re: #17 lawhawk

In fact, I’ve seen some comparing her to Miers. I don’t think that’s wholly warranted - but she’s going to have to convince the Senators that she’s capable of providing a coherent judicial philosophy and that will make her confirmation hearings all the more interesting.

Just not wholly warranted? How is it in the least warranted?

Miers worked in commercial litigation, never touching anything constitutional or even non-litigious. She had run a lottery.

Kagan has argued six cases before the Supreme Court. She’s taught constitutional law. She was nominated to be a judge but blocked by the Republicans at the time.

I don’t think any comparison of the two is in the least bit meaningful. Yes, Kagan has remained determinedly unstaked on a number of big issues— but she’s been active in constitutional law, including arguing before the court.

I don’t think any comparison of the two is warranted, and if you make one, it’s clearly obvious that Kagan is miles above Miers.