No, No, Smitty.

by Little Miss Attila on May 12, 2010

Kagan was subordinating her own inclinations to the office. The office was, Dean of Harvard Law. The policy was, deny military recruiters access. She had philosophical reservations about this, but she perceived it to be her duty to apply the policy, irrespective.

That is a good thing, because that is what we will want her to do as a Justice: apply the law, notwithstanding her own personal biases.

{ 1 trackback }

Trebling My Doubts On Elena Kagan : The Other McCain
May 12, 2010 at 4:26 pm

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

smitty May 12, 2010 at 4:37 pm

Updated my post to rebut your point from the WSJ article.
Mostly I want to start with the Supreme Court, and move to the prospective justice, asking “Why should we?”, instead of starting with the person and moving to the appointment, which is what everyone else seems to be doing.
I submit that the latter analysis is part of the challenge besetting us.

Reply

smitty May 12, 2010 at 4:58 pm

Case in point.

Reply

Little Miss Attila May 12, 2010 at 5:02 pm

Old news.

I’ll be impressed if/when Conservatives start giving more pointed anwers during these processes, but everyone’s blanding it up these days.

Reply

Darrell May 12, 2010 at 11:48 pm

What about?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Questions-surround-Kagans-handling-of-White-House-eco-terrorist-controversy-93592959.html
Should I be the least little bit concerned about this? Or don’t we enforce rules/laws because we are sympathetic to political causes?

I don’t care if she drives stick, I just want to know what drives her.

Reply

Cancel reply

Reply to smitty:

Previous post:

Next post: