President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court Elena Kagan “loved what happened in the Bork hearings.”
“The Bork hearings were great…the Bork hearings were the best thing that ever happened to constitutional democracy.” (HT to BreitbartTV and Big Government)
Even our lefty buddies at the Daily Kos want Kagan held to her own standard.
Elena Kagan’s 1995 article critiquing the SCOTUS nomination process, rather unfavorably, has rightly become a critical area of focus on her nomination. Given the lack of judicial history she brings to the nomination–no paper trail of arguments, decision, concurrences or dissents–the Senate Judiciary committee should take her 1995 advice and embrace “the essential rightness — the legitimacy and the desirability — of exploring a Supreme Court nominee’s set of constitutional views and commitments.”
Great point. It seems there is a right-left coalition building to force nominees to answer direct questions at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Monday, June 28th.
As referenced in the Daily Kos post, Elena Kagan herself wrote a 1995 review of Stephen L. Carter’s book, “The Confirmation Mess.” In that article, Kagan argued that the consideration of a nominee to the Supreme Court should be a “meaningful discussion of legal issues.” Will Kagan abide by her own standard as spelled out by Kagan below?
When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in a meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.
Kagan wrote in her book review that she disagreed with Carter that the process “focused too much on a nominee’s legal views” and she praised the tough standard used during the Bork hearings.
The recent hearings on Supreme Court nominees, though, suggest another question: might we now have a distinct and more troubling confirmation mess? If recent hearings lacked acrimony, they also lacked seriousness and substance. The problem was the opposite of what Carter describes: not that the Senate focused too much on a nominee’s legal views, but that it did so far too little. Otherwise put, the current “confirmation mess” derives not from the role the Senate assumed in evaluating Judge Bork, but from the Senate’s subsequent abandonment of that role and function.
Kagan urged the Senate to not abandon the role the process played during the consideration of Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. Kagan lamented that hearings in the wake of the Bork hearings were becoming “official lovefests.”
But to observers of more recent nominations to the Supreme Court, Carter’s description must seem antiquated. President Clinton’s nominees, then-Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, confronted no unfair or nasty opposition; to the contrary, their confirmation hearings became official lovefests. More important, both nominees felt free to decline to disclose their views on controversial issues and cases. They stonewalled the Judiciary Committee to great effect, as senators greeted their “nonanswer” answers with equanimity and resigned good humor.
Kagan denounced the idea that nominees were allowed to “decline to disclose their views on controversial issues and cases.” Will Kagan “disclose” her “views on controversial issues and cases?” If so, will Senators greet her evasive responses to questions ”with equanimity and resigned good humor?” The American people have a right to participate in this process and nominee Elena Kagan should be held to the Elena Kagan standard of 1995.
For a debate preview check out my Red State post of May 10th.
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
KnightsofMalta
Dan Spencer
Dan McLaughlin
Oh boy...
neoavatara (Diary) Tuesday, June 22nd at 11:15PM EST (link)Well, if she liked the Bork hearings, wait until she gets a load of what is waiting for her…
www.neoavatara.com/blog
Hope and Change
edintexas Wednesday, June 23rd at 9:46AM EST (link)I could “hope” that you are correct in believing Kagan will be confronted with much pointed, and to the point, questioning. But I don’t see any great “change” in the Republicans on (and off) the Judiciary Committee. I think that once again they will use the “a President deserves his nominee” defense of their failure to “vet” a SCOTUS nominee, perhaps even once more actually believing that if they do this often enough the Democrats will finally exhibit civilized behavior during Republican nominee confirmations (maybe even allowing nominees to come to the floor for a vote more often than filibustering the nominees).
Karmic justice requires her nomination hearing get Borked (n/t)
Finrod (Diary) Tuesday, June 22nd at 11:25PM EST (link).
Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?
I am all about karma
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Tuesday, June 22nd at 11:56PM EST (link)And this could not be a better opportunity for the forces of the cosmos to show some balancing out – kind of like a few really good lightning bolts to kind of even out all the ions.
I had serious doubts before, but I am starting to believe that the Lindsey Graham “please rub my belly” method of vetting nominees is not going to be the deal here.
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
Why, let's honor her and reprise them, then...
MacAoidh (Diary) Wednesday, June 23rd at 12:24AM EST (link)…I’d like to know all the sordid details about her lesbian lifestyle and her fantasies about Ronald Reagan’s heart attacks, etc.
Sauce for the goose, and what-not.
Check out MacAoidh’s commentary on Louisiana and national politics at TheHayride.com
Stop this Madman!!!!
