Our friend Sister Toldjah at RedState noted that CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford tweeted some criticism of Hillary Clinton on Wednesday, and ended up getting into a Twitter fight with Jennifer Rubin, whose Twitter profile still hilariously claims she's a "Conservative blogger at the Washington Post." At least the Post was shamed out of a label, only claiming on her blog page "Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion for The Washington Post."
Crawford began by disagreeing with some recent comments from Hillary Clinton at an event at Georgetown Law School.
“I do think, though, when you’re making decisions as momentous as picking judges for the federal bench, the person you consider should have relevant experience and should be judged qualified to hold the positions,” Clinton said. “Obviously, that wasn’t a worry with Justice Ginsburg, but we’ve recently seen people largely chosen on the basis of age, and therefore longevity, and political ideology being pushed through despite having no relevant experience.”
Then she declared her thread was complete: "Now I’m done and back to the WS. Go Nats!"
But unfortunately for her, Jennifer Rubin was going to start throwing liberal articles at her from New York magazine, Newsweek, and HuffPost about Trump nominees Sarah Pitlyk, Jonathan Kobes, and Neomi Rao.
Crawford shot back:
BOOM! Kagan did not have "a day or two of judging" before being nominated to the Supreme Court. Republican senators in the main did not question her experience. Rubin couldn't take that punch and fall down. She had to respond with the usual "liberals from Harvard are automatically qualified" spin:
Then Crawford unleashed her "straw man crap" reply, and Rubin had the sense to go away:
Trump has now appointed 157 judges to the federal bench.
Back on March 6, Rubin wrote a blog headlined "A counterintuitive insight about really young judges." That's counter to her current intuiting. Back then, she suggested immature judges under 40 might be more amenable to "growing in office," unlike mid-fiftysomething conservatives with more seasoning:
If, however, you have scant accomplishments in your brief career, have not formed decades-long affiliations and have yet to undergo many possible life-changing experiences, you might actually change your mind about some things over decades. You might, in the company of colleagues, come to see the views of your youth as shallow or just plain wrong.
In sum, if Democrats are concerned about the Trump administration stacking the deck with hardened ideologues, they might consider more favorably the nominees who are the least set in their ways, the most amenable to learning from colleagues (at least initially) and the most concerned that they might not yet be quite up to the job they have been plucked for. In other words, better the humble novice than the defiant ideologue who’s spent her adult life safely ensconced in the right-leaning cocoon. At least you’ve got a fighting chance to see what the right wing dreads most of all — “growth” on the bench.
