Huh? Rehnquist had been an Assistant Attorney General. To say that Kagan's experience was severly limited would be too kind.
Rehnquist never served on the bench as a judge - nor did literally dozens of other members of the SCOTUS. So you can nix this argument now.
That is your opinion on her "rock solid" background as qualification.
I didn't realize that a law professor at two prestigious universities, dean of one of those schools, and years of experience as a trial lawyer means she lacks the legal background. You asked that I (we?) not split hairs and say something juvenille like "she's qualified because
there are no qualifications!" Yet, then you go on to make a comment like....
That's not really something positive. Clinton was impeached.
And...
As for the piece about Clinton - say what you will, he was acquitted in his impeachment trial with bi-partisan support in a Republican Senate. Additionally, her time working with the Clinton administration is further proof of her background. In the mid-90s she lobbied Clinton for a tougher restriction on late-term abortions, an appeal that he ignored. She is no Harriet Miers, so don't mistake her for one.
Let's not forget her close friendship with Obama as the reason for that. That had little to do with her qualifications.
I will grant that her relationship with the President had something to do with it. Find me a political appointee that doesn't have a connection to the person they were appointed by. Right or wrong, it's how the game is played. Additionally, she was confirmed for her position with bi-partisan support. Were she truly not qualified than why did 7 Republicanscross the aisle and support her confirmation?
I would say she hates our military, and that is no farce.
Her personal agenda ...
I will agree that she was on the wrong side of the recruiting case. Although I disagree with DADT, she did not handle it as she should have. With that aside, please provide some tangible proof as to why she "hates" the military and armed forces. This should be easy for you to do, no?
She also has very close ties to Goldman Sachs. Her inexperience and ignorance, her desire to push her personal agenda, her hate for our military, these are just a few of the reasons she is not qualified. But she would make a good match with racist "La Raza" Sotomayor!
I don't know enough on her ties to GS to speak to them - I will have to read up. Care to elaborate your point of view?
You can disagree with her politics up and down. That is your right. But don't make yourself a fool and claim that she lacks experience (she doesn't) or that she is ignorant (she clearly isn't). From what I gather you dislike her as a nominee because you lean right and she was nominated by a man who leans left. Is she more liberal than not? Yes, she is. Is Chief Justice Roberts more conservative than not? Yes, he is. Set aside the petty partisanship..it's not very becoming of you.
Additionally, I find it curious that you bring race into this whole thing. Nowhere did I, or anyone, mention Justice Sotomayor (again, bipartisan support) - nor was anything about race mentioned. What is the angle your driving at?