Supreme Court or Supreme Contempt?

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kegan has given too many signals of her contempt for the law to believe that anyone would vote to confirm her.

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kegan has given too many signals of her contempt for the law to believe that anyone would vote to confirm her. Here are just three examples.

The most recent example is found in the opinion by federal District Judge Tauro, who ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In the opinion, Judge Tauro notes that “the government has disavowed Congress’s stated justifications” for DOMA. In other words, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said it didn’t care what reasons Congress gave for passing DOMA, it was not going to defend those reasons. DOJ offered its own reasons.

Knowing the President wants to see DOMA repealed, it is not surprising that his Department of Justice would abandon Congress and come up with a new justification that the court was able to quickly dispose of. Dale Carpenter, an ardent proponent of same-sex marriage, said that the DOJ giving up Congress’ asserted interest in procreation was “a gift to the gay-marriage movement.” According to him, “The DOJ is helping knock out a leg from under the opposition to gay marriage.”

Strike One

What does this have to do with nominee Kagan? Well, the decision not to defend the reasons for DOMA given by Congress was made in a meeting of DOJ attorneys in which she was involved.

Strike Two

Second, in case you missed it, nominee Kagan did all she could to keep the military from recruiting at Harvard, where she was Dean of the College of Law … contrary to federal law.

Strike Three

Third, when working for the Clinton administration, nominee Kagan was instrumental in getting the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to change its opinion regarding the medical need for partial-birth abortion. ACOG’s opinion was offered to the courts and relied on by the Courts in striking down the early attempts to ban partial-birth abortion. While the ethical rule that prohibits lawyers from submitting false evidence to a court applies only to the lawyers actually trying the case, it reflects a serious flaw in her character to be involved in altering a “witness’” testimony that the Department of Justice, under President Clinton, was going to use.

Elena Kagan, three strikes. You’re out!