This editorial will appear in tomorrow’s print edition.
Here’s a nightmare scenario for Democrats: What if Elena Kagan is telling the truth?
In last week’s Senate hearings, President Obama’s soon-to-be-confirmed Supreme Court nominee testified she’s about the law, the whole law and nothing but the law. She may be a “progressive” Democrat, but she’ll be “on nobody’s team” once she dons the black robe.
Heaven forbid that she would bring any preferred outcomes to a case.
“I mean, the worst kind of thing you can say of a judge is he or she is results-oriented,” she told the Judiciary Committee. “It suggests that a judge is kind of picking sides irrespective of what the law requires. …
“The judge should be trying to figure out as best she can what the law requires and not going in and saying, ‘You know, I don’t really care about the law, you know, this side should win.’”
How can anyone quarrel with that? For that matter, how can any Republican quarrel with a nominee whose distinguished legal career includes no time as an actual judge and thus no paper trail of decisions that can confidently be attributed to her own judicial philosophy?
Read more »