Does Elena Kagan belong on the U.S. Supreme Court? In a word, no.

Not only has she been less than forthcoming in her testimony during her confirmation hearings in front of the Senate's Judiciary Committee, what is known of her record clearly indicates she is far more liberal than most Americans, and certainly more liberal than most Georgians.

In recognition of that, U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) announced late last week that he would vote against her confirmation.

"I believe a qualified judge is one who understands the value and the strength and the power of the Constitution of the United States of America, who will rule based on the law and who will not legislate through activist judicial decisions. I do not believe Ms. Kagan's record has met this standard," said Isakson.

It is no surprise that President Obama - arguably the most liberal occupant ever of the White House - would nominate a fellow liberal to the court. But even by the duck-and-dodge standards for confirmation hearings of the post-Bork era, Ms. Kagan has proved elusive when it comes to publicly declaring her judicial philosophies.

What is clear, however, is that like many if not most liberals, she sees the Constitution as an "evolving" document, one that should be tailored and interpreted by judges to fit the needs of any given moment or political movement. What about the original intent of the Founding Fathers who wrote it? Not important, they say.

Such a philosophy plays right into the hands of liberal activists, who recognize that most of their agenda is too liberal to gain much traction in the proper setting - the legislative one. So unable to garner momentum to pass laws to achieve their purpose, they rely on sympathetic judges to "legislate from the bench."

Should Ms. Kagan be approved, be prepared to see more such legislation.

Isakson also attributes his intent to vote against Kagan to her decision to ban military recruiters from Harvard University while she was dean there during the Clinton administration years because of her supposed outrage over the armed forces' "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy. Now, when it is politically advantageous for her to do so, she claims to "support and revere" the military, even though she tried to treat its representatives as second-class citizens when they wanted to come onto her campus. And don't forget: It wasn't the lowly recruiters or even the generals who implemented the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, it was President Clinton and the Democrat-led Congress - against who she murmured not a word at the time. There's a profile in courage.

The last thing this country needs is another dependable vote for the court's liberal bloc. Recent weeks have seen that bloc, which now includes Obama's other court choice, Sonia Sotomayor, vote for strict gun control in the Chicago gun-rights case, vote to allow public universities to deny recognition to Christian groups that oppose homosexuality, and vote to allow U.S. "charity" groups to provide material support to foreign terrorists.

This is a court that's headed in the wrong direction, with the help of President Obama. We salute Isakson for having the courage to try and stop that downward skid by voting against Kagan; and we encourage Georgia's other senator, Saxby Chambliss, to join him in that vote.