers are asking.

Get rid of DADT.

And then there is off shore drilling. Give some driver's ed courses and save a quick 5% in conservation to offset any loss of production by not drilling in the gulf.

WTF is going on in our country. The corporatists are running amuck...it's like Republican lite right now. I get pragmatism but how about some GENUINE FREAKING PRINCIPLES. As Spike Lee once exhorted DO THE RIGHT THING.

Bring the troops home NOW! While he is in town tell Karzai to go eff himself along with his crooked brother.

Place a motorium on offshore drilling.

Start the wheels rolling for a strong P.O.

These things are not rocket science nor are they undoable.

Oh and as for this topic...I'm sorry...think about it...does ANY party who ACTUALLY foisted off Sarah Palin as QUALIFIED for the 2nd highest office in our nation really deserve to say ANYTHING ABOUT ANYBODY'S QUALIFICATIONS. R's wouldn't know a qualified person because they themselves are UNQUALIFIED to govern!!!!
They hate all government and so they do everything within their power to wreck gov't and make it look bad to the populace at large.

Posted by: rukidding7 | May 11, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

quarterbrain,
You pompous lying fool. You get caught and in one of your frequent lies and you double down. Like we haven't seen THAT from you before.

You said:
"I haven't seen this argument coming from Republicans."

Sessions said:
"She's got a good academic background, but not much actual practical experience."

Looks pretty unambiguous and definitive to me. It's far more definitive than anything which you have ascribed to Greg.

You imagine yourself an intellect yet manage to consistently produce laughably inept posts like the one above. Careful, or the folks at the Sock Puppet School of Law will revoke your pretend degree.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 11, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

" Kagan has spent her whole adult life in a rather tight academic/political bubble. I don't doubt she has plenty of experience with briefs and oral arguments. To me it is more whether her experience has produced the kind of judge we want rather than whether it "qualifies" her to be a Justice."

And right on cue, our resident Far Right Winger kicks off the GOP's "new and improved" attack on Kagan. Lack of judicial experience is passe. BUT. East Coast elite. Ivory Tower. Liberal. Harvard. Communist.

You GOPers have ZERO credibility. You would attack Obama is he said the sky was blue.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 11, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

She learned how the Supreme Court handles cases, when she was a Law Clerk there, and now as Solicitor General, with Offices in the Supreme Court. Her current position is often referred to as "the tenth justice" so that gives her both great, past, up close Supreme Court experience, and, current, up close Supreme Court experience.

Along with the rest of her superb resume, that makes her strongly qualified for to sit on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Liam-still | May 11, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

@QB: "To me it is more whether her experience has produced the kind of judge we want rather than whether it "qualifies" her to be a Justice."

It is rather startling - and perhaps worrisome - when one realizes that 8 of 9 justices come from the east coast. And don't virtually all of them have law degrees from either Yale or Harvard? And 8 of 9 are men. And there's not a protestant or buddhist or atheist among 'em. I am not a fan of diversity for diversity's sake, but this is the Supreme Court for crying out loud.

Posted by: sbj3 | May 11, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Those who agree with Greg have a much stronger argument here:

"Kurt Andersen also makes an interesting point on Facebook: It will, or should, be problematic for any Republican Senator who was in the Senate in 1999 to attack Elena Kagan’s appointment on the grounds that she has limited experience, since her experience is limited due in some measure to the Republican Senate in 1999. That year, her nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was tabled by the Republican-dominated Senate, as were all upper-court appointments by the Clinton administration, since there was an election looming and Clinton was a lame duck. This was a nakedly partisan ideological decision undertaken in part because the same had been done to Republican administrations by Democratic-dominated Senates in 1987-8 and 1991-2."

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/292956

Posted by: sbj3 | May 11, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

"It is rather startling - and perhaps worrisome - when one realizes that 8 of 9 justices come from the east coast. And don't virtually all of them have law degrees from either Yale or Harvard? And 8 of 9 are men. And there's not a protestant or buddhist or atheist among 'em. I am not a fan of diversity for diversity's sake, but this is the Supreme Court for crying out loud."

This, I imagine, is parody. But of what?

Posted by: wbgonne | May 11, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Again;

SBJ,

Do you want Ms. Kagan to not be confirmed because she has no prior judicial experience?

Yes or No?

