last year. i worked with her last year all the time. i think age probably had little to do with it. it s in her benefit as a weight in the scale. i think she it s her personal qualifications, her professional experience, her political mainstream aspects of her life. her personal life story which is extraordinary that i think is the reason she got the nomination. you ve already heard from senator mcconnell, the republican leader kind of obtding to her qualifications saying she doesn t have much in the way of litigation experience either. first let s hear what senator mcconnell said. the lifetime position on the supreme court does not lend itself to on the job training. of course, one does not need to have prior experience as i judge before being appointed to the country s highest court. but it strikes me that if a nominee does not have judicial experience, they should have substantial litigation experience. miss kagan has neither.
first female law dean and serving as adviser to president clinton do not count as real world experience of nominees that have not served as judges. the american people want a nominee with the requisite legal experience. they know a lifetime position on the supreme court does not lend itself to on-the-job training. of course one does not need to have prior experience as a judge before being appointed to the country s highest court. but it strikes me that if a nominee does not have judicial experience, they should have substantial litigation experience. ms. kagan has neither. unlike justice renquist, for instance, who was in private practice for 16 years prior to his appointment as assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel, a job he had at the time of his appointment to the supreme court. democrats suggested republicans would push back against anybody. i told the president, i said,
republicans politically should go to war on this. tell me make it because i m talking about the recruitment issue at harvard specifically because that symbolizes so much of the divide between left and right. does it symbolize so much or is it an opportunity to make it symbolize so much? mika, i ve already said if i were a united states senator, and i said this with sotomayor, i would have voted up, i would have voted for kagan because even though i m a conservative, i believe you defer to the president of the united states, be it republican or democrat and if their qualified and if they re not radical. harold, how can you stand on the senate floor and say the nation s top litigator does not have litigation experience? you would have to ask senator mcconnell. i don t know how he s analyzing that or how he defines litigation. would you make such a statement? no. i do think one other thing, in addition to what you and mika have said. i think it s critical, and you
remembe remember, you look down the line at who she worked for, president clinton, president obama, they both have great faith in her ability to do the job. i do worry about a candidate for the supreme court who already made up their mind on this key issue coming to the court. mitch mcconnell going after kagan for usual partisan reasons. this guy is like the no man. let s listen. of course one does not need to have prior experience as a judge before being appointed to the country s highest court. but it strikes me that if a nominee does not have judicial experience, they should have substantial litigation experience. ms. kagan has neither. unlike justice rehnquist for instance who was in private practice for 16 years prior to his appointment as assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel, a job at the
you look down the line at who she worked for. president clinton, president obama, they both have great faith in her ability to do the job. thergood marshal. i worry about a candidate for the supreme court that s already made up their mind on this key issue coming to the court. mitch mcconnell going after kagan for usual partisan reasons. this guy is like the no man. let s listen. of course one does not need to have prior experience as a judge before being appointed to the country s highest court. but it strikes me that if a nominee does not have judicial experience, they should have substantial litigation experience. ms. kagan has neither. unlike justice rehnquist for instance who was in private practice for 16 years prior to his appointment as assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel, a job at the time of his appointment to the supreme court. i have a feeling that some of the excitement we heard may have