A chance for scrutiny

It should come as no surprise that the latest nominee to fill an upcoming vacancy on the United States Supreme Court will have a liberal bent. After all, Elena Kagan has been nominated by President Obama.

But with rare exception, no one is immediately denouncing the nomination, as the polarized politics of today would cause us to expect.

Kagan is known as a consensus builder, which could be useful on a court that has been sharply divided in recent years. Despite her liberal leanings, as dean of the Harvard Law School, she actively recruited conservative instructors to balance the school's offering to students. She's known for giving serious consideration to opposing views, and that's a plus in her favor for confirmation.

She hasn't served as a judge, but the current court is sort of an exception in that regard. Historically, the court often has had people, sometimes simply politicians with limited (and on rare occasions no) legal experience.

Kagan's confirmation process should be spirited. That's how in should be. In fact, Kagan, herself, has been critical at how vanilla confirmation processes normally are, writing in the past that nominees should be subjected to a much harsher scrutiny than has been usual. So, we hope the senate takes her up on that challenge. If she fails, then so be it. If she succeeds, we may have a good one for many years.

And people should remember, the Supreme Court rules only on the Constitution, a fact many senators and presidents forget when a nominee rules against a position they covet.

There's something about the Constitution that creates a leveling effect on the Supreme Court. It's one of its strengths.

-- Kelly Everitt