Monday, May 10, 2010
Elena Kagan & Scotus
Elena Kagan might be a good, bad, or indifferent judge - we don't know, what with her never having held a judicial position before. She might write landmark decisions expanding civil rights or states rights or severely damaging those same rights - but we don't know, because Kagan has no judicial record.
We do know she has chosen to associate, of her own free will, with Slick Willie and the Obamination. Both the Obama and Clinton administrations take/took an expansive view of federal authority, a dim view of firearms and individual rights, and were in general more committed to "social justice" and pragmatism (though the Obamanites, not so much, being more "if we just implement it right" wonks trying to saddle the us with the failed socialist experiments of Europe).
The Supreme Court of the United States is not amateur hour. Neither is it the place for wild gambles - one may occasionally be surprised (people are not, after all, static creations - they tend to grow and evolve and degenerate as time, experience, and entropy happen), but ideally any nominee to the Supreme Court should have a *minimum* of a decade of judicial experience complete with a track record of decisions prior to nomination to the Court.
Kagan does not. Serving as Solicitor General for a little over a year under Obama and as Associate White House Counsel under Clinton indicates only that she is reasonably competent at kissing the right rectums and is a perhaps adequate administrator and litigator - it does not demonstrate, for good or ill, judicial temperament or philosophy. Keeping busy between (D) presidential administrations, as a Harvard Law School Dean and as a Professor of Law similarly fail to provide indicators of anything resembling judicial temperament or philosophy.
What few indications we have, including her ardent support of barring military recruiters from Harvards campus, is not particularly promising - and we cannot fail to note than when previously nominated for a Federal District Court judgeship, the then GOP Senate declined to even hear the nomination for reasons not publicly available.
Rumors of Kagan's supposed lesbianism are, for the most part, irrelevant - or at least overshadowed by the appearance that she is either a fire-breathing liberal or frequent associate thereof, which only heightens concerns regarding what might emerge as her judicial philosophy.
Elevating a lesbian, or someone broadly perceived as a lesbian, to the Supreme Court would not trouble me a whit had she at least SOME judicial track record. Should such mythical nominee ALSO be black and libertarian, I should be reduced to mad giggles of joy for not less than a month.
That she is a mere 50-some years old, liberal/progressive, and orthodox progressive at that...leads me to believe that the interests of the nation would best be served by stalling this nomination and all nominations consideration until well after the November elections, when meaningful opposition may well appear in the Senate as a voice for moderation.
Gah. It's going to take DECADES to undo the damage inflicted by the Obamanation.