Republicans Aren't Buying Their Own Anti-Kagan Spin
This post originally appeared on the Washington Monthly.
Most of the time, Republican narratives tend to work their way into the media mainstream pretty quickly, and with minimal scrutiny. The principal line of criticism against Elena Kagan, though, is not only falling on deaf ears, it's also generating some media pushback.
So, Senator, how much does judicial experience matter when considering a Supreme Court nominee? It depends on when you're asking.
Republicans now criticizing President Barack Obama's nominee, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, for her lack of judicial experience welcomed that same lack of credentials a few years ago, when a president of their own party nominated a non-judge for the high court.
McClatchy noticed, too.
Republicans are attacking Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan for her lack of judicial experience, but they haven't always been so particular.
Roll Call noted that the Republican talking point isn't even connecting with Republicans.
Senate Republican leaders are launching a full-on assault against President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, over her lack of judicial experience, but they already appear to have a major problem: Their rank-and-file Members aren't buying into it. [...]
[T]he aggressive posture doesn't appear to be resonating with many of the rank and file, who say that her lack of judicial experience should not be used against her.
Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) all said, on the record, that they didn't much care whether Kagan had judicial experience or not.
To be sure, this argument is marginally more effective than the oddly pro-slavery tack the RNC tried this week, but neither is proving to be especially effective.