Imagine this scenario. Some liberal member of Congress sponsors legislation requiring Americans to eat certain types of food at certain times and on certain days. Congress, still completely run by liberal Democrats, passes the legislation and sends it to the president’s desk. The liberal president, always looking for more government power, signs the bill.

Such a measure is completely unconstitutional, right? I mean, the Founding Fathers clearly never intended for Washington to be able to dictate what you eat for dinner or when you eat it. The Commerce Clause was never intended to give the federal government such a staggering amount of control over the lives of the American people. So surely the legislation would be unconstitutional. Clean cut case, right?

Not if you’re Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. When pressed on the outcome of such a scenario by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), Kagan refused to agree that government lacks the power to regulate what you eat and when you eat it. She calls the hypothetical law “stupid”, of course, but she won’t say it’s unconstitutional. She dodges the question.

Let me translate: Kagan believes the federal government can so intrude in your life that government bureaucrats will be able to dictate what you can eat for dinner. And if such an absurd law comes before the court, Kagan will uphold its constitutionality. That’s what you can expect if Elena Kagan is confirmed for a lifetime appointment by the Senate.