Obama Nominates Pro-Abortion, Anti-Military, Non-Judge to Supreme Court

President Barack Obama has chosen Solicitor General Elena Kagan to join the U.S. Supreme Court as our next Justice, replacing the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Not only has Kagan never even been a judge, she has a record of being radically anti-military. She opposes the Soloman Act, signed into law by President Clinton, which states that in order to receive federal funding schools must allow recruiters on campus.

In addition, she hates ROTC programs. When she was Dean of Law at Harvard University she expelled military recruiters and ROTC from campus in defiance of The Soloman Act, which she has argued against in writing and speeches. She, along with 40 other law professors, argued to the Supreme Court against the Soloman Act, but her arguments were rejected by even the more liberal justices.

Former Attorney General Ed Meese released the following statement this morning on the Kagan nomination:

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.

Sadly, the Senate leadership and mainstream media will portray her as a “centrist” during her confirmation process and with the votes in the Senate, she will most likely get confirmed. The only good news out of this announcement is that she will replace another Liberal activist justice.