While Kagan did say that some parts of the Constitution are absolute, such as the requirement that a person must be 30 years old to run for the Senate, She also said that there were also parts of the Constitution that were open to “interpretation”.
So, what does that mean? Which provisions of the Constitution are ” interpretable”? Which amendments to the Constitution does Elena Kagan think are open to interpretation. Would it be the first?, or the second?…How about the fourth or fifth amendments?
Why do the Democrats always push progressive judicial appointments? Is there something tremendously wrong with the Liberal mind?
Cross posted from Thatmrgguy’s blog