Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan believes we can place absolute trust in government bureaucrats to protect our lives and our rights. She argued to the Supreme Court that it would be perfectly fine if Congress passed a law banning books, since the government has never yet enforced such a law. I suppose she would also not oppose a law allowing the government to murder anyone it pleases, since the government has never yet attempted to make use of that sort of law, either.
Yes, I know that as Solicitor General, Ms Kagan had the responsibility of arguing her superiors' position in the case being appealed. Even so, supporting that position with this kind of argument marks her as either stupid or opposed to American principles. And whatever else she may be, I don't think she is stupid. And I'm not the only one to think so:
An attorney who would advise her client to be stupid and trust something not to happen, because it has never happened before is not an advocate, or an advisor; she is either incompetent or working for the other side.Part of what's disturbing about this is Ms Kagan's position that what's in the law doesn't matter that the government can ignore whatever laws it likes. (What about citizens? Do they have the same right?) But, then, I shouldn't be surprised: The man who nominater Ms Kagan, and his minions, believe they can ignore lots of laws including the voter intimidation and border security laws.
It would be nice if we could get an Administration that actually believed in the rule of law, and in a government of laws rather than men. But those are American principles, so that may be too much to ask.