Supreme Court Blunder

Typically, hiring someone is done by determining the skill sets required of the job and then matching those skills to a person that best meets those credentials. For example, if you are looking for hiring an accountant, you look for people with a background in accounting, perhaps even seeking some industry credentials like a CPA.

In baseball, if you are a coach looking for a good shortstop, you scour your minor league and developmental camps to see which shortstops are standing out. You also, when looking for said shortstop, don't review pitchers or catchers, for example, because they don't fit the criteria.

This logic seems to not hold true with Obama's recent Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan. Here is a quote from CNN today:

'While she is now President Obama's solicitor general, Kagan has never been a judge, raising questions about whether she has the proper experience.'

WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING

What? Did I read that right? She has NEVER been a judge, and we are asking this person to serve on the HIGHEST COURT in the WORLD with NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE???

Former Attorney General Ed Meese released the following statement (HT to Conn Caroll):

First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.

Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law–is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.” The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country

By the way, in case you are interested, I am hiring for an administrative assistant right now, but I think I will just try to find someone who agrees with my philosophy...they'll do great anyway.

Grace & Peace

PLW