Elena Kagan-Judicial Activist?

It appears that Elena Kagan will be the first nominee of President Obama for the opening Supreme Court seat, and therefore we must seek to understand better exactly what she will bring to the Supreme Court if approved.

The news is currently flooded with articles about her right know, but I chose to investigate this one specifically, drawn in by the reference to Thurgood Marshall. For those of you who don’t know, or have forgotten, Thurgood Marshall was a lawyer critical in the victory in Brown v. Board of Education, as well as the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court. With this knowledge in mind, I was somewhat shocked by the title of the article (“Michael Steele attacks Kagan’s praise of Thurgood Marshall”). Upon reading the article, however, I discovered that it had nothing to do with race-relations, and everything to do with the Constitution.

What Michael Steele criticized was Elena Kagan’s apparent support for Marshall’s statements that the originally ratified version of Constitution was imperfect, as well as, presumably, Kagan’s later support for judicial activism, as opposed to the rule of law, illustrated by her statement that “It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government.” Clearly, this is not the case, as amendments to the Constitution are to come from the legislative branch of the government, and it is the role of the Constitution to protect against abuses in all branches of government; because the members of the Supreme Court are no more likely to support underrepresented individuals than any other branch, it is ludicrous to say that the Supreme Court “existed primarily” to protect against both abuses in the legislative and executive branches and against defects in the Constitution. What Elena Kagan’s article boils down to is raw judicial activism.

But is this what the reporter thinks? Of course not! Instead, the reporter follows Kagan’s writings with this statement:

“That seems like a pretty straightforward claim: Kagan says Marshall believed the Constitution should safeguard the individual rights of those who have been failed by all other organs of government. That seems like Civics 101. Does the RNC really disagree with this?”

By effectively parroting Kagan’s claims with only the substitution of “Constitution” for “Courts,” the author reveals both his practices of dishonest journalism as well as his belief in Judicial activism.

Clearly, Elena Kagan will be a judicial activist, which is a danger we can not afford to have regardless of her ideology; when coupled with her apparent pro-choice position and whatever other liberalism she brings, the danger level only increases.

Here is a link to the article “Michael Steele attacks Kagan’s praise of Thurgood Marshall”: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/michael_steele_attacks_kagans.html