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
