I do. She fought to keep military recruiters off campus (Harvard I believe) because of the "don't ask don't tell" policy, that her former boss Bill Clinton put in place. I also believe prospective SCJ's should have some experience as a judge.

I read about that but have not checked on the details.

That I can agree which is why I question this choice.

Makes me think about Alberto Gonzolez and Harriet Meirs.  Watch the double standards fly.

Not that I want to defend the man and his nominee, but in the interest of fairness, there have been multiple Justices that had no judicial experience, including some in the not so distant past.

A lack of judicial experience isn't necessarily something to be concerned about.  Poor political stances (such as the idea of booting military recruiters from the Harvard campus) would be something to be very concerned about.

In the end none of this will really matter though as she'll likely sail on through with a fairly party line vote.

How about exonerating 2 plagiarists while she was dean of the HLS? The truth is just starting to come out.  And I wonder how GLAAD will feel when they read her opinion about Gay marriage.

Probably right.

Strange cause they said it has been close to 40 years since this happened. I know little about this so I am not sure of these opinions.

In ObamaWorld, having no clue about what you're doing is an asset.  Just look at BO himself.

Lets see if she can get through confirmation without making a total ass of herself.

Check out Rehnquist.

The over 40 years ago is the last time that someone that didn't have Judicial experience was nominated, not the last time that someone without judicial experience served.

This one is a case of some folks stirring the pot over something small... possibly just to draw attention away from other more important issues, or possibly because they truly feel it would make a difference, but in reality this isn't really something that most conservatives would want to make an issue of since one of their own didn't have the judicial experience either.  Also, as Dr Guy mentions above, there's another area where the double standard is in play... Bush tried to nominate Harriet Miers (sp?) and was shot down because it was deemed that she wasn't qualified.  Honestly it was probably a very good thing that she was kicked to the curb, but still, the reasons that were given for kicking her to the curb could probably be used against Kagan if someone wanted to be fair.  In the end though the conservatives are not likely going to bring up the same issues with Kagan that were used against Miers because they don't want to be accused of using or abusing the same tactics that were used against one of their nominees.

Yes I know, and that is a fair point, but I would still like all Justices have experience on the bench prior to appointment, not just the liberal ones. It gives one an expectation of quality of service IMO. One caveat, this nominee has the least experience, even among those that didn't serve on the bench. We have many examples in government of where inexperience gets us (90% of 2009 and all of 2010), and this one will be in the SC a long time.

Wasn't it the conservatives who barbecued Miers?

For some of us, that is the not so distant past as we remember it first hand!

Yes, Harriet Miers lost because she had no support on the right.  Unlike liberals, conservatives do not march in lock step.

It's also said she is a self-identified Socialist. So yes, the truth is starting to come out, but does truth matter any more?

I see what you mean. Makes sense. But like Nitro, I too wish they would pick people who actually have experience for such important positions. I don't think they should do this just because someone else tried before, 2 wrongs dont make a right as we all know.