What are we to think of Obama’s appointment of Elena Kagan? Who is she? Where does she stand on issues? These are the questions that a lot of people are raising. It’s generally agreed that she is liberal judge, but it’s unclear where she stands on a number of controversial issues. What we do know is that Kagan has an impeccable reputation. She is a consummate legal teacher and brilliant scholar. A real Ivy Leaguer. What’s not to like?
Does She Stand for Anything?
David Brooks of the NY Times expresses an interesting concern. He notes that she’s too even-handed, not risky or opinionated enough. Bland? But is risky an attribute we want in a judge? Perhaps, if risky means applying intellectual comprehension to heart conviction. Standing for something. Brooks concludes his piece by saying:
There’s about to be a backlash against the Ivy League lock on the court. I have to confess my first impression of Kagan is a lot like my first impression of many Organization Kids. She seems to be smart, impressive and honest — and in her willingness to suppress so much of her mind for the sake of her career, kind of disturbing.
Do you Stand for Anything?
Strangely, this critique shares much in common with the bland versions of Christianity in our nation. Intellectual but not opinionated, religious but not risky, standing for nothing. You can be moral, honest, and church-going and suppress the very core of the Christian doctrine—risk-taking love that is so enamored with Christ that you can’t help but live a life of radical sacrifice and generosity. If you’re a Christian, perhaps you should be less concerned about Kagan’s liberal orientation and more concerned about what people would say if you caught the limelight.