In her legal career, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has rarely come across a pro-abortion law she didn’t immediately fall in love with. In both her professional and personal life, she has carried herself as an avowed, if not extreme, feminist, and her decisions on the bench have been reliably liberal. As an appointee of Barack Obama, she sits on the Supreme Court as one of the lasting stains of his abominable legacy; the day she expresses a constitutional viewpoint in open court will be the day we take a bite out of our own hat.
Well, get the ketchup ready, because apparently that day has come. Either Kagan is getting wiser in her old age or California has gone too far into the Twilight Zone even for an avowed liberal like her to follow. In oral arguments this week surrounding a state law that compels pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the option of abortion to their clients, Kagan made remarks that we would sooner expect from Clarence Thomas (well…if he ever spoke in court.)
Kagan accused California of devising the law to specifically target the free speech rights of pro-life activists. “If it has been gerrymandered, that’s a serious issue,” she said.
According to the Associated Press, she was not the only justice who appeared deeply skeptical about the law’s validity.
“Even some of the liberal justices voiced concern over parts of the law during an hour-long argument in an appeal by a group of non-profit facilities called crisis pregnancy centers of a lower court ruling upholding the Democratic-backed 2015 law,” wrote the AP. “The centers seemed to have a strong supporter in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is normally the deciding vote when the court considers ideologically divisive issues. He asked only questions that were hostile to the law, and at one point said he thought at least one of the law’s requirements was a clear ‘undue burden’ on the clinics.”
When it comes to an understanding of the Constitution, the extreme left has always favored an interpretation based more strongly on whatever their agenda happens to be at that moment than what is actually written on paper. They turn their nose up at the contemporaneous writings of the Founders while falling head over heels for the latest essay in Pride Magazine. But thankfully (even on the left side of the bench) we still have a Supreme Court that is not quite so taken with the fruitcake legal nonsense that passes for lawmaking in Sacramento.
Will that hold true when it comes time to decide the big “sanctuary” case? God, we hope.