Monday, July 12, 2010

Hatch v. Kagan
Tom Smith

Why Sen. Hatch says he will vote against Kagan.

I don't really agree with the claim that she is unqualified.  She may not be as qualified as others one could name, but some of those others would be even worse choices.  By any reasonable standard, she has a pretty dazzling resume.  A better choice would be somebody with deep judicial experience, but not all Justices were judges or former judges when nominated.

I think what justifies a no vote is the reasonable inference that her judicial philosophy is inconsistent with the philosophy that a supporter of the Constitution should have.  And that is inconsistent with support for the progressive project, which conflicts in important respects with our Constitution.

I also think conservatives and libertarians should stop talking in terms of judicial activism.  That's really an outmoded and inaccurate way to characterize the issues at stake.  The problem with progressive jurisprudence (a better name is needed there too) is not just that they invent rights or intervene when they shouldn't, but that they do not enforce rights and intervene when they should.  The whole judges should be passive and respect democracy credo flows out of the conservatism of the 1950s to 1970s or so, and we have moved way beyond that.  Reestablishing anything like the federalism the framers had in mind would take a lot of activist judging, and probably a constitutional amendment, for example.

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hatch v. Kagan
Tom Smith


Correct. Additionally, we do well not to fall into our own trap, the infamous Miers/Alito gambit.

Posted by: Lou Gots | Jul 13, 2010 9:06:17 AM

Mr. Smith, you--and I suppose Scalia--are accepting a debate ruled in the perverted law and language which revolutionaries set as our trap. This was Chesterton's law of Right and Left before it became Lenin's rope. Two steps Left, one step Right, repeat until Right is also Left.

To remove the stain of activist contortion from the Constitution does not require activism, it requires rebellion. Revolution is activism, rebellion is quite the opposite.

Posted by: james wilson | Jul 13, 2010 10:29:15 PM

Who needs a specific rationale to oppose her. She's being appointed to a post that is essentially omnipotent legislator with lifetime tenure. She should be pro-rule of law, pro-Constitution and pro the America of the founding. Any doubt on any of these qualities disqualifies her, and there is plenty of doubt.

Posted by: Jonathan | Jul 14, 2010 7:06:07 AM

I agree, it is more honest to say that one opposes her philosophically than to pretend there is some moral flaw or lack of intelligence.

Posted by: mike livingston | Jul 17, 2010 8:46:33 PM

The important thing in life is to have a great aim , and the determination to attain it.Do you think so?

Posted by: lacoste shirts | Jul 21, 2010 5:34:07 PM