Over at Salon, Glenn Greenwald apparently found it fit to spend the first part of his analysis of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as possible Supreme Court nominee in order to marvel about how it was possible that a Democratic president might nominate someone more moderate for the high bench (emph. his):

Consider how amazing it is that such a prospect is even possible.  Democrats around the country worked extremely hard to elect a Democratic President, a huge majority in the House, and 59 Democratic Senators — only to watch as the Supreme Court is moved further to the Right?

Alright, fair enough, and to his credit, Greenwald has some sources to back up his assertion, including Joe Lieberman (emph. his):

Joe Lieberman went on Fox News this weekend to celebrate the prospect that “President Obama may nominate someone in fact who makes the Court slightly less liberal,” while The Washington Post‘s Ruth Marcus predicted:  ”The court that convenes on the first Monday in October is apt to be more conservative than the one we have now.”

But wait! Greenwald then admits that Kagan’s sparse record about the issues, and lack of prior judicial experience means that we don’t know enough about her to make a judgment on whether she’ll move the Court to the right:

That’s not only because she’s never been a judge, but also because (a) her academic career is surprisingly and disturbingly devoid of writings or speeches on most key legal and Constitutional controversies, and (b) she has spent the last year as Obama’s Solicitor General, where (like any lawyer) she was obligated to defend the administration’s policies regardless of whether she agreed with them.

But wait, again! Turns out we do actually know a little bit about her views after all.  Namely those pertaining to the War on Terror:

Among the most disturbing aspects is her testimony during her Solicitor General confirmation hearing, where she agreed wholeheartedly with Lindsey Graham about the rightness of the core Bush/Cheney Terrorism template:  namely, that the entire world is a “battlefield,” that “war” is the proper legal framework for analyzing all matters relating to Terrorism, and the Government can therefore indefinitely detain anyone captured on that “battlefield” (i.e., anywhere in the world without geographical limits) who is accused (but not proven) to be an “enemy combatant.”

Now we get to the crux of the matter.  Apparently it doesn’t matter what else Kagan might believe.  Hell, she might be a socialist in her domestic ideology.  But those statements about the war?  That’s enough to oppose her.  But, wait, I thought we didn’t know enough about her, and based on that, her appointment might move the Court to the right?  Which is it, Glenn?  We either know enough about her or we don’t.

Instead of waiting to hear her out on the other issues (because she’ll be grilled by Congress if selected), Greenwald and co. take one issue and try and torpedo any possible nomination based just on that.

I think we’ve all heard about that tactic before.  You know, it actually pains me to say that conservatives might be right about the Alinskyization of politics by liberals.  I guess it need not only be reserved for people serving under politicians of the opposition.

You know, I’m actually in agreement with Greenwald over the recent dangerous precedents President Obama seems hellbent on setting.  I also think that her lack of judicial experience may be what brings her down if nominated.  This is, after all, partly what led to the failure of Harriet Miers as a nominee.  Indeed the atmosphere in recent years has been against attempts to introduce a nominee from outside the judicial system.

That said, there is no need for this litmus test against Kagan.  If nominated, let her have her time in front of Congress.  Hear her out and see what happens.