Thurgood Marshall Jr. signed an op ed in today's Washington Post. It's pretty bad. The intent is good - to counter GOP criticism of Kagan becoming an "activist judge" because she worked for, and admires, Marshall. The problem is that the op ed itself is just a terribly weak piece of writing, especially coming from the son of a civil rights hero. It reads like someone in the Obama administration wrote it, frankly. Boring, safe, tame. Weakest graf?
A debate this week about judicial activism seems to have revealed only one thing: One person's activism is another's adherence to constitutional principle. And to my ear, a progressive jurist sounds far more desirable than a regressive one. But the Kagan hearing is not the proper forum to rehash my father's work.That sounds awfully close to the old "agree to disagree" line. It's a terribly weak defense of a revered jurist.
I understand that the White House simply wants Kagan to get through, so they don't want to "fuel" the debate over Thurgood Marshall, and thus I'm fairly certain they asked for something milquetoast. But come on, guys. There is no debate over Thurgood Marshall. Why not boldly defend the man and shut the Republicans down, once and for all? This isn't just about Kagan. It's about the ongoing GOP effort to redefine everything good in America as bad (Marshall), and everything bad as good (McCarthy). If we keep putting this battle off, the bad guys are going to win.
