More on Kagan

May 12, 2010

“It is the one judgment that Kagan observers of all ideological backgrounds seem to share. Tom Goldstein, a Kagan supporter, admits, “I don’t know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade.” Carrie Severino, a Kagan critic from the right, concludes, “She’s been so careful for so long that no one seems to know exactly what she does think.” Glenn Greenwald, a Kagan critic from the left, contends that “her academic career is surprisingly and disturbingly devoid of writings or speeches on most key legal and Constitutional controversies.”

So, I have a new “powerful” legal argument against confirming such a person. Someone who has so obviously avoided discussing important issues of the day in the hopes of facing a confirmation hearing to attain a post for which the issues of the day are paramount is far too calculating to be allowed to survive the confirmation process.

A potential judge who hasn’t talked about Constitutional issues for the past ten years? This is absurd, but it’s consistent with our President who thought it prudent to vote “Present” for precisely the same reason.

These are people who don’t want their souls to be known, and we are truly in dark times, because other than being a spy, I can’t think of any good reasons for an American to live a life of subterfuge.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s