Tag Archives: Elena Kagan

Supreme Disgust

Article. VI. of the US  Constitution lays it out in plain English:

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,….. shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ….

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

In stark contrast and  polite (if vapid) charade Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan responded to the Judiciary committee’s inquiry today with these words:

ELENA KAGAN: Well, Senator Franken, the most important thing in interpreting any statute — in fact, the only thing that matters in interpreting any statute — is Congress’ intent. Congress gets to make the laws under Article One of the Constitution. And what the court should be doing in applying those laws is trying to figure out what Congress meant and how Congress wanted the laws to be applied. And that is the only thing that the court should be doing.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: So what is your definition of an activist judge?
ELENA KAGAN:” Well, Senator Graham, I think my definition is somebody who doesn’t take three principles to heart.
The first principle is deference to the political branches in making the policy decisions of this nation because that’s who ought to be making the policy decisions of this nation.
The second principle is respect for precedent, precedent as a doctrine of constraint and humility, and also stability in the law.
And the third principle is deciding cases narrowly, deciding them one at a time, deciding them on narrow grounds, if one can, avoiding constitutional questions, if one can.”

Millions of people took an oath to preserve and protect the constitution; That includes judges, elected officials, federal employees and all service personnel. Let me speak here as one of them, and a lover of the constitution:

That testimony sounds like that of a… let me say it kindly, a non-comittal, to the legislative body that must confirm her. It does not sound like someone familiar with the text quoted verbatim above from the US constitution, nor like a person who is dedicated to preserve the integrity of the Bill of Rights with the first three words of that document: “We the People”.   My prime objection is the very narrow conformity of the Court.   And yet, as I have observed Elena Kagan, I ask… does this person stand for anything?    I believe a Supreme Court Justice ought to stand, and stand fiercely For the US Constitution and the justice that it enshrines.    I see just another process worker like John Roberts.
I do not believe the contradiction between the text and the testimony needs ANY explaination. On its face, it is contradictory. And it is only through acceptance of such contradiction that any court could come up with the absurdity” “money is speech”.

I look forward to your comments…  and hope you find the comments tab under the title of each post.