Play all audios:
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has never been a judge, but is that a selling point or a deal-breaker? It's a plus to come from outside the "judicial monastery," say her
supporters, who point out that 41 of the 111 Supreme Court justices had no prior judicial experience. (At a 1971 Nixon-era confirmation, the job criteria were listed as: "personal
integrity...professional competence, and "an abiding fidelity to the Constitution.") But opponents say sitting on the bench has become an unwritten job prerequisite. Does this gap
in Kagan's résumé matter? (Watch Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) claim Kagan's unqualified) NO. THIS IS JUST PARTISAN POLITICS: There are credible reasons to oppose Kagan's
nomination, but lack of judicial experience isn't one of them, says Greg Sargent in _The Washington Post_, especially since Republican senators have historically "failed to apply
this standard to nominees they supported," like George Bush's catastrophic nominee Harriet Miers — or former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. "GOP's 'judicial
experience' argument hits a snag" SUBSCRIBE TO THE WEEK Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives. SUBSCRIBE & SAVE SIGN
UP FOR THE WEEK'S FREE NEWSLETTERS From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox. From our morning news
briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox. YES, BUT HER OTHER "QUALIFICATIONS" ARE SO UNINSPIRING: The judiciary hole in
Kagan's resume wouldn't matter if she'd excelled at legal scholarship, says Paul Campos in _The Daily Beast_. But her scant legal writings are "lifeless, dull, and
eminently forgettable" — "the sort of banal on-the-other-handing whose prime virtue is that it's unlikely to offend anyone" — and her record as an "able
administrator" as dean of Harvard Law hardly makes her Supreme Court material. "The next Harriet Miers?" KAGAN'S ALREADY PROVED HERSELF WORTHY: Nonsense," says
Eleanor Clift in _Newsweek_. Kagan has "top-notch" bona fides. And her lack of judicial experience is "trumped" by her stint as solicitor general, at which she's
"excelled," ably holding her ground against Chief Justice Roberts: "The buzz is that he's threatened by her, or he sees her as his intellectual equal. Either way,
that's good for the court, and for the American people." "Kagan has appropriate experience for a seat on the Supreme Court"