In nominating Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme court on Monday, President Barack Obama extolled her as “one of the nation’s foremost legal minds … with a rich understanding of constitutional law” and praised her life of service — “service to her students, service to her country, service to the law and to all whose lives it shapes.” Given her professional achievements and her personal history, she appears remarkably well suited to serve on the nation’s highest court.
Those qualities do not guarantee that Ms. Kagan’s nomination will find a warm reception on Capitol Hill. Republicans, especially those on the far right of the party, made it clear within moments of the nomination of Ms. Kagan to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens that the nomination will face spirited opposition. That’s to be expected.
An impartial view of her record and her background, however, suggests that any such opposition is more grounded in politics than in history. Initial criticism of the nomination centers on her lack of judicial experience, a paucity of legal writings and her record in public office and as dean of Harvard Law School.
It is true that she has never served as a judge and that, if confirmed, she would be the only sitting justice without such experience. That’s not a disqualification.
Many justices have ascended to the court without judicial experience. Neither Lewis Powell nor William Rehnquist, had served as a judge when confirmed for the Supreme Court in 1972. And though she has a thin paper trail of judicial writing, there’s little doubt that she’s knowledgeable in the law and possesses a temperament and outlook that serves the broad public rather than a narrow, politically defined constituency. She won wide praise, for example, as solicitor general and as a conciliator of opposing viewpoints at Harvard.
The latter could come into play should she win nomination to the court. She would replace Justice Stevens, one of if not the leader of the court’s liberal wing. Ms. Kagan fits that mold, but is receptive and understanding of more conservative viewpoints as well. On an increasingly partisan court, that is a quality to be prized.
Ms. Kagan is fully qualified for service on the high court. As Mr. Obama said Monday, the nominee has “a lifelong commitment to public service and a firm grasp of the nexus and boundaries between our three branches of government …” and is “respected and admired … for her openness to a broad array of viewpoints.” Those qualities have prepared Ms. Kagan to deal with the complex issues that reach the Supreme Court.
The nominee will start making pre-confirmation rounds in Senate offices this week. Those with an open mind about her nomination should find her to be an engaging, well-informed legal scholar whose viewpoint will serve both the nation and the high court well. It’s hard to see why her nomination would be spurned.