There are people of greater and lesser qualifications throughout the government, in all branches and at all levels. Most of us, regardless of our ideology, probably recognize that Clarence Thomas was not nominated because of his stellar legal qualifications. He was nominated because (a) he's black, which was an unstated prerequisite for the seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall, and (b) he's conservative, which was something George H.W. Bush (generally viewed as a moderate Republican) had to pay attention to in order to appease the more conservative wing of his own party. In the years since Thomas was confirmed, he has generally served as a second Scalia vote, and has rarely if ever emerged from Scalia's shadow.

One might legitimately ask whether a great resume is all it's cracked up to be. Our greatest President (in my opinion) was a one-term Congressman from Illinois; and some of our worst Presidents (in my opinion) possessed much more impressive qualifications. I believe it was Richard Nixon who, after being criticized for nominating a particularly unimpressive individual to sit on the Supreme Court, argued that mediocre people also deserve to be represented (not sure how I feel about that logic, but it seems germane, so I thought I'd mention it).

I only wish that ALL of the folks involved in nominating and confirming Thomas had focused squarely and honestly on his qualifications and ideology, rather than the whole he said/she said fiasco over Anita Hill. Then it would have been like the Bork hearings, only without the impressive resume to bolster the nominee's credibility.