No matter how much Ertelt might want to wish it so, there is no way to interpret what Kagan wrote – assuming one takes it in context as opposed to selectively quoting as Ertelt did – as a statement purely against the “pro-life” movement. Yes, she did the same thing I just did, placing a part of her statement in quotes, implying nothing more than I have – hypocrisy. You can’t have it both ways. Either you are truly pro-life, or you’re sort of pro-life and open to attack for being a hypocrite. Kagan was pointing out the hypocrisy of being against abortion, but for bombs – remembering this was still during the Cold War, and we were competing with the Soviets to maintain nuclear superiority. Times change, situations differ slightly, but the end result is the same. You can’t be for saving the unborn, and capital punishment and gun rights. Sorry, but that reeks of hypocrisy. And that’s not even getting into the hypocrisy of the failure to consider the real consequences of forcing women to have babies they don’t want. But that typically falls on deaf ears anyway, since quality of life is a foreign concept to most from the “pro-life” camp. And please don’t insult yourselves by suggesting that everyone only have sex when they actually want to pro-create. It is too tempting to bring up Monty Python’s “Every Sperm is Sacred” skit then.

Kagan hasn’t just drawn fire from the religious right. She’s also annoyed the military. But one needs to tread lightly when approaching this situation (pun partially intended.) First of all, not everyone in the military – including high-ranking officers – are for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Secondly, Kagan’s decision to ban military recruiters from Harvard’s law school was driven by campus politics – something she freely admitted at the time, and still does (as far as I know.) In other words, her actions undoubtedly had more to do with serving her “constituency”, the students and staff of her institution, than any personal ideology. True, she came out publicly stating that the policy was counter to the precepts of freedom in general, and the argument could be made that she should have avoided saying that outright. But, we’re sitting on the precipice of seeing the demise of that policy anyway, with the support of, that’s right, the military. That said, we could just as easily turn back the clock to the Civil War, and say that she came out against slavery years earlier. Slavery was permitted by law, remember? Doesn’t make it right.

And that brings us to the RNC’s fears of legislating from the bench. This was born of Kagan’s assertion that the Constitution as originally drafted was defective. Now, the RNC can’t count on it’s own members on the Hill to carry on this argument, and for good reason. Beyond slavery, there was also the absence of a woman’s right to vote in the original document. The beauty of the Constitution is in the fact that it was originally drafted to be fluid. The men that drafted it weren’t so arrogant to think that their words would be law ad infinitum, and they left us with the ability to change it. As for arguments against legislating from the bench, historically, that has typically happened when the legislative branch has failed in one way or another to move with the times. It is an unforeseen result of the fluidity of the structure of the Constitution – if nothing else, it is a testament of its genius, not a statement against the Courts.

Finally, the most troublesome of the objections I have seen so far, Kagan helped to defend Saudis against 9/11 lawsuits. While this can easily be considered morally reprehensible, it is the direct result of long-standing agreements and treaties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. I sincerely doubt she relished that particular duty.

As a conservative, I’m not in love with Kagan as a candidate for SCOTUS. Then again, I wouldn’t be overly pleased with any candidate Obama would offer. But, I can say that the majority of the objections beyond her lack of judicial experience are hyperbole. Her lack of judicial experience is the direct result of the GOP, since she failed to garner the votes necessary for confirmation during the Clinton administration. Apparently even then she was considered a possibility for filling a vacancy on the highest court, so maybe the hope was then that if she wasn’t on a bench somewhere, she wouldn’t be considered later. If that was the case, we’ll find out soon enough if the tactic worked.

At first these results may seem surprising, but with just a little consideration, they are predictable. The under-30 group is regularly bombarded with news of celebrities and sports figures engaged in all manner of questionable and unethical behaviors. In spite of the various flaws they see daily, by and large, they remain faithful to whichever public figures they enjoy with few exceptions.

The focus on the person as opposed to the person’s actions is probably a direct result of the unending quest within the media (typically tabloids) to dig dirt. If one would decide to abandon a public figure purely because of a scandal or disagreement with something the individual said or did, one would be left with no one to pay attention to in the spotlight.

That is fine when considering Hollywood and the world of sports – it becomes troublesome when the same yard stick is applied in the world of politics. The fact that younger voters remain faithful to Obama may very well be a symptom of this, and unfortunately, it has the potential to do a disservice to the public at large. While it is a worthy pursuit to encourage young people to be engaged in political life and vote, the message that policy and actions should override charisma in the ballot box needs to be delivered. Perhaps organizations seeking to get young people to vote should also be teaching that the ballot box is not a popularity contest. Voters should cast votes based on what candidates and office holders do and what they stand for, not based on who they are.