2012 May 23 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2010/06/28/george-f-will-asks-vital-questions-scotus-nominee-elena-kagan-needs-to-answer/
0
0

This post first appeared at NewsReal Blog.

Conservative Washington Post columnist George F. Will has listed some important questions conservative  members of the U.S. Senate have to ask Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court. It’s a good list. Here are some of the best questions on it:

  • Regarding campaign finance “reforms”: If allowing the political class to write laws regulating the quantity, content and timing of speech about the political class is the solution, what is the problem? If the problem is corruption, do we not already have abundant laws proscribing that?
  • Some persons argue that our nation has a “living” Constitution; the court has spoken of “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” But Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking against “changeability” and stressing “the whole antievolutionary purpose of a constitution,” says “its whole purpose is to prevent change — to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away. A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that ‘evolving standards of decency’ always ‘mark progress,’ and that societies always ‘mature,’ as opposed to rot.” Is he wrong?
  • The 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”) is, as former Delaware governor Pete du Pont has said, “to the Constitution what the Chicago Cubs are to the World Series: of only occasional appearance and little consequence.” Were the authors of the Bill of Rights silly to include this amendment?
  • Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom you clerked, said: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” Can you defend this approach to judging?
  • You have said: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” But that depends on what the meaning of “is” is. There was no constitutional right to abortion until the court discovered one 185 years after the Constitution was ratified, when the right was spotted lurking in emanations of penumbras of other rights. What is to prevent the court from similarly discovering a right to same-sex marriage?

These questions are of vital importance because Kagan’s answer to them will clearly show what kind of ideology she adheres to. Many – probably rightfully – believe she is a progressive, perhaps even a radical. Ever since she was first mentioned as Obama’s potential nominee for the vacant seat at the Supreme Court, however, Judge Kagan has tried to presentself as a moderate. She can’t be both. She’s either a (radical) progressive, or she’s not.

If she is a leftist, I suggest she is exposed as such before she’s appointed to the Supreme Court, not afterwards. In order to do so, all the Senate Judiciary Committee has to do is ask Kagan Will’s questions. And that shouldn’t be too much trouble for them, I’d say.

  1. Michael_Merritt I think #2 is a bit of a leading question, and even though it was written by a conservative, it's leading for both them and liberals. If Kagan says, "Yes, he's wrong," it will be reported in the conservative press as "OMG! Kagan wants to take your free speech away!" If she says he's right the liberal press will report "OMG, she's a reactionary who believes in "strict constitutionalism" [sic] and wants to return us to the stone age where abortions are illegal!" Of course, Scalia himself doesn't follow strict constructionism, but don't let a little thing like facts get in the way, right? Why not just ask her, "What is your judicial philosophy?" Straight-forward, and it actually requires her to explain herself. A yes or no question like "Is he wrong?" allows her to dodge discussion about how she would decide cases.
  2. Posted by Lee Thomas
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #111618
    Lee Thomas I oppose her nomination because she is a political activist with almost zero judicial experience. I did not oppose Sotomeyer because while she might have been somewhat activist she had tons of judicial experience. I cannot say that anyone who is nominated by someone on the left I would agree to put on the court but I can say that if they are going to nominate someone then let that person at least have experience to see what are the results of their judicial rulings. There is a big difference between kicking someone out of Harvard for plagarism or acting unbecoming to University Standards as opposed to issuing rulings that have lasting effects on 300,000,000 Americans for generations to come. Is she prepared for that? The answer can be seen with Barak Obama. He had no experience that would allow him to be a good president. It shows. Judgement does not replace experience and we are being asked to accept Judgement over experience with this woman and if we do then we will get another On the Job experiment with even more profound, long lasting consequences. So no matter what she says in the hearings. I will not be swayed. She is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Her politics are irrelevant to me at this point because anyone nominated by Obama is going to be hard left in that regard.
    • Michael_Merritt To be fair to Kagan, "having experience" has not always been an unwritten requirement for appointment to the Supreme Court. The last justice on the Court to have no prior judicial experience prior to appointment was William Rehnquist, but you'd would have a difficult time finding people (and particularly conservatives) who would call him a bad justice, for his work on the Court, if not his votes. Some people compare Kagan to Harriet Miers, but the difference between the two is the Harriet Miers actually had a lot of professional, private-sector work in law. Even Rehnquist was a lawyer before going to the SC (with a Justice Department stop in between). Kagan apparently has private sector experience, but she was a clerk for Marshall in 1988 and then become a professor in 1991, so if she was with a firm, it wasn't for long. Kagan didn't help her case today; from what I've read, she was very vague in her answers. However, it may not matter, if Repubs won't put up a good fight besides the normal show of "OMG you suck" for the cameras. The man she's replacing was one of the most liberal justices, so she won't affect the court's ideological make-up much.