Since President Obama can't nominate himself to the Supreme Court, he settled for the next best thing: an ideological twin. A young and charismatic law professor, Elena Kagan seems to be a mirror image of her friend from the Windy City. Woefully inexperienced, she, too, may have charmed her way into one of the most powerful positions in America with a clever charisma that hides her ultimate agenda: to reshape the court with a profoundly radical bent. Beloved by students and respected by colleagues, Kagan's congeniality may be the key, Ken Klukowski says, to "recruit[ing] moderate justices to support liberal ideas."
Already, the media is acknowledging that her nomination will raise the profile of social issues. And none of those are more controversial than the ongoing debate over homosexuals in the military. As the Democratic leadership continues to hatch a scheme that would bypass the Pentagon's review of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), no one is more in favor of abolishing the policy than the President's next Supreme Court justice. After 9-11, while our troops were fighting for their lives, Kagan was fighting them. Angry about the ban on homosexuality in the military, Kagan took out her frustrations on recruiters by kicking them off Harvard's campus. Their "crime"? Abiding by the policy that Congress had passed. As Ed Whelan said, "She elevated her own ideology above what Congress, acting on the advice of military leaders, had determined best served the interests of nationa l security." Sound familiar? Some in the current Congress are guilty of the same disrespect. Instead of waiting for the Pentagon's recommendations, Democrats are pushing ahead to repeal DADT without a shred of input from the same military that will have to implement the decision.
Speaking of her deep ties with the gay agenda, Kagan may also be a reliable vote for same-sex "marriage." During her confirmation hearings for Solicitor General, Kagan said that she didn't believe there was a constitutional right to counterfeit marriage. So far, so good. But in a March 18, 2009 letter to Sen. Arlen Specter clarifying her position (which Whelan highlights here), she hints at a vastly different view. "Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by the courts and understood by the nation's citizenry and its elected representatives." In other words, Whelan writes, "Kagan was saying only that the courts haven't yet invented a federal constitutional right to same-sex 'marriage.'" What else would the court--her court--invent? Contact your senators today and ask them to thoroughly question Kagan's judicial philosophy. For mo re information on the President's pick, check out FRC's updated backgrounder.
