Kagan Confirmation Hearing

Too long for a tweet, too short for a blog. What to do? I guess I'll just blog it real quick. Heck, most of y'all would probably love a quick read from me...

So, there's this Elena Kagan lady who is up for SCOTUS, and I'm having a little problem with something that came about in the hearing today. I thought I'd throw it out here for a couple, two-tree* of my readers to see if I'm crazy. So here (and several other spots) she says she will give proper deference to Congress and the laws it makes (I'm assuming in regard to her future decisions.)

To me, this may be the biggest problem (of many) facing my ability to feel comfortable with her on the bench. Deference has two definitions according to Webster: respect or esteem due a superior is the first. Affected regard for another's wishes is the second.

I believe the only deference should be given to the Constitution. The Congress is not superior to the Court. And the only wishes that should be regarded are those of the Constitution. If a law passed by Congress does not mesh with the supreme law of our land, then there is a problem. Oftentimes the wishes of the Congress (and perhaps even the people) do not line up with what is permitted in the Constitution. I'm not saying it's always black and white. In fact, it probably rarely is so. But I would rather she seek her decision with deference to the Constitution, not with deference to a bunch of lawmakers whose desires can change with the shifting political landscape.

Am I reading too much into this statement?

*couple, two-tree is my new Chicago phrase, basically means a couple: "Can I get a couple, two-tree Cokes?"