I have 2 main thoughts about this, one less serious than the other.
The less serious one is that this complaint reminds me of the famous statement by Sen. Roman Hruska when he commented on one of Richard Nixon’s nominees who was coming under fire as being unqualified. He said something to the effect that even mediocre people deserved representation on the court. (Though in this case, I guess you could argue that Ivy Leaguers are already well enough represented.)
More substantially, the key question concerns the nominee’s sensibilities, particularly the extent to which he or she can see the implications of the several decisions that could be made on an issue and even more especially, the effects on ordinary people.
And, then, having seen them, he or she determines that they are important and need to be considered in reaching a choice. A person who has come from an impoverished background and succeeded in achieving prominence for his or her accomplishments may, like Clarence Thomas, be insensitive to the impact of his decisions on people in similar situations. On the other hand, some born to privilege, who were also talented and reached prominence, but had social and economic advantages that helped them get there, may be able to envision those implications and care about them with much more sensitivity. (John Roberts is a counter example.) So, the fact that Elena Kagan came from the upper west side of New York, went to Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard, and achieved prominence in her profession, is important. But her ability to put herself in the shoes of others with fewer advantages, when coupled with her obvious talent and the experience she has already had with people who, like the other justices, are smart and powerful, is what would make her a distinguished justice if, in fact, she is confirmed.
Original Politico Posting Here
