Another "Obama Pebble"

COMMENT: Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan has never been a judge. This bothers me on many levels, chief of which is simply the lack of judicial experience (that is, after all, the job she's being nominated to do). Also troubling is the sense that she is a very opinionated individual, and one who has already strongly voiced her disdain for many moral policies in the U.S. It almost feels as if she is coming from another country and her vision is to change America to her way of thinking.

That is EXACTLY what we DON'T need in a Supreme Court Justice. The job is to meticulously, correctly interpret the letter of the law as it applies to the case before them, NOT to rule based on what they think is good and right for America; that's the job of our elected officials (although they are woefully failing at present). There have already been far too many Justices who incorrectly interpret their role in government as policy-making.

Unfortunately, even our President seems to think that a Supreme Court Justice's job goes beyond this. On May 26, 2009, in his nomination speech of Sotomayor, he stated:

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court."

Is compassion a necessary and required trait of an effective judge? Isn't that the opposite of what a judge must do? How difficult it must be for a judge to have to consistently rule and pass sentence on people when he knows the impact it will have on their lives and those of their mostly innocent families. Should he exercise compassion and tailor the law to fit the situation? NO!!! That is the job of the other branches of government.

Our forefathers were very careful to establish three separate arms of government to safeguard against exactly this. At issue now is that her confirmation would place two of those arms (Executive and Judicial) strongly in favor of this "fundamental change of America." Our only hope is that the safeguarding balance of power envisioned by the framers of the Constitution will save the day as the Legislative branch fails to confirm her as our next Supreme Court Justice.

ARTICLE:

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/10/2010 9:30:00 AM

President Barack Obama has nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, saying she will demonstrate independence, integrity, and passion for the law. If confirmed by the Senate, Kagan will become the third woman on the high court. Obama introduced her Monday in the White House's East Room. He called her "my friend" and one of the nation's foremost legal minds.

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University Law School, is opposed to Kagan partly because she has never been a judge and has limited experience in practicing law. And there are other reasons, he says.

"[I'm opposed] because I think her judicial philosophy is one of an activist, particularly of a transnationalist that wants to use foreign law to interpret our own domestic law," Staver explains, adding that she is "very much in favor of the homosexual agenda and very capable of bringing consensus among a diverse group of people."

Kagan now goes through the committee hearing to a Senate vote -- and Staver tells OneNewsNow that it should not be a rubber-stamp process.

Matt Staver"There's no question that these issues ought to be brought out," the attorney advises. "Obviously the issue of her judicial philosophy and her lack of experience are major concerns -- and all of those need to be brought out during these confirmation hearings.

"Those are significant reasons to not confirm this nomination," he concludes.

Staver recalls an incident while Kagan headed Harvard Law School when she barred the ROTC from the campus because of military policies on homosexuals. He says Kagan has tried to be quiet about the issue of abortion, but has been very vocal on the issue of homosexuality.

COMMENT: Interestingly, the incident at the Harvard Law School eventually came before the Supreme Court, in March 2006, and the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 8-0, against FAIR (Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights). I believe that shows just how out of touch she is with reality regarding the constraints and parameters of the legal system. By the way, my source for the Supreme Court story was ABC News.