Objection: Fox forwards absurd "cause for concern" over Kagan

Blog ››› ››› OLIVER WILLIS

This just in, Fox's Major Garrett is back with the newest "cause for concern" about Elena Kagan from the right:

Did you get that? There's the possibility that Kagan argued the Citizen's United case with a position on the issue already in mind! Now, look, I am not a lawyer, but I have extensive experience in watching actors play lawyers on such programs as Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU and Law & Order: Criminal Intent. I have been known to watch Nancy Grace on very rare occasions, as well as reruns of Perry Mason and Night Court. And as far as I know, lawyers don't often go into court like judges, open to being swayed in one direction or another.

In fact, lawyers are almost always advocates for one position or another (I'm assuming that's why the words are synonyms). This is why the "versus" in court cases isn't in reference to a sports network that shows hockey games, but rather to the adversarial nature of the legal system where each side -- let's call them lawyers -- represents an argument. You could say that lawyers often "prejudge" (to use Garrett's words) in favor of their clients.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Kagan was representing the FEC, and as such was an advocate of the government's position. You know, like every Solicitor General before her in the entire history of the country?

That anyone is arguing that this is a "cause for concern" is the real cause for concern.

We've changed our commenting system to Disqus.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.