Partisan Support

It was Madison who first warned America against factions; interest groups after their own agenda and not the good of the people. He argued that a large republic would limit the effectiveness of these factions, and he seemed to be right for a time. However, some recent news has brought this assertion to question.
Most people would contend that political parties are not factions; they try to serve the people. Yes, they have their own ideology, but it is one that the people believe or else they would not have it. Besides, if something was in the people’s best interest, the political parties would definitely go for it. So how does one explain the current Supreme Court nomination hearings for Elena Kagan?
Kagan is a sure fit to being a Supreme Court judge. She was dean of Harvard Law School as well as the Obama administration’s solicitor general. Even the hearings up to this point have only confirmed her worthiness to sit on the Supreme Court. Yet, she is still unlikely to get bipartisan support. I ask one question, why?
According to a New York Times editorial entitled “The Republicans and the Constitution”, this is because of her interpretation of one small clause: the commerce clause. This unknown author, speaking to any who will heed (though probably a greater majority being Democratic), states that at the hearings Kagan “refused to take the Republican bait and agree to suggest limits on that clause’s meaning”, resulting in high emotions on the Republican side and partisan voting. The author then logically lays out his reasoning for this rational, stating that the commerce clause has been interpreted broadly since the Great Depression and Roosevelt. It was the justification for laws such as the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Even the Civil Rights Act used the commerce clause to partly justify itself. Because of such a broad interpretation of this clause and the resulting legislation and regulation, the editorial continues, it has been a target for conservatives for decades. The new health care law only exacerbated these attacks from conservatives, as lawmakers had slipped a line in the law stating that it “substantially affects interstate commerce”. Hence the partisan voting for Kagan, she supports the broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and Republicans do not like this. The article ends by stating that the commerce clause is responsible for some of the best things done by government, and, hopefully, for some of the best things to come.
While, yes the author does remain nameless throughout the article, his arguments retain their credibility through the logic in the article. Kagan seems to have no deficiency as a Supreme Court judge, and yet there is not bipartisan support for her, therefore it would make sense that other factors are contributing. The Republicans dislike of that pesky commerce clause fits the “other factors” description like a glove. This disagreement based solely on the party’s personal preference obstructs the just decision to allow Kagan on the court. It would seem that a large republic does not completely guard against factions.