Yesterday, President Obama nominated United States Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Few were surprised by the choice, as Kagan has long been viewed a frontrunner for the high court. While many observers have applauded Obamaâ€™s decision, others like myself were left with a lingering question.
Is this really the best we could do?
Letâ€™s be clear, I am not questioning Kaganâ€™s basic qualifications as a nominee. Unlike those who have questioned her â€œtemperamentâ€ and â€œintellectual curiosityâ€â€”loaded queries that only seem to get raised in relation to women and minority candidatesâ€”I have little doubt about Kaganâ€™s fitness for the job. Rather, I am concerned about Kaganâ€™s ability to fill John Paul Stevensâ€™ shoes as the progressive anchor of the Supreme Court.
Although she undoubtedly shares the same political persuasion as Justice Stevens, Kagan is considerably less progressive on major issues of the day. While Stevens has filed numerous dissents in an effort to challenge the Bush (and now Obama) doctrine of endless executive power, Kagan has dutifully argued in favor of policies that undermine the spirit and letter of the Constitution. For example, during her confirmation hearing for Solicitor General, Kagan offered unequivocal support for the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists as well as the bizarre belief that the entire world is a battleground. On other issues, from gay marriage to civil rights, Kagan has done nothing to inspire confidence that she would continue Stevensâ€™ tradition of principled and rigorous resistance.