On Kagan: Answers Are A Must

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Tue May 11, 2010 at 12:30:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

NYTimes editorial on why the Kagan Standard must be applied to Elena Kagan:

President Obama may know that his new nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, shares his thinking on the multitude of issues that face the court and the nation, but the public knows nothing of the kind.

[. . . A] search for her own views on dozens of other matters yields little. Though she has said that she respects precedents on abortion, she has said virtually nothing on racial preferences, gun rights or private property rights. [. . .] There is no record to suggest an answer.

[I]n one of Ms. Kagan’s few forcefully stated positions, she wrote in 1995 that she detests “polite and restrained” confirmation hearings, calling them a “vapid and hollow charade” and urging senators to fully explore a court nominee’s substantive views. We hope the Senate follows her advice and gets Ms. Kagan to open up a little.

The Senate must demand that Kagan open up a lot.

Speaking for me only

< Kagan's Public Record Does Not Demonstrate She Will Be To The Right Of Stevens | Boycott AZ! Byron York Is Whining So You Know It Is Working >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

On Kagan: Answers Are A Must | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Distortion (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by squeaky on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:16:34 PM EST

She has said she is not in favor (not in exact wording) of either late term abortion or gay marriage.

She never expressed her personal view on either subject. You are spreading disinformation.

Be careful what you wish for (none / 0) (#1)
by Saul on Tue May 11, 2010 at 12:36:11 PM EST

She will be hammered like no other and there is nothing she can do about it. She just might regret the words:

"polite and restrained" confirmation hearings, calling them a "vapid and hollow charade" and urging senators to fully explore a court nominee's substantive views.

Not going to happen (none / 0) (#2)
by david mizner on Tue May 11, 2010 at 12:38:45 PM EST

unless a Dem (Feingold) threatens to vote against her unless she answers questions.

The Republicans will have a field day (none / 0) (#3)
by Saul on Tue May 11, 2010 at 12:50:31 PM EST

with her. Moreover I doubt if all the Democrats senators are in her court.


: Sure they are (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by jbindc on Tue May 11, 2010 at 12:59:15 PM EST

A SC nomination loss is a body blow to the administration and it's an election year. Guess who controls the DNC purse strings? No Dem is going to embarrass the administration, and besides, she's already been confirmed once. The Dems won't now turnaround and vote no.

Ha. Hardly Feingold -- (none / 0) (#9)
by Cream City on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:19:38 PM EST

who said a President, in that case Dubya, gets to have his nominees pushed through.


No, he didn't (none / 0) (#12)
by david mizner on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:42:17 PM EST

Feingold voted against Alito.

You're thinking of when Feingold voted for Aschcroft on the (perhaps misguided) hope that someday a strong liberal might be AG. But he said political appointees like AG are different from Court nominees.

Plus Feingold has some rather strong feeling about indefinite detention. Look for him to be tough.


: Wrong, but clever to omit (none / 0) (#13)
by Cream City on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:55:16 PM EST

Feingold's vote on not only a Supreme Court nominee, but indeed, the Chief Justice. And the reasons Feingold gave for voting with the GOP.
And with the re-election campaign he is facing here . . . we'll see which Russ we see.

How loyal is Sentor Bennet from Utah to GOP (none / 0) (#4)
by Saul on Tue May 11, 2010 at 12:55:49 PM EST

Some what OT but I say this since he was eliminated from running again as a Republican in November. He is probably on the way out after this. Will he in anger to his republican buddies say "Ok I know how to pay you back I will secure a full proof filibuster majority on Kagan by voting with the Democrats not to filibuster the Kagan process."

Just my 2 cents

Be prepared to set that off with Specter (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by andgarden on Tue May 11, 2010 at 12:57:01 PM EST

who looks set to lose his primary on Tuesday.


I can hardly (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:17:58 PM EST

wait


: FWIW, I voted for him (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:26:01 PM EST

I may advise my parents not to, however.

There will be no filibuster (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 11, 2010 at 12:59:29 PM EST

imo.


I doubt he will vote with democrats (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by TeresaInPa on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:03:52 PM EST

for revenge. He will probably vote principal. Now if I only knew what his principals were.


: principle (none / 0) (#16)
by TeresaInPa on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:06:48 PM EST

BTD, have been posterized by Big Orange (none / 0) (#11)
by MKS on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:26:42 PM EST

They are quoting and linking to your work here....

Will the Committee's demand take (none / 0) (#14)
by Anne on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:52:01 PM EST

the form of a sternly-worded letter? Or will a procession of appropriately serious and stern-looking Senators find microphones and cameras to make the demand?

For my money, they can dispense with all the pre-hearing kabuki, and just go about conducting the hearings as they should be conducted - in the end, though, if they aren't willing to vote in accordance with their "advise and consent" imperative, it's all probably a huge waste of time.

Maybe someone needs to explain what "advise and consent" really means, because I'm not at all sure they know.

it doesn't mean (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by TeresaInPa on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:08:16 PM EST

capitulation to whatever the President wants.


: *We* know that, but I'm not sure (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Anne on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:34:17 PM EST

the Senators know that...
As to the abortion and gay marriage issues, I believe she advised Clinton in her capacity as Associate WH Counsel to support Daschle's amendment banning late-term abortion, and she said - in the SG hearings, I believe - that she does not think the Constitution provides for gay marriage.
No one has any idea what her personal opinions are, as it is being argued that (1) the advice to Clinton was based on the political ramifications and (2) the gay marriage answer was about the law.
Apparently, she does not operate in terms of what she thinks, but only in terms of what the job requires her to think; if that's all that matters, maybe there's an algorithm for that and we need not have actual human beings on the Court.
"Robo-Court: The Next Generation."

I am guessing she is about as liberal (none / 0) (#18)
by TeresaInPa on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:12:50 PM EST

as Obama. She has said she is not in favor (not in exact wording) of either late term abortion or gay marriage. That seems to put her about where Obama is.
I have no problem with her not being a Judge. I do have a problem with the fact that the democrats will not question her on anything liberals care about and the republicans will call her a liberal activist no matter what she says or does and the media will not know the difference, nor will they comment on the fact that republicans are just making sh*t up.

: Kagan is a candidate for Associate Justice (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Peter G on Tue May 11, 2010 at 08:41:08 PM EST

of the Supreme Court of the United States, not for Congress or -- more pertinent to your comment on whether she "favors" abortion rights or gay marriage -- for state legislator. Supreme Court justices are certainly influenced by their deeply held personal moral and political views, if any, but they do not simply vote on cases based on what they "favor." Her recommendation to Pres. Clinton, while working as an associate White House counsel, to accept or not accept some political deal about a federal abortion bill is almost 100% unrelated to how she would vote on the constitutionality of some state or federal law restricting abortion rights that might come before the Supreme Court. Ditto gay marriage. What legal issue, presumably constitutional in nature, which might be presented in a case before the Supreme Court touching on gay marriage, has she expressed a view on? Do you mean that as SG she authorized the filing of a brief supporting the constitutionality of DOMA? That is her statutory duty, if any nonfrivolous argument can be made to support it. More impressive to me is that the government's brief in that case disavowed as illogical and indefensible some arguments that are commonly made in support of DOMA.

hmmm... (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Thu May 13, 2010 at 12:09:04 PM EST

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), another member of the committee, said she told Kagan: "I trust you are going to be a paragon of exactly the opposite of what you wrote about."
Kagan's response? "We both laughed," Feinstein said.