There was a comment above yours that I did respond to and I figure your post deserved a response as well.
Thinking about it, I am bias in my remarks. No sham in saying so, very few of us are ever truly objective, but just an opinion I've formed over the years. However, in regards to what you're saying, let me tack-on some clarification. I have worked with some very good CS grads, whom I've had this conversation with before. What we all tend to agree on is that, in general, a person with working-experience in their field is always preferred to one without.
Now, with that being said, I'm looking at Kagen and another appointee, Harriet Myers who was nominated by Bush. I thought to myself then the very thing I'm thinking now: why isn't our CoC finding more qualified individuals with actual experience? Regardless of politics, wouldn't it be beneficial to find someone who actually tried a case?
To me, I think there are many judges who have been trying cases for decades that are more qualified for the position than Kagen. Thinking about nominating an individual for the Supreme Court, I might have looked there rather than finding an individual that can easily be argued a judicial activist.
But, Obama's President and I'm not. You get what you vote for...