Yes, the original Constitution was defective

President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court today.  The announcement was expected, with news leaking Friday that he had decided on Kagan.  The Republican response, up to the last few minutes, has been guarded, but not overly aggressive.  Then, the RNC released this announcement:

"Given Kagan’s opposition to allowing military recruiters access to her law school’s campus, her endorsement of the liberal agenda and her support for statements suggesting that the Constitution “as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective,’” you can expect Senate Republicans to respectfully raise serious and tough questions to ensure the American people can thoroughly and thoughtfully examine Kagan’s qualifications and legal philosophy before she is confirmed to a lifetime appointment.”

If Kagan does not believe the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, is defective, she is not qualified for the bench.  How could she, or any other person who has actually read the thing believe otherwise?  It institutionalized slavery, set black people's value as 3/5 of a white person, and denied anyone the vote aside from white males.

What's more, the Founders knew it was defective and would require amending from time to time, hence they built in the method to change it, fix it, whenever the nation had the need and the will to do so.  It's an evolving document, still not perfect, but seeking like the rest of the union to grow "more perfect".  Kagan understood this, as did Thurgood Marshall, whom she was quoting in the paper her comments were lifted from.

Naturally, given that this is Michael Steele's press release, the RNC has to follow up with a "what he meant to say" statement.  From the RNC blogs page:

In the same law review article, Kagan endorses the view that the Court’s primary role is to “show special solicitude” for people a judge has empathy for.  Liberals would much rather talk aboutwhose view she is endorsing rather than the substance of that view.  That they would prefer to do so is unsurprising, because her view of the Court’s primary mission is at odds with the majority of Americans.

See that?  "What Chairman Steele was actually concerned about is" and then the attempt to fall back to the "activist judges" and "empathy" complaint.  It's especially telling when the author of that post, Doug Heye, has to trot out "the American people" and what they want and do not want in a judge.  How does he know?  Did he ask?  Does he cite a poll?  Of course not.  He simply rides the GOP scooter of telling the American people what they want, what they are, and what they are asking for.

"Activist judge" is when the judge rules in a way the person using the phrase didn't like or want.  When a judge has a personal agenda carried out in the decision he or she hands down which that same person does like, no "activist judge" label is applied.  That person is ruling "according to the Constitution", however defective and in need of amending from time to time it might be.