Among the reasons listed this morning as to why this nominee may gain confirmation is, "No paper trail."  No paper trail?  How can anyone who has been Solicitor General or Dean of the Harvard Law School have 'no paper trail?'  Oh, she has a paper trail, it simply doesn't tell us how she might function as a judge.  Will she be impartial?  Will she address the law or her ideology? 

Will she address the law or her ideology?  This is the question that must concern us the most.  While Dean at the Harvard Law School she led an effort to eliminate the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' rule imposed by the Clinton Administration that dealt with homosexuals in the military.  She attempted to refuse access to Harvard by military recruiters.  Now, many of us do not support the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' rule either.  But it is telling that her efforts went all the way to the Supreme Court and the ruling was  unanimous against her position.  It is also telling that she may have used her powerful seat as Dean to promote a personal agenda.  It is rumored that Elena Kagan is a closeted homosexual herself.  Was she attempting to impose her beliefs regarding this issue on the military using a sphere of influence that belonged to the university, not herself? 

There is some question as well regarding her position on the Separation of Church and State.   Any Constitutionalist will recognize there is no such Constitutional separation, only the First Amendment that prevents the government from establishing a specific religion and that prevents the government from interfering with the free practice of religion.   As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall Elena Kagan authored a memo that supported the denial of support to religious organizations despite the non-secular nature of a program. 

Another concern must be her Princeton education and her tenure at Harvard.   It should always be a concern when any organization is filled with persons who think and act alike.  Do we not already have too many Ivy League justices who see the world only philosophically?  Do we not have four too many right now who demonstrate their ideology time after time subordinating the original intent of our Constitution to their definition of nirvana?  In many minds Dean of Harvard Law School is not a qualification but a reason instead for elimination from contention.    

There are other concerns, foremost is that she is a nominee of Barrack Obama.  Barrack Obama has yet to propose any legislative or judicial changes that are less than radical.   Thus immediate reaction must be one of distrust and apprehension.   We also cannot rely upon the media to complete the vetting process.  All of us should be reviewing her record as Solicitor General and as Dean at Harvard and any and all information available to determine whether this candidate passes our muster.   If she does not we must ALL be contacting our Senators.  This will be a lifetime appointment and we must steer the direction of the court to that of its original foundation. 

Something just happened in Utah that gives heart to the notion that Senators whose ears have been deaf to the concerns of the average citizen might actually listen to citizens this summer.  Robert Bennett, long term Senator from Utah who had been hailed by many as an arch-typical 'conservative' was summarily eliminated from the Republican primary this last weekend largely because of his vote on TARP.   http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/bob-bennett-Utah-Senate/2010/05/08/id/358302?s=al&promo_code=9DCF-1

 Constituents apparently pleaded with him to vote 'No' but he stepped to the other side of the aisle and voted 'Yes'.  Tea Party activists campaigned against Senator Bennett and supported more conservative opponents.  Was Senator Bennett fooled by the argument that the Congress must act without reading the legislation and immediately infuse billions into the economy.  Was the opposition that flooded his e-mails and telephone banks not overwhelmingly opposed to this bill?   Is it not true that these billions  of dollars have not helped to reduce unemployment as promised.  These are billions of taxpayer dollars that have been siphoned from the treasury to buy the votes and assistance of Obama supporters like labor unions and to pay for investor bailouts of Obama friends.