I found it pretty distressing that supreme court nominee Elena Kagan indicated that she would not look to the Declaration of Independence for guidance in discerning such things as “natural rights” that are alluded to in the ninth and tenth amendments. She said that her “job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and other laws of the United States.”
OK, so the Constitution was legally voted on as the supreme law of the land; the Declaration was not and therefore she would not consider it. That is a position to take, not a good one IMHO but one that could be defended.
However, she said that she would cite foreign law to support decisions.
Really!! She would not consider one of the founding documents of the United States, but would consider court decisions in France or China or some place. Does that make any sense? What do I care about some court in Kathmandu? I find this to be philosophically dishonest and indefensible.
This is not really about Elena Kagan in particular as it is not relevant to her confirmation. She could have gotten down on all fours, snapped at flies and howled at the committee. Kaufman, Carper and the rest of the D’s would still vote her in. But it did come to mind as she was being questioned by Senators Coburn and Grassley. She is just an example of this rather bizarre thinking that rejects any evidence of what the people who wrote the Constitution actually intended and embrace completely implausible interpretations supported mostly by what they wish that it said.