First is her judicial philosophy. Does she agree with the Constitution? What standard does she use to understand this foundation of our government? Is she inclined to find penumbra (shadow) rights within the document? Does she try and understand the real and literal meaning of those who created it? These are legitimate questions of a justice. How well does she show that she is no respecter of people, only the law.
Tuesday, May 11
Second, does she have the judicial temperament and ability to fill the role? Does she have the the knowledge and ability to parse exceedingly complex concepts and come to a just and equitable conclusion without any bias? A big part of this process is her interaction with the rest of the court. Even if she does not agree with them, can there be a level of respect for her from her fellow justices and those that come before her? Interestingly, that is the question that was asked by the left-leaning Salon magazine. They found Kagan to be sorely lacking in the ability to interact and persuade the Supreme Court in her appearances before it. It will be important for her to answer questions about how she can relate and persuade.
Other concerns include her treatment of the law in the past. Harvard Law under her direction kept the Military off of their campus in spite of laws to the contrary because they disagreed with their position on homosexuals in the military. And now she is suppose to be someone who upholds the law? She should answer for her time at Harvard.
By Lucas at 1:32 PM