do you think that the meiers nomination showed that it would be almost impossible for someone to serve on the supreme court now if they haven t been a judge before? i don t think that should be the case. one reason i felt so strongly about harriet miers qualifications is i thought she would fill some very important gaps in the supreme court. because right now you have people who have been federal judges, circuit judges, most of their lives, and what you see is a lack of grounding and reality common sense that i think would be very beneficial. the same jon cornyn now raising concerns about kagan s lack of judicial experience back in 2005 was mourning the loss of would-be supreme court justice harriet miers, hoping her withdrawal wouldn t make it impossible for non-judges to be supreme court judges in the future. unless we re talking about a
non-judge nominated by a democrat. know what i mean? jim demint is also worried, saying in a statement, quote, i m concerned that she has no judicial experience to give americans confidence that she will be impartial in her decisions. of course it should be noted that jim demint s feelings on the subject may also vary, depending on which nominee we re talking about. when harriet miers was nominated mr. demint said she would bring a wealth of experience to the supreme court. even though she s never been a judge. but i thought only judges knew how to be impartial. republican senator jeff sessions of alabama has maybe topped everybody, though. he has suddenly become overcome with fear of nonjudges on the supreme court saying this week, quote, ms. kagan s lack of judicial experience and short time as solicitor general arguing just six cases before the court is troubling.