Posted by: Liam-still | May 11, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

sbj,

I sort of agree, sort of, with mixed feelings. At the end of the day, it does not bother me that they are all Harvard or Yale, or at least not for the same reasons as it might others. (Full disclosure -- well, no, not full disclosure but partial -- I have a dog in that hunt.)

The religious demographic is what I find the most interesting, although again I am not terribly troubled by it, since there is at least philosophical diversity on the Court. This is speculation based only on my personal observations, but I think there a bit more of a culture or tradition of pursuing legal careers among Catholics than among Protestants, and more of a tradition of pursuing judicial office as well. This might be some explanation, but again just my speculation. I like the four conservative Catholics just fine, and a fifth would be even better as far as this non-Catholic is concerned.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 11, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Man, it sure is a good thing that Greg is here.

I was just saying the other day, "The Washington Post is great, but the one thing it lacks is really mindless liberal cheerleader drone."

Mission accomplished.

Posted by: etpietro | May 11, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"You get caught and in one of your frequent lies and you double down. Like we haven't seen THAT from you before."

In your dreams. We've been down that road. I've repeatedly exposed and proven your lies; you keep wishing you could turn the tables, but you never have. You have an obsession borne of shame and anger.

My statement and those of Greg and Sessions speak for themselves -- and say you are a pathetic fool. Thanks for quoting them again to confirm that I was right and you are yet again all wet.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 11, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

In other news:

Beau Biden suffers mild stroke and is in the hospital

Audit the Fed amendment passes 96-0

Gordon Brown officially resigns

BP, Haliburton, and TransCon all point the finger at each other for oil spill

Best wishes for a speedy recovery to the Biden family

Posted by: lmsinca | May 11, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

etpietro:

Thanks for stopping by on your way to NeoCon Corner, a/k/a the WaPo Op-Ed page, where washed-up and disgraced Bushies go to wallow and whine and try to persuade the American people that Bush and GOP aren't the incompetent ideologues they are. Good luck with that. But "Mission Accomplished"? I think not.


Posted by: wbgonne | May 11, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

She does appear to have extensive experience shoveling food into her pie hole. So much for Michelle's efforts to curb obesity. Apparently Barry's philosophy is to cover up lack of intellectual heft with physical heft. The SCOTUS will literally tilt to the left when she flops on the bench.

Posted by: jpost1 | May 11, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

All, Robert Gibbs says more about the plan to change Miranda:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/is_the_obama_team_really_going.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 11, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"shoveling food into her pie hole"

And the GOP launches yet another principled and reasoned attack upon Kagan: she's too fat for the Supreme Court.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 11, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"But I DO think that the lack of judicial experience is an argument that resonates with the public."

Likely because the public is completely ignorant about what the Supreme Court does.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 11, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I for one hope the Repubs continue to attempt to equate Kagan with Miers, because every time they do that, they look a little bit more ridiculous, if that's possible.

Same thing with the "blank slate" and "judicial experience" arguments, both of which boil down to qualifications arguments. Bay Buchanan tried that one last night, and practically got laughed off stage by Gergen and Carville.

Posted by: ched | May 11, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is simply salivating at the chance to go after Kagan's sexuality. However, even they understand the extreme perils of doing so. Which member of the GOP or GOP outlet will be the first to cross that Rubicon? Their frustration of not being able to go there might explain the truly brave "pie hole" comment.

None of the onsite teabagger trolls have answered why inexperience from Rehnquist is a virtue, yet from Kagan it is a liability. As someone noted earlier, any party which has picked Sarah Palin as their candidate for VPOTUS has no damn business lecturing anybody on inexperience.

It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 11, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"Which member of the GOP or GOP outlet will be the first to cross that Rubicon?"

Gasman, you can't go wrong betting on Rush Limbaugh to be the Primo Sc*mbag. 20 bucks on Rush to play the lesbian card by the end of the week.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 11, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

McCain, McCain...isn't he the one who now says he never considered himself a "Maverick?"

Hero to coward is zero flat.

Posted by: rcasero | May 11, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm no fan of where this administration has opted to take us, but it's hard for me to understand how the Solicitor Generalship doesn't count as a significant qualification for the SC.

The SG job would appear to be the closest of ringside seats. And you're often invited to enter the ring.

Give credit where it's due.

Posted by: cynicalidealist | May 11, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Have you never heard of on the Job Training OJT.

Posted by: onesugar | May 11, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

It seems only fair to let Kagan have Mier's seat on the court.

Posted by: billseef4 | May 11, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company