Here we go again with another nomination to fill a vacated seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. It is your Commander’s fervent desire that the U.S. Senate approaches this crucially important decision with improved emotional rhetoric and by sticking to an objective and thorough vetting of the candidate, Elena Kagan.
I am not so naive as to believe that our politicians will not perform their “dance of the all-powerful” in posturing before the Senate television cameras, but let’s keep the dialog restricted to civility. We must always remember the Oath of Office that our President and Senators have taken to “PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.” *Editorial note: The Senate Oath of Office is slightly different, but essentially contains the same words “to support and defend”.
Of equal importance is to remember the Preamble to our Constitution – “WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR PROSTERITY, DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”. The way I interpret these inspiring words it does not mean “Social Engineering,” but adherence to the Constitution. Additionally, the Oath calls to “preserve” or preservation of the Constitution, and that is a very specific charge.
I suggest that a good starting point to better understand Elena Kagen’s qualifications is to read the 13 page Wikipidia report on the Harvard Law School at:
While I have been warned that Wikipidia can be found to contain biased material, this analysis does much to expand our collective knowledge for the debate. There are issues raised, such as the fact that five of the nine sitting Justices are all Harvard Law School graduates. Is that diversity or a problem of consequence? One, too, can wonder if anyone will question the degree of influence being established by Harvard University over the country with so many graduates holding major positions of influence. “Is that appropriate?” is a fair question to be addressed by the Senate inquiry.
Let me also draw your attention to a most surprising Editorial in the 5/11 issue of the New York Times, which also raises some interesting questions. Even this liberal mouth-piece of the Obama Administration wonders about the fact that Kagan has no judicial experience and an extremely thin paper trail to study.
I choose to reserve judgment at a later date on the Kagan nomination. The hearings should be interesting and revealing, at least I hope so. Personally, I expected to see Obama nominate a more controversial liberal, such as Michelle Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, or some wacko from the ultra-liberal left Coast 9th Circuit. Apparently, Obama is reading the tea-leaves that indicate he must quickly begin to tread lightly as the November 2010 elections pose substantial challenges to his socialist trending policies and the Democrat Party.