One might infer from your recent editorials on Solicitor General Elena Kagan that Ms. Kagan’s judicial philosophy comes from the same playbook used by departing Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (“Kagan’s government-centric philosophy” and “Kagan: Foreign law trumps con-law,” Comment & Analysis, Tuesday).
Your description of Ms. Kagan’s written views on the First Amendment has ominous implications. Would a Justice Kagan show the same disregard for the First Amendment clauses protecting free speech andfreedom of the press that Justice Stevens showed for the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment in his decision in Kelo v. New London?
I was not encouraged by your observation that while Ms. Kagan served as dean of Harvard Law School, the required course in constitutional law for law school graduates was made optional. As a mathematics professor, I believe this is akin to a college dean supporting the elimination of calculus as a requirement for its mathematics majors. To be fair, it is possible that Ms. Kagan opposed this curricular change. At the very least, however, the Senate must discover whether she supported or opposed the removal of this requirement.
My third and greatest concern with regard to Ms. Kagan’s nomination is the alacrity with which she embraces abortion as a fundamental constitutional right and her support of funding for abortions.
Perhaps Ms. Kagan is unaware of the causal statistical link between legalized abortion and the spikes in the rates of some venereal diseases. Or does she believe the increased risk for contracting them is also a fundamental constitutional right?
RICHARD H. ESCOBALES JR.