Elana Kagan

Obviously, I'm against Ms. Kagan's nomination on ideological grounds.  I believe this particular nominee will not change the ideological makeup of the Supreme court, but ideological grounds are not enough.  Ms. Kagan is very liberal and the Justice she is nominated to replace is also very liberal. I also believe she will ultimateley be confirmed and she will be sworn in as the next Supreme Court Justice.

Her nomination troubles me beyond ideology.  First is the fact that she has never been a judge.  She's never even adjudicated a parking violation.  That doesn't mean she doesn't have some idea of what the job entails.  She's a lawyer; she's argued before the Court as Solictor General of the United States and I'm sure she's read a book or two on the subject.  I understand that there is absolutely no constitutional requirements set down in the US Constitution as to who can be a judge.  Frankly, Obama could appoint me to be a judge or a justice.  Obviously it would never happen, but technically, it's possible. 

Secondly, her fight to keep military recruiters off of the campus also troubles me.  On the surface it was over the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, but I would like to know where she really stands concerning the military.  Ultimately, she and her liberal colleagues lost in the Supreme Court with an 8-0 pounding.  She then tried to circumvent that until the Pentagon told her she would get no more money from them and she caved.

Some people are suggesting that she is or might be a lesbian.  I don't know and I don't care.  That is in no way a disqualifier.  That shouldn't even be an issue.  What should be are the two issues I stated above.

I'm not saying she should be fillibustered at this point.  What I am saying is that we must not rush this along.  There is no urgent need to seat her.  Let the process work.  Find out what she's about first.  And then vote against her.  :)  After all, Obama voted against Chief Justice Roberts on purely ideological grounds. 

I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination.

What's good for goose...

VW

Comments

[Mark M]

I came across this blog after a search for Kagan when i saw her nomination on the evening news. I consider myself a moderate but lean left in most cases. I generally look at conservative content on TV (fox "news") and the web as a form of entertainment - or something to poke fun at while in the break room at work, or so the Daily Show is more entertaining. However.... Mr. VW, i commend you. I don’t generally agree or even accept the viewpoints of many on the right. I have only read this blog on your site but do agree with several things you say. I also disagree with some, but accept them as valid. Only if all conservatives would forget about sexual and religious preferences - maybe one day i would consider myself one?

[Erik K]

One thing about her not having been a judge before...wasn't that true of William Rehnquist and Earl Warren as well? That part doesn't bother me much.

These Supreme Court things always seem so overblown to me...they're depressing.

[Violence Worker]

Rehnquist was OK, Warren was a disaster!!!

VW

[Violence Worker]

Mark,

Sorry to get back to you so late. I get busy with other things and forget.

In any case, thank you for your kind words. I can get off on a rant or two, but by and large, I try too be reasonable. Hope you come back and feel free to comment any time.

VW