What kind of judge — or justice of the Supreme Court of the United States — would you want to hear “your” case, if you had one, whatever it might be?
Most of us — unless we were at legal fault — would readily agree that we would want a judge (or justice) who is “learned in the law,” understands and upholds the Constitution of the United States, is brilliant in intellect, wise and perceptive — and is impartial in devotion to justice, with no preconceived philosophic agenda having any influence.
With “good” judges or justices, we might never know, or fear, whether a judge or justice is “liberal” or “conservative,” if he or she is totally devoted to upholding the Constitution, the law and justice.
But unfortunately, as all of us have seen too often in recent years, that standard is not always upheld by the presidents who nominate justices, or by the senators who confirm justices, or by the justices themselves.
Justice John Paul Stevens has announced his retirement from the high court. President Barack Obama has selected his second Supreme Court nominee. She is Elena Kagan, who has been dean of Harvard Law School and U.S. solicitor general, “the government’s lawyer.”
She will be examined by members of the United States Senate. With Democrats in the Senate majority, in all likelihood she will be confirmed.
But is she the most qualified choice to become a justice on the Supreme Court?
By all reports, she is a fine and highly intelligent lady, who came up “the hard way.” She has no previous judicial experience. It is best for Supreme Court nominees to have had previous court experience, which may reveal ability, personal qualifications and possible prejudices, such as an inclination to “legislate” rather than just “judge” impartially.
With the nominee having had no judicial experience and little legal writing, some are wondering just what her philosophy may be. One case that may give a clue involved her position in kicking U.S. military recruiters out of Harvard Law School’s recruitment office because of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that involves recruitment of homosexual members for the armed forces.
The nominee surely will be questioned about that — and other pertinent issues.
We hope she can assure us she can become a brilliant and impartial justice — and then live up to that standard. Will her answers give that assurance in the examination yet to come?
Our goal in selecting all Supreme Court justices should be defense of the Constitution and impartial justice under the law for all.