Who’s on the court?

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.

On Monday the Senate Judiciary Committee began its hearings into the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. The hearing is the focus in Washington this week, but Americans haven’t shown much interest yet.

A poll done by C-SPAN shows that less than 20 percent of Americans know that Kagan, the U.S. solicitor general, is President Barack Obama’s nominee. As if that’s not bad enough, a poll by FindLaw.com says 65 percent of Americans cannot name a single Supreme Court justice.

The Supreme Court’s rulings have shaped America’s history, yet only a third of Americans can name a Supreme Court case, according to C-SPAN’s poll. Most of those people named either Roe v. Wade, the groundbreaking abortion case, or the hallmark school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education.

Members of the Senate will vote to approve or reject the nominee, and the confirmation hearings are critical. Justices hold lifetime appointments and a nominee — particularly a young nominee — could serve for several decades. Kagan is 50 and the previous four nominees were in their 50s. Unfortunately, instead of serving to really vet the nominee, the hearings have become overly partisan.

For many years, conservatives have complained about what they say are liberal “activist” judges, who they say try to legislate from the bench and take up issues never presented to their courts. Already, Republicans have complained about “political activism” with Kagan. That inflammatory charge is shameless — it is not based on fact but on a desire to turn opinion against Kagan. Republicans have actually encouraged judicial activism — by conservative judges — particularly on the Supreme Court.

For example, during his 2005 confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts equated a judge’s role to that of a baseball umpire and pledged to “call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.” Conservatives hailed him, arguing that he was anything but an “activist” judge. However, during his tenure, Roberts has become a picture of judicial activism. The court’s conservative majority has taken up issues not presented to it and tossed laws and legal precedents that don’t fit in its narrow ideology.

The court doesn’t need that kind of judicial activism. It needs intelligent justices who can understand the complex issues presented to them and render fair, logical decisions rooted in the Constitution. The court needs top-notch people, and Kagan shows all the qualities of being a good justice.

Senators will have a chance today to question Kagan about her philosophy and how she would approach a seat on the Supreme Court. We hope that people won’t be dissuaded by the Republicans’ disingenuous attacks. It’s too important.