Welp, here we go again — with more ignorance of the role of the United States Supreme Court in the aftermath of the Roe overturn. Only this time, the idiocy comes from within SCOTUS, courtesy of Elena Kagan, who on Thursday claimed the legitimacy of the Court is tied to its conformity with public opinion.
Roll that over in your mind a couple of times.
Silly me. All this time, I thought the Supreme Court’s role was that of final arbiter of the law, thus ensuring the American people with the promise of equal justice under the law and, thereby, as guardian of the Constitution of the United States of America. What the hell was I thinking?
As reported by Reuters, Kagan on Thursday said at a judicial conference in Montana that it would be a “dangerous thing for a democracy” if the conservative-majority Court loses the confidence of the American public. Again, a profoundly ignorant comment.
I’m not talking about any particular decision or even any particular series of decisions, but if over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that’s a dangerous thing for a democracy.
Uh-huh. Sure, she wasn’t.
No word if Kagan has similar beliefs about a liberal-majority Court. [heavy sarcasm]
Incidentally, Kagan is the only associate justice in history who didn’t serve on the bench before ascending to SCOTUS. Prior to joining the Court in 2010, she was the solicitor general of the United States. She was nominated to both positions by Barack Obama. I know; try to control your shock and amazement.
Anyway, here’s a bit more enlightenment from the left-wing justice:
Overall, the way the Court retains its legitimacy and fosters public confidence is by acting like a court; is by doing the kinds of things that do not seem to people political or partisan. [The Court] earns its legitimacy by what it does, by the way it behaves.
Ironically, in this case, Kagan was exactly right — but not for the reason she thought.
“Acting” like SCOTUS and “doing the kinds of things” SCOTUS does — the way SCOTUS “behaves” is by adhering to the Constitution; by objectively interpreting the intent of the Founding Document and its authors; not by kowtowing to the majority public opinion of the day or to the so-called “progressive” cause celebre of the time.
Finally, Kagan revealed her complete hypocrisy while suggesting there have been times in history when the Court has been “unconstrained and undisciplined” — when justices “really just attempted to basically enact their own policy or political or social preferences,” adding that the current justices should guard against that.
Memo to Elena Kagan: That “guard against that” thingy is exactly what happened when Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett in a 5-4 majority overturned Roe — righting a 49-year-old decision that should’ve never been made in the first place.
The bottom line:
The reality of an Associate Justice actually believing left-wing groupthink crap like this is not only a disservice to the United States Supreme Court; it is a disservice to America and the American people.
And it is scary as hell.
Authored by Mike Miller via RedState
