Look, I am a hard core, dyed in the wool right wing conservative who happens to be registered as a Republican.
I am also a strict Constitutionalist...I mean strict.
I believe our framers were inspired to invent a country like no other country that had ever been in the history of the universe.
Their forsight and understanding of human nature and the nature of government was phenominal beyond words and beyond most peoples' imaginations.
It is with that perspective that I now address the issue of the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Suprene Court of the United States.
My title asks the question, "Is she qualified?"
Well...what does the Constitution have to say about the qualifications of a Supreme Court member? You can read it below, or HERE.
Article. III Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State [Note: this section has been superseded or amended.];--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Notice that there is nothing in there about qualifications.
That is why, "Is she qualified?" is an irrelevant question.
The question should be: "Is she appropriate to serve a court whose job it is to uphold and defend the concepts that surround that which constitutes The United States of America.
The answer to that question is yet to be.
From what I have read of her works (which is not much...I haven't had the time, yet), she holds to the view that the Supreme Court should adjust the meaning of the Constitution according to the needs of the times.
If that is the case, then the answer to the afore posed question is an emphatic "NO!"
But I doubt that she's worried about that. Neither are politicians in general and liberals in particular.