There are certainly two camps on how to interpret the constitution. There is the conservative literal interpretation and then there is the more liberal activist idea of interpretation. Kagan certainly falls into the latter despite her refusal to acknowledge that she understands what the term ‘legal progressive’ means (yesterday’s hearing).
Even if all you have read are my posts on Kagan, then you should be pretty confident that she falls into the legal progressive category. In hopes that more people will read those posts, here they are again. (My apologizes to the few out there that might be getting flashbacks from Mr. Browning’s High School physics tests…mad Kudos for those of you who get the reference)
Obama Nominates Elena Kagan for Supreme Court
We are not really getting much from the question answer period unless you want to infer from her constant dodging of questions. It happens (just like I said) with every liberal nominee, but it is more interesting in this case because in 1995 Kagan dedicated an entire paper on the fact that nominees should be more forthcoming during hearings. As described in this NY times article, the backpedaling started almost immediately. Of course if you have read up on her, you know her ultra liberal leanings. Nothing exhibits her position more than how she answered (or rather did not answer) a very simple question from Sen Coburn. Watch this YouTube video of the exchange. That is certainly sad, but maybe not as bad as her role in defending partial birth abortion.
While working for Clinton, she changed language from the ACOG panel to support partial birth abortion. The report from this panel was extensively used in defending the procedure. With reference to the partial-birth-abortion procedure Kagan personally changed this statement “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” to this, “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” This National Review Article discusses the event in more detail…a must read.
Judges such as Kagan use their role to manipulate the Constitution to their ideological whims. Such manipulations of the Constitution were never intended by the founders. This is exactly what Joseph Story was writing about in this quote from his Commentaries on the Constitution.
“Temporary delusions, prejudices, excitements, and objects have irresistible influence in mere questions of policy. And the policy of one age may ill suit the wishes or the policy of another. The constitution is not subject to such fluctuations. It is to have a fixed, uniform, permanent construction. It should be, so far at least as human infirmity will allow, not dependent upon the passions or parties of particular times, but the same yesterday, today and for ever.”
But we do not even have to use old dead guy quotes to verify the obvious. We can use ordinary logic. If the founders did not intend for us to literally interpret the Constitution, then why did they put in place a way to amend it. (Evolutionists have the same problem with that whole monkey thing) The truth of the matter is that the founders purposely made it difficult to amend the constitution to avoid such changes on a whim. Understanding that difficulty, liberals have for decades been eroding the Constitution using judicial activism. It is the lawyer way.
{ 1 trackback }
Comments on this entry are closed.