R.T. Neary
Open letter to Elena Kagan
By R.T. Neary
Ms Elena Kagan
Office of the Solicitor General
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D. C. 20530-0001
Dear Ms Kagan:
As a citizen of this nation, I am seeking an answer relative to your nomination to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Unlike the typical appointment or election to government positions, this one to the highest court in our country is for a lifetime. No other constitutional office holder, to my knowledge, is offered life tenure.
With the extended life expectancies of all of us, many decades could pass while you hold this seat — with tremendous power over our lives. We will have none over yours.
As you well know, the Judicial branch had less words devoted in the U. S. Constitution to its powers than those of the Legislative and Executive divisions of our government. Personally, I believe these appointments should be for a limited number of years as society has changed so rapidly, even in my own lifetime. Many of the major changes have resulted from decisions by the United States Supreme Court since its ratification by the 13 original states in 1788. Recent decades have seen a proliferation of decisions with widespread societal ramifications.
While you were Dean of the Harvard Law School, military recruitment officials were barred from using the school's offices to interview those seeking answers about military service. Your action, as stated, was based on the military policy of, "Don't ask, Don't Tell," which was instituted by the Executive Branch. It applied to those having other than heterosexual orientation and who were serving in the military. Your contention was that one's sexual orientation should be open. You have spoken some strong words in your opposition, stating the policy was "wrong" and "unjust."
Having served in the Armed Forces of the U.S. during wartime, I followed the
debate on the issue. The reasons behind your position in opposition to the rule are clear, and they also have relevance as you aspire to this position as 1/9th of one of the three branches of our government.
During your tenure as Dean of the Harvard Law School, you surely became familiar with the Goodridge decision rendered by the Supreme Judicial Court here in Massachusetts. The issues involved relative to the millennia-old definition of marriage have vast Constitutional implications for each of the states, and these issues will make their way through the court system to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Just as one vote decided the 4 to 3 ruling in Goodridge, a single member of the highest court in the United States could very well rule on the sexual orientation issues raised by Goodridge, as well as other rulings growing out of it.. Only the time involved in the journey to the Court Of Last Resort is an unknown
No citizen of this nation should be unaware of both the good and the bad which have resulted from decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States. As American citizens, we must have transparency and a complete openness in the selection of the limited number of people who hold this enormous decision-making power.
You have called the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" restriction "a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order." The many cases coming down the judicial road are illuminated by these words.
It certainly begs this question:
Elena Kagan, What is your sexual orientation?
In light of the Defense Of Marriage Act, Goodridge, and a host of related issues, it is imperative that we have complete knowledge of what you would be bringing to the bench relative to these cases.
May I have the courtesy of a reply.
May 24, 2010
Ms Elena Kagan
Office of the Solicitor General
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D. C. 20530-0001
Dear Ms Kagan:
As a citizen of this nation, I am seeking an answer relative to your nomination to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Unlike the typical appointment or election to government positions, this one to the highest court in our country is for a lifetime. No other constitutional office holder, to my knowledge, is offered life tenure.
With the extended life expectancies of all of us, many decades could pass while you hold this seat — with tremendous power over our lives. We will have none over yours.
As you well know, the Judicial branch had less words devoted in the U. S. Constitution to its powers than those of the Legislative and Executive divisions of our government. Personally, I believe these appointments should be for a limited number of years as society has changed so rapidly, even in my own lifetime. Many of the major changes have resulted from decisions by the United States Supreme Court since its ratification by the 13 original states in 1788. Recent decades have seen a proliferation of decisions with widespread societal ramifications.
While you were Dean of the Harvard Law School, military recruitment officials were barred from using the school's offices to interview those seeking answers about military service. Your action, as stated, was based on the military policy of, "Don't ask, Don't Tell," which was instituted by the Executive Branch. It applied to those having other than heterosexual orientation and who were serving in the military. Your contention was that one's sexual orientation should be open. You have spoken some strong words in your opposition, stating the policy was "wrong" and "unjust."
Having served in the Armed Forces of the U.S. during wartime, I followed the
debate on the issue. The reasons behind your position in opposition to the rule are clear, and they also have relevance as you aspire to this position as 1/9th of one of the three branches of our government.
During your tenure as Dean of the Harvard Law School, you surely became familiar with the Goodridge decision rendered by the Supreme Judicial Court here in Massachusetts. The issues involved relative to the millennia-old definition of marriage have vast Constitutional implications for each of the states, and these issues will make their way through the court system to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Just as one vote decided the 4 to 3 ruling in Goodridge, a single member of the highest court in the United States could very well rule on the sexual orientation issues raised by Goodridge, as well as other rulings growing out of it.. Only the time involved in the journey to the Court Of Last Resort is an unknown
No citizen of this nation should be unaware of both the good and the bad which have resulted from decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States. As American citizens, we must have transparency and a complete openness in the selection of the limited number of people who hold this enormous decision-making power.
You have called the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" restriction "a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order." The many cases coming down the judicial road are illuminated by these words.
It certainly begs this question:
Elena Kagan, What is your sexual orientation?
In light of the Defense Of Marriage Act, Goodridge, and a host of related issues, it is imperative that we have complete knowledge of what you would be bringing to the bench relative to these cases.
May I have the courtesy of a reply.
-
Very truly yours,
R. T. Neary
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
