Judging the Judgeship



Posted: Wednesday, May 12, 2010

by Walter Rhett
Charleston Perlo



(Perlo note: my 05/10 comment on Elena Kagan's nomination were highlighted in the online edition of the New York Times, which also reviewed it for publication in Tuesday's print edition. I re-print it here for Perlo's readers.)

"Already, the blogsphere is weighing in: liberals are evaluating her potential record as a judge by looking at her administrative record, where rumor has it, she was "weak" in expanding African-American hiring; conservatives becry her protests of "don't ask, don't tell," and her almost certain support of a woman's right to choose. Her record is called "thin." Her ideas are called both "radical" and "conservative," while both sides agree she is "dangerous."Both sides seem to have lost sight of the broader, and more substantive issues of the Constitution. It is a judge's responsibility to weigh carefully the meaning and interpretation of law for all Americans, evaluating precedents, sticking closely to historic paths, while ignoring completely popular sentiment. A seat on the Supreme Court is not bound by the latest call-in pole (deliberate pun!) on Fox or CNN, but instead requires a deep, thoughtful, deliberate immersion into the nuances and consequences of the law now and in the future. It is not a position to be filled by someone whose judgment will reflect personal beliefs; it is a position where beliefs often must be set aside to follow the course of law required by Constitution."

Thanks for reading/wr. Stir the Perlo, leave a comment.

(Coming Saturday: China's Medical Reform.)

This Article has been viewed 809 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.