YOU MEAN SHE FAVORS THE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED CIVIL LIBERTY OVER AN IMAGINARY ONE?:

Secularists wary of Kagan on Supreme Court (Maggie Hyde, 7/01/10, Religion News Service)

While Kagan, a Democrat, has faced the greatest scrutiny on her views on abortion and homosexuality, some atheist, agnostic and secularist groups aren't convinced she's the best choice for the court.

Part of the reason: she's poised to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the court's strongest voices for a strict separation of church and state.

"From the evidence so far, she has too often sided with religious privilege over civil liberties, civil rights," said Paul Fidalgo, spokesman for the Secular Coalition for America. "She favors free exercise over civil liberties." [...]

Critics point to statements Kagan made while working as an attorney in the Clinton White House about a California Supreme Court ruling that said a landlord could not refuse to rent to an unmarried couple because of the landlord's religious beliefs about premarital sex.

Kagan sided with the rights of the landlord, and called the decision "quite outrageous." [...]

In 2007, the Supreme Court rejected, 5-4, a challenge from Gaylor's group over the White House's faith-based initiatives office. Without deciding the merits of the complaint, the court rejected Gaylor's argument that she had legal standing to sue because she is a taxpayer.
Stevens dissented.

On Wednesday, in response to a question from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Kagan indicated that she agreed with the court's reasoning.

"The injury can't come just by virtue of being a taxpayer, but has to come from something else in addition," she said.

"Such as the individual being actually affected," Feinstein replied.

"Yes, exactly right," Kagan answered.

Memo to Mr. Fidalgo: if you're going to criticuze someone's view of the Constitution it's probably best not to cite their support for a specific provision of same.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 2, 2010 5:51 AM