Tony Perkins Washington Update
Elena Kagan may like playing softball but can she call balls and strikes? Back in 2005 Chief Justice John Roberts compared the role of judges to umpires noting that they should act as referees who dont make the rules; they apply them. Its my job he affirmed not to pitch or bat. Kagan positions herself well outside the mainstream in the political world but will she backstop the Constitution when it matters most?
FRCs Rob Schwarzwalder tackles that question in an op-ed published in todays Daily Caller. In it he talks about the Founders intent for the Supreme Court (and it wasnt to find new rights in the clearly written text of the Constitution). Had the Founders hidden secret meanings to the terms used in the Constitution they would have never included a process whereby the document could be amended he writes. Instead the Leftists search yearningly for pretexts upon which to base intellectually dishonest rulings.
Whether Kagan will follow in that rich liberal tradition is unknown. What is known is the Presidents habit for tapping leaders who will help him realize his social revolution for America. Although Kagans resume includes very little in the way of published writings we do know that she based her undergrad thesis on socialism in the U.S. To be fair the paper was written three decades ago--but theres no mistaking her disappointment that labor radicalism didnt gain a lot of political traction.
Much has also been made of her rocky relationship with the current justices in her role as Solicitor General. Many--including the courts progressive core--have been exasperated by Kagans naivete. (Despite being named chief attorney for the administration she had never litigated a single case until last year.) As James Doty notes her very first argument lasted three sentences before she was interrupted by Antonin Scalia. I dont understand what youre saying he said. Even the Supremes newest member Sonia Sotomayor seemed annoyed when Kagan poked fun at one of the Justices follow-up questions.
But it was no laughing matter when in a recent case Kagan claimed free speech should be weighed against its societal costs. Roberts was stunned calling her suggestion startling and dangerous. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs he said. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.
