BLOG STAGE 3 ASSIGNMENT

I have just read The Republicans and the Constitution, an editorial on The New York Times website, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/opinion/20tue1.html?_r=1&ref=editorials . The article is about how the republicans plan to vote against possible future justice Elena Kagan. The author says that the republicans don’t like her interpretation of the commerce clause, so they are preparing to vote against her. Elena Kagan stood her ground when republicans at her confirmation hearings tried to get her to agree that the commerce clause needs regulations.

The author stated very good arguments while defending the possible future justice including the benefits society has enjoyed due to the interpretation of the commerce clause as it is now. Things like, Clean Air Act, Labor Standards Act, and The Civil Rights Act, just to name a few.

The logic behind his arguments is quite clear, because the commerce clause has been fought by conservatives for decades and Elena Kagan supports it, she is not essential to their cause and must be voted against. The author is hard to criticize because his arguments are very strong in my eyes.

His closing argument in particular is exceptionally strong. He states that such a vote is simply about her, and the President, and a vote against her or the commerce clause is a vote against some of the best things that the government has done.

I agree with him, the committee is supposed to be determining if she is capable to interpret the constitution. It is not there to ask her hypothetical questions about requiring Americans to eat three fruits a day. What I do not agree with is his use of the word “silly” in describing the questions from the committee. He also says that she was “under attack.” Cross examining which the republicans are allowed to do is not an attack and I think both of theses word choices were poor.