The New SCOTUS

Yesterday marked the swearing in of new Justice Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Naturally, I have a few thoughts on the matter.
 
First off, it’s no secret that she wouldn’t have been my first choice and it shouldn’t surprise anybody that something like a Supreme Court confirmation that is supposed to be non-partisan (and ideally, a bit less divisive than politics as usual) was as split along party lines as it was.
 
Those who followed the confirmation process (which seemed to be far more under-the-radar than other recent confirmations) know that there was a strong and fairly unified Republican resistance to her nomination, based primarily on her lack of judicial experience. There was also a strong, largely unspoken opposition to her political leanings and the fear that she might try to legislate from the bench.
 
I didn’t follow the confirmation hearings religiously so I cannot say with entire certainty that I would or would not have voted to confirm her, were I a senator. However, given what I do know, I see no reason why I wouldn’t have voted for her (shocking, I know).
 
Here’s the thing: all justices have biases. And all of them have been exposed at some point or another. To hope for a politically neutral justice is unrealistic. And even if such a judge existed, they would never be nominated by any President because they would serve that President’s political agenda no good. Do I like it? No. The Supreme Court is a largely tainted institution (then again, no more so than any other extension of our government) that, inevitably, has been penetrated by ideological conflict. But regardless, we all know that her nomination does virtually nothing to change the ideological balance of the Court.
 
As for her lack of judicial experience, while it is certainly not ideal (in my opinion), it does not necessarily disqualify a Court nominee. William Rehnquist, a widely revered and respected former Chief Justice, came to the Court lacking experience as a federal judge as well. Should he not have been confirmed? There have been times in recent memory when as many as three justices serving simultaneously have been without federal court experience. If that’s the best opposition the GOP can muster up to Kagan’s nomination (now, apppointment) to the Supreme Court, then they all really ought to have voted to confirm her. In my view, a SCOTUS confirmation vote ought not to be an ideological popularity contest among the Senate. It should be a vote to answer one question: is this person qualified to sit on the United States Supreme Court?
 
So, through gritted teeth, I will reluctantly admit that, yes, I believe her to be adequately qualified. And while it might conflict with my personal political sway, I would like to think myself capable of making that decision on the basis of what really matters — that is, the nominee’s credentials, not her personal convictions.
 
It’s just a shame that we can’t expect the same from our elected officials.