The problem lies in that the leftists do not grasp the depths of the accomplishments of the Founders, nor do they understand the basis of the motivation for their actions.
The Founders of this great nation took into consideration not only their experiences of living under a tyrannical king, but also human nature itself with all it's flaws, as some are prone to influence and power, and may not always act on their conscience and moral grounds. The end result created a government with checks and balances, to preserve freedom and curtail the flaws of man from gaining control.
The leftists think that by government control of man in a tyrannical regime, that they can control the flaws of human nature. Yet, it is the very control itself that is the flaw. When people are free, they will correct the injustices and maintain a balance in the nation.
When considering justice, the Framers had a deep understanding of the injustices in tyranny, and the people's inability to correct it. It is easy to understand, when reading their quotes, and pondering the points that they make.
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not ... would make the judiciary a despotic branch. ... The germ of dissolution of our federal government is ... the federal Judiciary ... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. ... They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone." --Thomas Jefferson
"Judges ... should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men." --John Adams
When we think of Obama's nomination of Kagan for the Supreme Court, this is exactly what the Framers intended to prevent in the founding of this nation.
There are so many articles on Kagan, but I am providing some interesting tidbits from a few sources.
"It's noteworthy that after Kagan's ill-fated Clinton court nomination, Chicago Law wouldn't let her come back to its faculty, gleaning that she'd just be waiting for her next plum political job.
Even the New York Times, which would undoubtedly be happy with a Justice Kagan, is grousing that "whether by ambitious design or by habit of mind, Ms. Kagan has spent decades carefully husbanding her thoughts and shielding her philosophy from view."
Put it all together and this looks like an ambitious radical stealthily, and for many years, grooming herself for the pinnacle of judicial power. But is this nonjudge, with precious little trial experience even as a lawyer, even qualified?"
"President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is irresponsible," said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. "Ms. Kagan is a liberal activist and political operative with no experience as a judge. A Supreme Court nominee ought to have significant practical experience as a lawyer or a judge—especially a nominee for the nation’s highest court.".
Despite heavy condemnation from the right, most political pundits agree that it would be too difficult and costly for Republican senators to filibuster the nomination, as seven of them voted to confirm Kagan as solicitor general last year
Some in Congress are questioning Kagan’s lack of a published record that would offer insights into her judicial philosophy, but questions about her views are sure to come during the upcoming Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings.
Fifty-six percent of voters believe it is fair for a U.S. senator to oppose an otherwise qualified court nominee because of disagreements over ideology or judicial philosophy.
Voters have consistently and overwhelmingly said in national surveys that justices should make their decisions based on what’s written in the U.S. Constitution and on legal precedents rather than on a sense of fairness and justice. But voters also tend to think Obama believes the court should rule on the basis of fairness and justice.
I also read some commentary on her thesis, in which she discusses socialism as beneficial and bashes capitalism.
"A coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness."
Huh? Socialism's greatness???
If that doesn't shock you, she also has made commentary about limiting free speech, and resides in the school of the Constitution being defective and flawed, and believes in judicial activism. No wonder why she is Obama's friend. "Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by the courts and understood by the nation's citizenry and its elected representatives."
In summary, she is not objective, has NO experience, and will not make judgements based upon the law itself, but rather legislate from the bench. Frankly, I don't understand how a person can be nominated to be a judge in the highest court in the land, without ever have worked as a judge, ever. Why don't we just pick someone out of the phone book?
The nonobjective activist judge with an agenda is not qualified to reside on the bench to maintain the scales of justice. Instead, if we look at the true character of such a nominee, the scales of justice will be tipped, as they pledge their allegiance to the equal injustice for all.