Human Events is absolutely right: Elena Kagan’s evasiveness-bordering-on-false-testimony, combined with the substance of what she was testifying to with relation to partial birth abortion, should be a FAR bigger issue than the establishment media has treated it as being. Human Events raises, rightly, “important ethical questions about a lawyer willing to manipulate supposedly objective evidence for political purposes.” And, also appropriately, notes that “Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life [accurately] said, ‘There are serious discrepancies between her statements to Senator Hatch and the documented evidence of her actions in December 1996.’”
As we at the Washington Times, following Jennifer Rubin of Contentions, have written: Ms. Kagan’s duty as a lawyer for the president, while the case advanced through the courts, was to have the administration correct the court’s misimpression that “they were relying on neutral, expert testimony.” Ms. Rubin, herself a lawyer, calls Ms. Kagan’s silence “a significant ethical breach.”
Add to all that the fact that what Kagan was so busy manipulating was evidence on a procedure that is by objective standards a gruesome, immoral, inhuman, inhumane operation to kill an otherwise viable infant. And her manipulation was in favor of that awful procedure, and had the practical effect of keeping that barbarity legal for a full extra decade.
This should be big news. It brings into serious doubt Ms. Kagan’s moral and ethical fitness for the Supreme Court.