Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79. Stephen Breyer is 72. Antonin Scalia is 76. Anthony Kennedy is 74.

[Chan790]

26. No, but nobody seems to have any problem with Kagan being an ideologue.

The same as Scalia, Alito and Thomas. If it's wrong to choose ideologues who prioritize political positions and ideology over the law for the GOP...then it's wrong for us. Do I like Kagan's political beliefs? For the most part; she's a bit more moderate to slightly-conservative on some issues than I am. She's every bit as calculating and polemical, a knife-fighter. I like that about her.

Do I have a problem with her being on SCOTUS?

Yes. A Justice's decisions should be consistent within the law, not with their party platform. Shorty votes her ideology. Same as Thomas and Scalia, no matter how twisty the logic of a decision needs to get to fit it within ideology. Ideologues don't belong on SCOTUS. Unfortunately, the great legal minds of our era have no chance to be appointed because they're wild-cards who might not vote the party-line or because they're likely to rock the boat.

I remember when Kagan was nominated and I was questioning why the likes of Larry Lessig or Nadine Strossen are never brought up; vastly-superior legal and constitutional scholars who have made careers of arguing some of the most-important cases to ever go before SCOTUS, truly deep contemplative scholarly thinkers. Thinkers who might not fit into the traditional L/R paradigm and are more likely to break with party-ideology in favor of consistent legal theory and interpretation. You can't tell me that either Kagan or Sotomayor is more qualified than either of them. (I know Lessig advocated for Kagan...but Lessig is more qualified for the job. Substantially so.)

The last great-mind we had appointed to the Supreme Court was Thurgood Marshall. None of today's justices are in that same league. The next appointees need be.