Here is Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, playing the political hack, talking in 2005 about Bush Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers and whether it had become impossible for non-judges to reach the Supreme 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.
Yesterday Cornyn attacked Elena Kagan -- because, according to Cornyn, she lacks judicial experience. Really, he said that.
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.
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.
Evidently, what Cornyn meant is that Miers' "common sense" background involved being a Republican, which is what really qualified her for the Court in his eyes.