Obama is set to appoint yet another judicial activist to the US Supreme Court.
Kagan, whose only qualification appears to be that she is a radical who went to Harvard with Obama, counts Aharon Bharak as her judicial hero.
Bharak is widely viewed as having raised the Israeli Supreme Court above the government.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=153381
Kagan has little experience beyond academia and no judicial experience whatsoever.
What does the future hold for democracy as the benches become increasingly weighted with those who would seek to enforce their own views upon government and society instead of simply applying the laws that they are sworn to uphold?
What say will the people have in determining their own collective future?
Or is Kagan's appointment beneficial simply on the basis that it adds gender diversity to the Court?

The separation of powers is a convention we adopted from the United States of America as part of our constitutional arrangements.

Under our Federal Constitution the people of Australia are the sovereign power, it (the Constitution) sets out the legal rules and functions of the three arms of government. They are;
The Parliament (Senate and the House of Representatives). The Executive (The Prime Minister and the various Ministers and their Departments) and the Judicature.
Under our system all three arms of Government exist separately yet none may have unbridled power unto itself, this is known as the doctrine of the separation of powers.

The system works in this way. Parliament makes the law, the Executive carries it out and the Judiciary, (in this case the High Court), determines the law is legal and constitutional. The high court is charged with the responsibility of determining whether a Government is acting legally and within the constitution.

Why do you assume this appointment is a gender based one?

Why do you assume that someone with a different political leaning than yourself is less able to adhere to the principles of the Law?

Why do you assume that only Conservative judges are not influenced by their own beliefs in applying the Law?

Why do you assume that Conservatives are not pushing a particular view?

Lots of assumptions not much substance Proxy.

<<Why do you assume this appointment is a gender based one?>>
Obama's short list:
White females -
Diane Pamela Wood
Elena Kagan
Janet Napolitano
Jennifer Granholm
Black female -
Leah Ward Sears
Hispanic males -
Carlos Moreno
Ruben Castillo
White males -
Merrick B. Garland
Sidney Thomas (moved onto list when Sotomayor [Hispanic female] appointed to Supreme Court)

It is perfectly clear from the above that Obama's list is based on gender and race-based affirmative action and not solely on merit.

<<Why do you assume that someone with a different political leaning than yourself is less able to adhere to the principles of the Law?>>
I never said that.

<<Why do you assume that only Conservative judges are not influenced by their own beliefs in applying the Law?>>
I never said that.

<<Why do you assume that Conservatives are not pushing a particular view?>>
I never said that.

When Obama's last appointee is on the record as stating that the Court is where policy is made, it seems reasonable to call her a judicial activist.

When Obama's latest nominee is on the record as saying that her judicial hero is a Aharon Bharak, who is widely considered to be at the forefront of judicial activism, it seems reasonable to call her a judicial activist.

Are you suggesting that the fact that they are both left-wingers and judicial activists is more than a coincidence?

Dear Proxy,

A few corrections:

You stated in your opening post:

"Kagan's only qualification appears to be
that she is a radical who went to Harvard
with Obama?"

Really?

Elena Kagan actually went to Princeton.
However she was DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL!
You may not realize it - but that's no
small feat! Harvard Law School is the
leading Institution in the field of Law
in the country, if not the world. For a
person to achieve the position of Dean
of that law school means that their knowledge,
and credentials are impeccable.

She's also currently the Solicitor General of
the United States. Now to fill that position she
had to answer a 51 page questionnaire from the
Senate Judiciary Committee, a process she will
have to go through again if she is confirmed
as the next Supreme Court Justice. The nominating
process for the Supreme Court is intense. The
nominee is placed uder a microscope and thoroughly
scrutinized.

You also claim that Kagan will enforce her own
views on government. Really? That's not even
possible - she'll only be one of a panel of
nine.

Also, not many experts in the field will agree with you.

Christopher Larimer, a political science professor
at the University of Northern Iowa who has studied
closely the effect of gender on decision making in
groups says:

"Greater gender diversity in any group will likely
result in decisions that are MORE democratic...

Women encourage more co-operation in groups and strive
to find resolutions that make everyone happy. Women
tend to take all members' opinions into consideration
in order to seek a universal consensus while men
tend to foster competition and focus on the majority
vote."

And finally, as President Obama said:

"I have selected a nominee who I believe embodies...
excellence, independence, integrity, and passion
for the law, and who can ultimately provide the
same kind of leadership on the court."

I think your fears are well and truly unfounded.

Obama's actions clearly demonstrate why we don't need a bill of wrongs. Could you imagine the judges running this country having that much power. No doubt the engineers would love to have political appointees like Christine Nixon as a judge. What more needs to be said.