So, Senator, how much does judicial experience matter when considering a Supreme Court nominee?
It depends on when you're asking.
As most of you know, I hate hypocrisy. I find it disingenuous when people espouse one view and then act in an entirely different fashion. In politics it seems to be the norm.
And changing ones position, depending whether it is your candidate or not, is just as disingenuous. Flip-flopping! Do you like it when politicians change positions so freely? From Bloomberg:
Republicans now criticizing President Barack Obama's nominee, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, for her lack of judicial experience welcomed that same lack of credentials a few years ago, when a president of their own party nominated a non-judge for the high court.
In 2005, when then-President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, plenty of Republicans said they found it refreshing that Miers' experience amounted primarily to her time as a corporate lawyer and Bush aide.
"One reason I felt so strongly about Harriet Miers' qualifications is I thought she would fill some very important gaps in the Supreme Court," Cornyn said in 2005. "Because right now you have people who've been federal judges, circuit judges most of their lives or academicians."
Now, with a Democrat in the White House, what Cornyn once considered refreshing in a high court nominee is in Kagan's case "surprising."
"Ms. Kagan is ... a surprising choice because she lacks judicial experience," Cornyn said Monday. "Most Americans believe that prior judicial experience is a necessary credential for a Supreme Court Justice."
See - flip, flop. Do the hustle!