It comes as no surprise that the National Organization for Women (NOW) was one of the first national groups to release a statement not only applauding President Obama’s nomination of a bona fide liberal to the Supreme Court, but offering praise for the “historic achievement” of having three women sitting on the court should Elena Kagan be confirmed.
NOW asserts that “women have been under-represented on the Supreme Court for far too long.” But NOW’s argument assumes that women can only be well-represented by other women, which is certainly not the case. In reality, nine Justice Scalias would represent the values of most American women far better than three “historic” female liberals sitting on the court.
Unlike left-wing feminists, who seem to have no problem trampling on the freedom of others in order to advance their agenda, Justice Antonin Scalia truly represents women because he seeks to preserve and protect the freedom provided by the Constitution to each and every American, which obviously includes women. Conversely, having Elena Kagan sit on the highest court in the land would be damaging to women because her record—scant though it may be—shows a disregard for the liberty of Americans and a lack of understanding of American values.
In the recent Citizens United v. FEC case, as Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued the government’s anti-1st Amendment position that certain individuals should be thrown in jail for distributing political literature—including books—about a candidate during an election. Her history against 1st Amendment rights goes back to her days as dean of Harvard Law School when she refused to allow students to meet freely with military recruiters on campus, forcing recruitment meetings to go off campus or in a segregated area on campus. Kagan’s position on the subject was so extreme that her amicus brief filed in the case Rumsfeld v. FAIR was unanimously rejected by the court. Justice Scalia voted in favor of free speech in both of these cases.
Kagan’s anti-constitutional statements don’t stop with the 1st Amendment. During her Senate confirmation hearings for her appointment as solicitor general, Kagan’s response to a question about gun rights was that the 2nd Amendment did not offer “unlimited protection against governmental regulation.” In 1987 when she was clerking for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote a memo to Marshall stating she was “not sympathetic” to a case filed by a man arguing that the gun ban in DC was a violation of his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and encouraged Marshall to vote against hearing the man’s appeal. In the recent D.C. handgun case, Justice Scalia voted in favor of 2nd Amendment rights.
Though both the 1st and 2nd Amendments obviously affect all Americans, the 2nd Amendment issue is of particular interest to women. In his book More Guns, Less Crime economist John Lott finds that “women benefit much more from owning guns than men do,” and “that for each additional woman carrying a concealed handgun the drop in the murder rate for women [is] about 3-4 times more” than the drop in the murder rate for men for each additional man carrying a concealed handgun.
Kagan is out of touch with average Americans on several fronts. After the 1980 election of President Reagan, Kagan penned an article in The Daily Princetonian expressing her hope that a “more leftist left will once again come to the fore.” This is in direct contrast to the values of a nation where roughly 75% of the total population—and 76% of women—describe themselves as moderate or conservative. Tilting even further leftward in her college thesis at Princeton, Kagan laments the decline of socialism in America, stating that she is “sad” that “in our own times, a coherent Socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States.” A recent Rasmussen poll shows that a large majority of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism, with only 18% of the country preferring socialism.
It is clear that not only is Elena Kagan the wrong choice for women in this country, she is the wrong choice for all Americans. Kagan’s confirmation as the third woman on the Supreme Court would no doubt make history, but if it comes at the expense of our individual liberties, who cares?
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter