McCain on McCain

“Petty, partisan, and disingenuous.” That’s what McCain said about Senators who vote against well-qualified Supreme Court nominees: just before voting against two of them.

“Petty, partisan, and disingenuous.” I don’t always agree with His Maverickness, but give the man credit where it’s due; when he’s right, he’s right.

Footnote Somehow wingnut discussions of Kagan’s lack of judicial experience never seem to mention that she was nominated for the DC Circuit by Bill Clinton in 1999 – a job for which she was well qualified – and the Republican majority in the Senate didn’t even give her the courtesy of a hearing.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact:

5 thoughts on “McCain on McCain”

  1. She didn't have significant experience in 1999 either, did she? No trial experience, no appellate experience, not a significant academic record and a political record. Very thin.

  2. You mean judicial experience, Thomas? True, she had no judicial experience. Neither did John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell, Felix Frankfurter, Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, Robert Jackson, Joseph Story, John Jay or Louis Brandeis. Your point, then, is…?

  3. Thomas: "She didn’t have significant experience in 1999 either . . ."

    You mean like Clarence Thomas when he was first nominated to the federal bench, right Thomas?

  4. Thomas: “She didn’t have significant experience in 1999 either . . .”

    Or Sandra Day O'Connor . . .

    Gee, how many other GOP nominees who got overwhelming GOP votes could we name who had no significant trial experience (like both O'Connor and Thomas), no significant appellate experience (like both O'Connor and Thomas), no academic record at all (like both O'Connor and Thomas) and a highly political record (like Thomas).

  5. Gee, even Scalia's record prior to nomination is as thin as Kagan's and even more political to boot.

Comments are closed.