| Sen. John Cornyn had this to say about President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan earlier today: There is no doubt that Ms. Kagan possesses a first-rate intellect, but she is a surprising choice from a president who has emphasized the importance of understanding "how the world works and how ordinary people live." Ms. Kagan has spent her entire professional career in Harvard Square, Hyde Park, and the DC Beltway. These are not places where one learns "how ordinary people live." Ms. Kagan is likewise a surprising choice because she lacks judicial experience. Most Americans believe that prior judicial experience is a necessary credential for a Supreme Court Justice.
Of course, Cornyn's statement is historically shortsighted. There is a long tradition (though not since William Rehnquist died) of Supreme Court justices without prior judicial experience. Notable 20th century justices such as Earl Warren, Byron White and Tom Clark joined the high court without having previously served as judge. Every president from FDR to Nixon nominated a justice without prior experience as a judge.
Individuals without prior judicial experience bring different perspectives to the Court. For the first time in years, the Supreme Court has been filled completely with career judges since John Roberts replaced Rehnquist. The addition of a new perspective should be welcomed, as it has been dozens of times in American history.
What makes Cornyn's statement even worse though is the ridiculous double standard it exposes. Here is what Cornyn had to say about Bush Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers and whether it was impossible for non-judges to reach the Court. Well, I certainly hope that's not the case, and it shouldn't be the case.
I mean, one reason I felt so strongly about Harriet Miers's qualifications is I thought she would fill some very important gaps in the Supreme Court. Because right now you have people who've been federal judges, circuit judges most of their lives, or academicians. And what you see is a lack of grounding in reality and common sense that I think would be very beneficial. What's worse is that Miers was underqualified for the position by any historical standard. As Salon's Mike Madden wrote today, "Miers had a long history of working for George W. Bush, and a brief career in the White House." Kagan's experience is far more impressive, including time as solicitor general, dean of Harvard law school and in the Clinton White House. Kagan's nomination could have its flaws, but Cornyn is not articulating him. He is doing what he does best; he is playing politics. Instead of supporting the common sense move to "fill some very important gaps in the Supreme Court," Cornyn is reverting to just repeating Republican talking points. |
