Failed Judicial Nominations
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

Actually, Bush for his criticism appears to have nominated qualified justices, sans Miers of course.

Obama gets an easy pass on an unqualified candidate. Go figure.

Kagan is a known quantity among the power-elite in Washington.

Miers was not apparently an insider in the same way. She had not spent her life ingratiating herself with those in political power, other than her narrow Texas circle.

Kagan is "brilliant" we are told over and over. Without evidence.

How do you define "brilliant"? Summa at Princeton and at Harvard law, editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review, Dean of Harvard's law school at a young age (the first woman), professor at Chicago, practiced with the foremost litigation firm in the United States.

Does that meet your prima facie case for brilliant? "Without evidence" seems a stretch in any event.

I know she stands for much that you reject in terms of your personal beliefs. But I don't think attacking her intelligence is a very credible way to critique her nomination or at least keep her honest.

Her work product seems to consist mainly of friends in high places. It's a club, once you are in, you are in.

We live in a society full of douchebags who seek power, and in doing so, try and never take any positions on issues that might come to haunt them later.

Take the poster named "Adam" as an example. There is another lawyer who has been on CG who I am told has gone to lengths to erase his record.

What we see is that they have positions, and want to discuss them, but are paranoid about being on the record.

Kagan is obviously that to the nth degree. Lessons in non-courage. We have now entirely turned away from our Borks. We now desire intellectual lightweights with no work product.

She has positions achievable by virtue of her knowing the right people and being the right gender at the time. Note Mike did not say she was stupid, and she obviously did a journeyman's job to get the degrees but none of that is prima facie evidence of brilliance.

She is like our other current nominees, a coward, unwilling to speak out. And that pedigree might be enough to get her a job, but it doesn't sound like she stood out any where.

Mike is right, she simply knew the right people. There must be better people amongst the liberal elite, somebody who's actually articulated a public position on something relevant.

is that how law review worked at your law school? knowing the right people?

does she come from money? I don't even know. how did she get on the Princeton path in the first place?

Law review was the result of kissing ass with the profs, and being in good graces of those upper classmen who helped make the decision.