Obama on a Supreme Court Nominee Without Judicial Experience

Listen to the audio in the title link and hear Obama telling us that because Harriet Miers has no judicial experience, she deserves "extreme scrutiny."  I wonder if he'll abandon this opinion?

Ivory Insider Kagan

Obama's "moderate" Supreme Court nominee will clear the Senate as it confirmed her as Solicitor General last year 61-31 and frankly, given her utter lack of judicial experience, I have no idea how any member could question her enough to warrant a legitimate "no" vote. This will likely disappoint her, as in a 1995 law review article, Ms. Kagan congratulated the Senate for its boisterousness in Robert Bork's confirmation hearing by saying it was "the essential rightness—the legitimacy and the desirability—of exploring a Supreme Court nominee's set of constitutional views and commitments." Too bad we have nothing to explore here. Honestly, I am sure she is a capable law school dean, but to appoint someone with zero judicial experience to the highest court in the country who has barely seen the inside of a courtroom (as she only worked for a firm for five years and as Solicitor General, has only argued a handful of cases like the one here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/10/kagan_botches_oral_argument_in_supreme_court_appearance_at_citizens_united_lawsuit.html)

is hugely irresponsible and proves that those on the inside of Obama's elite circle are rewarded handsomely whether they deserve it or not.