I've been ranting about Elena Kagan - every rant typically starts with an expression of disbelief that still hasn't worn off 30 hours on "Elena Kagan? Really?" - non-stop since the possibility/probability of her nomination to the Supreme Court arose a few weeks ago. I was a big fan of Diane Wood. Elena Kagan's scant, deliberately inoffensive record offends me with its lack of judicial conviction and courage. No strong opinions expressed. No arguments against Bush's assaults on the Constitution launched. I'm not a happy camper. WTF, Obama?
This superb article by Glenn Greenwald really is a must-read...
What makes this reversal particularly troubling here is that having Kagan answer questions in her confirmation hearing is the only way to learn about who she is, how she thinks, and what kind of Justice she would be. Given what an absolute blank slate she has made of herself, having her answer questions about prior Court rulings is the only conceivable way for a rational person to make any meaningful judgments about the impact she would have on the Court. But the "conventions" of the confirmation process -- which she once condemned but now apparently intends to embrace -- are designed to obfuscate rather than illuminate who a nominee really is.
... [W]e'll witness the truly absurd spectacle of putting someone on a deeply divided Supreme Court for the next 3 or 4 decades -- the last venue that occasionally safeguards core liberties by a fragile 5-4 majority that she could easily obliterate -- without having any clue as to what she thinks about much of anything, all while Democrats and progressives cheer for her as though they're remotely able to know what they're cheering.
No comments:
Post a Comment