Kagan Backed Broad Interpretation of 14th Amendment

WASHINGTON—As a Supreme Court law clerk in 1987, Elena Kagan read the 14th Amendment as permitting lawsuits against reckless state officials who ignore their duties—reflecting the liberal view that the constitutional guarantee of liberty should be read broadly.

That position was rejected by the court's conservative majority in a 1989 case, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, which narrowly defined what "liberty" the Constitution protects. The court's 6-3 ruling immunized state welfare officials who over the course of a year failed to act when repeatedly alerted to an alcoholic father's violent abuse of his four-year-old son. The continued beatings ultimately put the boy in a coma, destroyed half his brain and left him institutionalized for life, court records say.

Many liberals consider the ruling profoundly flawed, while conservatives praised it for denying recognition to what they call new rights.

The materials appear in the papers of Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom Ms. Kagan clerked in 1987-88. Law clerks often say they seek to reflect their boss's approach to the law, rather than promote their own. Ms. Kagan's current position on the legal question isn't clear.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703745904575248620872377444.html

I hope she views that with similar broadness.

Its the same logic that says you can not sue if the cops do not protect you. Its not a road we want to go down. Horrific regardless