White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told the AP that “judges confront issues differently than staff attorneys for an administration.”
For the White House, the idea that Kagan might support tougher restrictions on abortion presents a complicated set of political opportunities and risks. The revelation may help to mute right-wing groups who often use support for abortion rights as a way of attacking a nominee.
But the 1997 memorandum may give further rise to the concerns already expressed on Monday by liberal groups, who fear that the lack of evidence of Kagan’s strong support for abortion rights throughout her career suggests that she will not be an advocate for their cause on the court.
Well, so much for concern for the religious makeup of the high court. As a Jew, if confirmed, Elena Kagan would become the 3rd Jew on the current Supreme Court, and it would create an unprecedented situation where there were 6 Catholics and 3 Jews among the Justices, but–remarkably– no Protestants whatsoever. And that’s a very striking development in a generally Protestant country with a long, sordid history of anti-Catholic and anit-Jewish prejudice.
I wish I could believe that Kagan was anything but strongly “pro-choice.” Given her experience in the Clinton administration and at ultra-liberal Harvard, I think it extremely unlikely. But if she’s less of a judicial activist than John Paul Stevens, that would be a very good thing.
Anyone know what sort of Jew Kagan is? Reform? Conservative? Partially observant or not at all?
David Handy+