Kaganed Will Never be in Our Slang

The Senate hearings for the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court are plodding along, with nothing new or substantial to report. That's no surprise; unless she does or says something really stupid, or it turns out that she is in fact an axe murderer, she will be our next Justice. But one thing is for certain: her name will never be known in the way other nominees' nom de plumes have fell into parlance. Kagan or some derivative thereof shall never be a mock verb or adjective. Or worse, the object of the spiteful venom which other potentials were subjected to during their hearings.

She need not worry about facing the fate of the esteemed Robert Bork, shown the door by the Democratic controlled Senate of 1987 solely because he was the choice of Ronald Reagan and we hold the power now, thank yew very much. She shall not face accusers producing trumped up and sophomoric accusations in the manner Clarence Thomas was in 1991. Elena Kagan, though we hope will be grilled thoroughly by the Republicans on the committee, will not be the object of ridicule which Thomas and Bork were. That is because the Republicans will not stoop so low in trying to prevent her confirmation.

As we have conceded, it is virtually a done deal anyway. The cynics among us will claim that that is all which will prevent the GOP from going after her tooth and nail, pulling every lever and flinging every bit of mud they can. Perhaps; but we can't think of a Democratic nominee for anything who faced the trials which Bork and Thomas had. This is not to say that the Republicans are below employing legitimate parliamentary tools to fight for their cause. But a filibuster, should they attempt to use one against Kagan, is one thing. Trying to create dirt, or merely ignoring qualifications because they fail a political litmus test, is quite different. The GOP would not use raw power, nor create a pig sty of the nomination process, merely to make a point.

There are enough legitimate questions about Ms. Kagan, her lack of experience on the bench, for one, with which the loyal opposition can press her about. There are her actions as President of Hahvahd Law which may be spoken of without bringing her professional integrity into play. Either way, her name will never be regularly used in a derogatory fashion as today becomes history. She at least shall be respected where Bork and Thomas were not. That speaks volumes about the Democratic and Republican views of government.