In all the spin surrounding the Elena Kagans appearance before the Senate Judicial Committee her most crucial admission went largely unnoticed. She disavowed any belief in a human right not specifiably expressed in preexisting, written, law. Our pundits of the press corps are oblivious to the significance of such a statement, so perhaps I should deliver the classics illustrated version. Elena Kagan adheres to that school of thought that holds that all law is merely a social construct created for the management of society, and is infinitely maliable for that purpose. In short, Elena Kagan could never have written...."That these truths are self evident "....or that we have "Inalienable rights." As she said, she has no belief in natural law.
The framers and founders did believe in such a doctrine, stating plainly that some basic rights emanate from either the Deity or from nature. So the question is, just how can she swear to defend and interpret a constitution the basic presumption of which she rejects?