red states rule
05-24-2010, 04:55 AM
Is anyone shocked by this? Now a USSC Judge will consider her politics, policy, her "feelings" and "emotions" when she hands down legal decisions
Elena Kagan, a Supreme Court nominee without judicial experience, has suggested in writings and speeches over a quarter-century that when judges make decisions, they must take account of their values and experience and consider politics and policy, rather than act as robotic umpires.
Her words stand in contrast to the more technical view of judging voiced by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. at his confirmation hearing five years ago. Chief Justice Roberts said he considered himself an umpire merely calling balls and strikes.
Miss Kagan apparently has never directly addressed Chief Justice Roberts' comments.
Republicans have held his description of the job as a model of judicial restraint and used it to criticize President Obama for what they call his support of judicial activist judges imposing their own views on the law.
But Miss Kagan put forward a different idea of judging in a 1995 law review article.
"It should be no surprise by now that many of the votes a Supreme Court justice casts have little to do with technical legal ability and much to do with conceptions of value," Miss Kagan said in a review of Yale law professor Stephen Carter's book "The Confirmation Mess."
Miss Kagan quoted Mr. Carter approvingly to say that to decide the hard cases that rise to the level of Supreme Court review, justices must use their judgment. When they do that, Miss Kagan said, again citing Mr. Carter, their "own experience and values become the most important data."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/24/kagans-writings-speeches-suggest-mindset-of-an-act/
Elena Kagan, a Supreme Court nominee without judicial experience, has suggested in writings and speeches over a quarter-century that when judges make decisions, they must take account of their values and experience and consider politics and policy, rather than act as robotic umpires.
Her words stand in contrast to the more technical view of judging voiced by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. at his confirmation hearing five years ago. Chief Justice Roberts said he considered himself an umpire merely calling balls and strikes.
Miss Kagan apparently has never directly addressed Chief Justice Roberts' comments.
Republicans have held his description of the job as a model of judicial restraint and used it to criticize President Obama for what they call his support of judicial activist judges imposing their own views on the law.
But Miss Kagan put forward a different idea of judging in a 1995 law review article.
"It should be no surprise by now that many of the votes a Supreme Court justice casts have little to do with technical legal ability and much to do with conceptions of value," Miss Kagan said in a review of Yale law professor Stephen Carter's book "The Confirmation Mess."
Miss Kagan quoted Mr. Carter approvingly to say that to decide the hard cases that rise to the level of Supreme Court review, justices must use their judgment. When they do that, Miss Kagan said, again citing Mr. Carter, their "own experience and values become the most important data."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/24/kagans-writings-speeches-suggest-mindset-of-an-act/