UPDATE: Check out Kagan’s College Thesis lamenting the fall of socialism in New York City.
First, and foremost, any judicial nominee rebuked 8-0 in a case argued before the Supreme Court is unworthy to serve on that Court. Kagan was goose egged trying to justify her decision to not allow the military to recruit on the campus at Harvard. How could someone so well versed in constitutional law not know her decision to kick the military off campus was unconstitutional? What does this case say about her judicial philosophy? What does this case say about her opinion of the military? The military wanted to recruit lawyers for JAG positions in the military. Her rebuke of the military is an indication she was willing to impose her own personal agenda on Harvard and the military at the expense of the constitution. It indicates she does not believe those in the military deserve access to the best and brightest minds in the court room. One would think our brave soldiers deserve the best lawyers available, even if that means Harvard lawyers. Yet, her objection to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy” was all it took for her to disregard the constitution. Senator Sessions made a very good argument against her yesterday when he said,
That’s a big issue she will need to talk to the American people about, and be able to explain why she felt she could reject the men and women who preserve the republic’s freedom from her campus.
She must answer this question with total clarity and honesty or be rejected outright. Her personal opinion does not trump the constitution. We don’t need any more judicial activists.
President Obama said Kagan is more representative of everyday America in this statement,
I think she would relish — as I do — the prospect of three women taking their seat on the nation’s highest Court for the first time in history. A Court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.
Maybe this nominee is more reflective of us, if you are an east coast liberal elitist from Harvard. She is nothing like the everyday America I know. If she wins the position, the Supreme Court will be comprised completely of graduates of Harvard and Yale. How does Harvard and Yale represent the everyday American? Red State points out the wizards of wall street that led the country into the financial crisis were those very Harvard and Yale graduates. Why would we want to hand over the court to them too?
One other interesting point from Red State is the fact Justice Stevens was a military veteran. Our last veteran serving on the court. One would think the veterans would like some representation on the Court.
More galling, Barack Obama, who has spent his entire career holding the military in disdain, is not only replacing the last veteran on the Supreme Court with a non-veteran, but replacing that veteran with a woman who thought it constitutional and proper to throw the military off college campuses.
Considering the President’s views on the military, it is not surprising he would nominate someone with the same attitude toward those that died so he might have the freedom to bash them.
How about her record at Harvard. An interesting point made in another Red State Article…
Kagan, whose leadership at Harvard Law marked an unprecedented expansion of the program’s faculty, hired 32 tenured and tenure-track faculty. With one exception, all were white; only seven were women.
Guy-Uriel Charles, the founding director of the Duke Law Center on Law, Race and Politics points out that her Harvard Law experience is just about the only data points available on Kagan and her philosophy of racial inclusion or lack thereof.
Lastly, while it is not relevant whether Kagan in heterosexual or homosexual as many sources are intimating, it does reflect on her honesty. Her position on the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy indicates she will disregard the law in favor of personal preference. If she does not have the confidence to stand up and say, “I am proud to be ________,” then she is hiding a large part of her identity. As Americans, we do have the right to know that our Justices have been completely honest, so we may ascertain their motivation when judging in the court of last resort.
Photo Credit: U.S. Supreme Court Public Domain Photo