Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

The Kagan nomination

I receive email updates from some pro-life advocacy groups, and their reactions to the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court are predictable, understandable, and, in my view, not at all helpful.  They could all be captured in the meta-headline, "Pro-abortion zealot set to radicalize American law!"  I recognize that interest groups across the ideological spectrum only remain viable if they can convince a sufficient number of citizens that "this is the big battle we've been gearing up for, and we really mean it this time!"  Pro-life groups don't draw much attention (or financial support) to the cause by pointing out that elections have consequences, that other potential nominees have records suggesting a more aggressive interpretation of reproductive rights, and that her nomination hardly represents a fundamental change in the Court's abortion jurisprudence (given that she is replacing Justice Stevens).  On other issues, Justice Kagan might actually move things in a positive direction (though her views on presidential power concern me).  So how should her nomination be greeted by those who are supportive of Catholic legal theory?

https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/05/the-kagan-nomination.html

Vischer, Rob | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515a9a69e20133ed795ef9970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Kagan nomination :

Comments


                                                        Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I share the frustration. AUL and the Susan B. Anthony List each set-up the sham that fundraising may actually derail the nomination of Kagan ("We need your money now so that we can defeat this pro-abortion zealot!"). I'd trust these sources much more (and be willing to financially support them) if they presented a more nuanced view of the nominee and provided sources to back up their statements. In its defense, AUL often does so and does so well.