Conservatives Already Objecting To Kagan
With the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court having just been leaked, conservatives are already preparing their anti-Kagan talking points.
David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society and former congressman from Indiana:
“I’m deeply disappointed that President Obama has chosen to nominate an individual who has demonstrated a lack of adherence to the limits of the Constitution and a desire to utilize the court system to enact her beliefs of social engineering.”
Rick Garnett, professor of law and associate dean of University of Notre Dame Law School, and former law clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist:
“With his second Supreme Court pick – and, to be clear, he will almost certainly have more – the President is on the way to having had more influence over the Court than any President since Reagan, and perhaps even Roosevelt. Future elections might undo some of the President’s policies, but his more liberal views about the Constitution, the powers of the national government, and the role of unelected federal judges, are now being locked in securely.”
Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, former law clerk for Justice Scalia, and former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“Among Supreme Court nominees over the last 50 years or more, Kagan may well be the nominee with the least amount of relevant experience. She’s been extremely guarded about her views, with the exception of gay rights, where she has been vehement in opposing federal laws she doesn’t like and has worked as Solicitor General to undermine those laws. The Senate needs to explore carefully whether Kagan would indulge her own values and policy preferences as a justice.”
Media Matters lists what are likely to be additional objections, along with refutations to the soon-to-come flood of objections. But the left isn’t going to be that happy, either, as Glenn Greenwald has been writing. And Kevin Drum notes the New York Times opinion that Obama has chosen a safe middle ground when he has enough of a Democratic majority on his side to push for a more progressive justice.
…right now Obama has the biggest Democratic majority in the Senate he’s ever going to have. So why not use it to ensure a solidly progressive nominee like Diane Wood instead of an ideological cipher like Kagan?
This isn’t the worst thing in the world. It’s not as if I think Kagan is a reactionary in sheep’s clothing or anything like that. But I still don’t get it. When Obama compromises on something like healthcare reform, that’s one thing. Politics sometimes forces tough choices on a president. But why compromise on presidential nominees? Why Ben Bernanke? Why Elena Kagan? He doesn’t have to do this. Unfortunately, the most likely answer is: he does it because he wants to. Some socialist, eh?Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2010 Liberaland