Those of us who oppose the right-wing encroachment on a woman’s right to choose are told quadrennially that we simply must vote for the Democratic choice for President. This is the only way to ensure that the Supreme Court doesn’t continue to chip away at women’s reproductive rights. So why has Barack Obama chosen someone like Elena Kagan?
As a White House adviser in 1997, Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama’s new Supreme Court nominee, urged then-President Bill Clinton to support a ban on late-term abortions.
This seems like a bright line, as Jonathan Turley mentioned about Elena Kagan in another area: her work "shows a willingness to compromise on free speech issues." Do we elect a Democratic President to choose a SCOTUS nominee who writes slippery-slope arguments about the First Amendment?
Do we elect a Democratic President to choose a SCOTUS nominee who writes slippery-slope arguments about abortion?
Just a with the sanctity of free speech, abortion is an issue about which Supreme Court nominees of Democratic presidents should not, in their past, have advocacy of compromise:
The proposal was a compromise by Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle. Clinton supported it, despite opposition from pro-abortion rights groups. The compromise failed and Clinton vetoed a stricter Republican ban.
Democrats are permitted to dissent on this nominee: Elena Kagan’s free speech slippery-slope writings and, now, her proposal that another Democratic President compromise on abortion, are views no Democratic President’s nominee should hold. Those of us who worked hard to elect Barack Obama president have the right to expect him to nominate Supreme Court justices whose views on these two topics are unassailable.