Ed Meese on Supreme Court Nominee – Elena Kagan
President Obama has nominated a former dean of Harvard Law School, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, to replace the liberal John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. This marks the President’s second opportunity to shape the nation’s highest court since he began his presidency.
Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese issued the following statement yesterday:
“First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.
Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law–is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.” The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.” (MyHeritage.org: Ed Meese on Supreme Court Nominee)
Multiple polls, Heritage’s Conn Carroll explains, reveal that the American people agree that judges are supposed to interpret the law according to the written Constitution, not their own personal and subjective views.