56rebels (Diary) Wednesday, June 23rd at 4:56AM EST (link)I don’t know technically it’s possible or even legal to delay this woman’s appointment. But the Republican members HAVE to do everything in their power to keep this woman off the bench. For one reason alone and that is because Obama picked her and she has no track record. This guy has done so much damage so far. We have to stop the madman. I don’t know if they can filibuster or just not approve her but she will be around long after Obama is voted out next election. Just stall. Pull the fire alarm, Call in sick. Anything to just hold the fort til the Presidential election and get him the hell out of the White House. Also she has done what to become a Supreme Court justice? Has she ever even argued a case? No track record. No accomplishments. Just hanging with the right people. Sounds very familiar.
Possible and Legal
edintexas Wednesday, June 23rd at 9:54AM EST (link)I don’t know if the Judiciary Committee “rule” regarding bipartisan votes to move a nominee to the full Senate is still in effect. The rule (at least used to) require that at least one Senator on the Committee from the minority had to vote for moving the nomination out of committee.
Once the nomination was sent to the full Senate, the nomination could be (and with Republican nominees for Appeals and District Courts often was) subject to filibuster, preventing the nomination from coming to the floor for a vote (remember the “gang of 14″ put together by McCain and Graham to avoid a showdown on the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees, caused by the significant number of Bush 43 nominees subjected to Democrat filibuster?).
How she approaches it will say a lot about her character
jackhammer Wednesday, June 23rd at 6:07AM EST (link)Will she hold herself to her own standard. Will she take the hari-kari challenge and get into the intellectual discourse that she admired, but would surely mean the end of the road. I personally would have a lot of respect for her if she went in there with her liberal political guns blazing and proved that she is as intellectually interested as so many claim. We’ll see whether she likes slow or fast pitch softball….
so she has no integrity
jackhammer Wednesday, June 30th at 5:05AM EST (link)I was willing to give her the benfit of the doubt, but apparently she can admire from afar the intellectual honesty of a Robert Bork, but she sells her soul for a lifetime appointment.
Excellent. All Republicans should land on her with both feet and holding bricks.
Martin Knight (Diary) Wednesday, June 23rd at 6:48AM EST (link)Bipartisans tend to place a lot of stock in not being “hypocritical” – unfortunately usually exclusively to the disadvantage of Republicans. In this case (of judicial confirmations), the common so-called “moderate” demand is that Republicans should be all sweetness and light to Democratic nominees and allow them up/down votes while Democrats are free to rain fire and brimstone on Republican nominees and deny them up/down votes at the end of it all.
Well, as an open proponent of judicial nominees being raked over the coals, their private lives put under the microscope of public scrutiny and campaigns of personal destruction conducted from on high against them, it would be “hypocritical” of Kagan to expect that she not be subjected to similar treatment, is it not.
This
gunslingr45 Wednesday, June 23rd at 7:08AM EST (link)“Person” has already said she is in favor of the government being able to stifle free speech if it suits them. WHY is she even being considered for a lifetime job that can undermine what out forefathers set in STONE?
Stare decicis, stare decisis, STARE DECISIS!!!
gamechange11two Wednesday, June 23rd at 7:23AM EST (link)Oh wait. Wrong nominee. Never mind.
Heh heh heh [nt]
Martin Knight (Diary) Wednesday, June 23rd at 7:25AM EST (link)Be careful what you wish for...
NotSoBlueStater (Diary) Wednesday, June 23rd at 9:07AM EST (link)If she gets wiped out here, the lesson to the White House may be “Stealth nominees don’t work.” Obama may decide in response to nominate somebody “better,” which in his world will be a hardened, establish far-left ideologue who believes in the courts role in furthering social justice.
-
The Conservative creed has never offered a life of ease without effort. Democracy is not for such people. Self-government is for those men and women who have learned to govern themselves. – Margaret Thatcher
I want the Senate to do their job with every nomination.
jcincy Wednesday, June 23rd at 9:30AM EST (link)NotSoBlueStater,
There is no doubt. Ms. Kagan is a radical, far-left ideologue.
I don’t care if the POTUS has to nominate 20 people for this position to get it filled. I want the Senate to do it’s job and get a complete understanding of the person they will be confirming or not confirming for a LIFETIME appointment on the most powerful court in this land.
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” — John Jay
Advise and Consent
jcincy Wednesday, June 23rd at 9:18AM EST (link)Makes you weep for the “Republican” Senators that threw in the towel before the hearings even began.
Let the in depth, probing questions begin.
Bring up specific Supreme Court cases and ask her to give her position. No hypothetical cases.
“Ms. Kagan, on January 21st, in the case CITIZENS UNITED v . FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION…” What is your position and why?
Do not allow alleged ignorance to be a cover.
Be calm, be respectful, but be tenacious and relentless.
By the time these hearings are over, any American who follows these hearings should know exactly where this woman stands on every major issue.
The Constitutional obligation of the Senate is to advise and consent. How can anyone advise and consent from a position of ignorance?
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” — John Jay
I think Bork will love the Kagan hearings
izoneguy (Diary) Wednesday, June 23rd at 7:47PM EST (link)The Republicans need to destroy this woman so she can never return to government.
The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.