Will our next Supreme Court Judge be one who considers our Constitution outdated?

It is no secret that our Republican leaders (with few exceptions - mostly women) have been political wimps, thus helping in the recent decline* of American prosperity, morality, and values.


So will this trend continue to where we will have another inadequate Supreme Court Justice who wields a lifetime of power that does not represent the true face of America? Will Republicans think they have no right to stand up and against a judge nominee who intends to impose his or her will (be it conservative or be it liberal) on us versus one who simply intends to put his or her feelings aside and interpret the Constitution?


When judicial nominees are assessed and treated like political candidates to reflect political bias of the current administration, the effect will be to erode confidence in the impartiality of courts.


In regard to the assessment of judges, forever and a day Ted Kennedy will be associated with denying America one of the greatest legal minds of all time to serve on the Supreme Court. And how did he do it? He caused alarm through lies.


Ted Kennedy was ready within minutes of Robert Bork's nomination to nationally condemn him:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."

Bork explained that no line in Kennedy's speech was accurate; and The Economist agreed with the inaccuracy of Kennedy's speech, adding "But it worked."

If lies and distortion can work to deny confirmation of a proven Constitutional judge, then the truth should work to deny any Supreme Court nomination put up by Obama who has no record upon which to evaluate or who does have a record which shows he or she does not adhere to the Constitution when making legislative decisions.
The following paragraph is from Ronald Reagan's speech of 1987 in regard to the Constitution and that judges are to be appointed to uphold it:The Constitution is an important part of America's exceptionalism and should be respected. It is the court's task to interpret original intent, not treat our Constitution as a "living" instrument to be adapted to human needs by a judiciary with sufficient discretion so that they can legislate from the bench. If there is a judge who does not believe that, he or she has no business being nominated to the Supreme Court.
Again, Federal judges are not appointed to decide cases according to opinion; they are appointed to decide cases impartially, according to law.

"Our nation deserves a Supreme Court nominee who is committed to deciding cases impartially based on the law, not on personal politics, preferences, or what’s in the nominee’s 'heart," said Senator John Cornyn, a pro-life Texas Republican who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee

In the words of Bork, "The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else."

"During the hearings, one of Judge Bork's critics said that among the functions of the Court was reinterpreting the Constitution so that it would not remain, in his words, ``frozen into ancient error because it is so hard to amend.'' Well, that to my mind is the issue, plain and simple. Too many theorists believe that the courts should save the country from the Constitution. Well, I believe it's time to save the Constitution from them. The principal errors in recent years have had nothing to do with the intent of the framers who finished their work 200 years ago last month. They've had to do with those who have looked upon the courts as their own special province to impose by judicial fiat what they could not accomplish at the polls. They've had to do with judges who too often have made law enforcement a game where clever lawyers try to find ways to trip up the police on the rules." 

See original article

*In Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, Bork explains that the rise of the New Left in 1960s America has undermined the moral standards necessary for civil society and given us a generation of intellectuals who oppose Western civilization.

-----------------

If confirmed, Elena Kagan would be the first Justice in nearly 40 years with no experience on the bench. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top committee Republican, said Kagan had "less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years," adding that her decision to bar military recruiters from Harvard Law School's career services office was in violation of the law.

Her dislike for military policy is well known. In October 2003, it was reported by the Harvard Law Record that Kagan appeared at a conference held by a Lesbian student group, "much of what Kagan said was a recital of her personal abhorrence for the military discriminatory policy." [Don't Ask, Don't Tell]. 'I am committed to working with Lambda and others . . . on making progress for the elimination of ' discriminatory policies in the military."

Expressed by Republicans are concerns that Kagan would not be impartial in her judgments on the Court but would be a judicial activist much like her former boss Justice Thurgood Marshall. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has already said that a filibuster is a possibility.Gay ActivismArticles from the Harvard Crimson newspaper show Elena Kagan as Law Dean worked with the Lambda "Trans-gender Task Force" to force Blue-Cross/Blue-Shield to provide sex-change operations as a paid benefit for students or faculty who suffer from "gender identity disorder."

Her administrators demanded that sex-change operations be funded under insurance premiums as an 'equal right.'

"Prior to the modification, Harvard subscribed to a standard plan from Blue Cross that specifically excluded 'services and supplies that are related to sex change surgery or to the reversal of a sex change,'" reported the Harvard Crimson.

This policy changed because of Kagan's involvement, "the new policy states that 'gender reassignment surgery is one treatment option for Gender Identity Disorder, a condition in which a person feels a strong and persistent identification with the opposite gender accompanied by a strong sense of discomfort with their own gender.' 'Putting the insurance policy in line with Harvard’s goals of equity and inclusion goes along with the non-discrimination statement,' says Eva B. Rosenberg, chair of Harvard Transgender Task Force.

Kagan may not have much experience upon which one can assess her legal inclinations, but she does have a history of activism which should be given serious consideration upon her nomination as a Supreme Court Justice.

See original article