E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
4:10 ET: At the conclusion of Kagan's statement, Leahy adjourned the hearing until tomorrow at 9 am ET. Flashbulbs were again a-popping as she left the hearing room after greeting friends and supporters. (The noise makes the hearing room sound as if every person in it is crumpling a paper bag at the same time.)
Tomorrow, the senators will begin their questioning of Kagan. For the first round of questioning, each senator will have 30 minutes to ask questions of the nominee. Questioning will continue on Wednesday and possibly on Thursday.
That's all for the day, but come back to NBC's First Read tomorrow for our continuing live coverage of the confirmation hearings.
4:02 ET: More Kagan: "I will make no pledges this week other than this one - that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons. I will listen hard, to every party before the Court and to each of my colleagues. I will work hard. And I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle, and in accordance with law."
4:01 ET: Speaking about her mentor Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan said: "Justice Marshall revered the Court - and for a simple reason. In his life, in his great struggle for racial justice, the Supreme Court stood as the part of government that was most open to every American - and that most often fulfilled our Constitution's promise of treating all persons with equal respect, equal care, and equal attention."
3:59 ET: Kagan thanked the women who have served on the court and offered her condolences to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, whose husband passed away yesterday.
3:54 ET: Almost three and a half hours into the hearing, the nominee has uttered her first words of the day. The sound of camera shutters popping as she was sworn in was almost overwhelming.
3:50 ET: Brown, a Republican and a 29-year veteran of the Massachusetts National Guard, said in May that he was "satisfied" with Kagan's explanation of the issue of military recruitment at Harvard Law. (Read a report by NBC's Ken Strickland on that meeting here.)
In his remarks to introduce her today, Brown did not bring up that issue, nor did he allude to how he will vote on her confirmation. But he said that she is "undoubtedly a brilliant woman" and that he would be "proud" for the fourth woman to ever serve on the court to have such strong roots in his home state.
He added: "I look forward to Ms. Kagan’s responses to the committee’s questions. I know that I have some of my own, and I am quite sure that my colleagues here today do as well."
3:43 ET: Kerry said that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy would have been proud to introduce Elena Kagan. Kennedy was the longest serving member of the Senate Judiciary Committee for either party.
3:37 ET: Three hours into the hearing, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has begun his remarks to introduce Kagan. After he and Brown speak, Kagan will offer her opening statement. (For a preview of what she'll say, click here.)
3:30 ET: Here's something you very rarely hear at a Senate hearing: The panel may actually be ahead of schedule. Kagan's opening statement was originally estimated to happen around 3:45p ET. Reporters are now being advised that her remarks could actually start a little bit earlier than that.
3:25 ET: Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., is the last senator to speak. Like almost every member of the panel, he opened his remarks with a note about the legacy of Sen. Robert Byrd, who passed away this morning.
"I would have to serve until I was 118 years old" to serve as long as Sen. Byrd did, Franken noted. "I doubt that's going to happen."
3:19 ET: Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., has entered the hearing room. He will be joined by delegation colleague Sen. John Kerry to introduce Kagan before her opening statement.
3:15 ET: Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. highlighted that Kagan - if confirmed - would be the fourth woman to ever serve on the high court. Klobuchar is one of just two women currently serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
3:14 ET: During the break, Republican Sens. Cornyn and Sessions fielded questions from reporters outside the hearing room. Both pushed back at Democrats' criticism of "conservative activism" on the part of the Roberts court, especially as illustrated by the Citizens United decision. (To read more about that case, click here).
Sessions called Democrats' description of the landmark decision "a distortion," and Cornyn warned that outcry about its consequences for the political process should be "taken with a grain of salt." Those who support the court's decision say that it upholds the First Amendment right to free speech.
The two Republicans were also asked about GOP members' description of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall as an "activist judge." Marshall, a civil rights icon who later became the first African-American to serve on the high court, famously argued the Brown v. Board of Education case as a lawyer for the NAACP. Asked if he believed that case -- which ruled unconstitutional the doctrine of "separate but equal" -- represented improprer "activism," Cornyn responded, "No, I do not."
2:57 ET: And we're back. Next up, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
2:37 ET: A ten minute recess in the hearing means there's time for a history fact break!
Republicans are eager to discuss what President Obama's judicial nominations indicate about his governing philosophy. Per the Congressional Research Service: Of the 44 presidents in American history, 41 of them have had the opportunity to nominate someone to the high court. The three who didn't get the chance: William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and Jimmy Carter.
2:33 ET: The final members to speak before a well-earned 10 minute break in the hearing: Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, and Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.
2:22 ET: Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., echoed Schumer's criticism of "activism" on the part of the Roberts court. Referencing the name of a recent Supreme Court ruling that dramatically loosened limits on how corporations can advocate on the part of political campaigns, Durbin said to conservatives who warn of activism by liberal judges, "I have two words for you: Citizens United."
2:12 ET: The son of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom Kagan clerked, is in the hearing room today. Marshall was described as a "well-known liberal activist judge" by Republican Sen. Sessions earlier today. And Sen. Cornyn of Texas called Marshall an "unapologetic" activist judge.
2:08 ET: More Schumer: "She is straight out of central casting for this job."
2:05 ET: Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., quipped that -- with thousands of pages of documents released by the Clinton Library in the weeks leading up to today's hearing -- the only thing that senators lack access to is Kagan's "kindergarten report card."
Schumer also took aim at the current court led by Chief Justice John Roberts, calling it a "highly fractured court with an often rarefied way of looking at the law." Citing recent decisions that some Democrats have criticized as too pro-business, he said that the court has been exercising "judicial activism to pull the country to the right."
1:57 ET: Graham said that he believes Kagan's blocking of military recruiters at campus placement centers at Harvard Law School was "inappropriate," but he adds that there will be more to discuss on the topic as the hearing progresses.
He also said that Kagan will have "a lot of explaining to do" about her naming of Barak as her "judicial hero."
Addressing those who have seemed "surprised" that Obama nominated a "liberal person," Graham said, "What did I expect from President Obama? Just about what I'm getting."
"At the end of the day, I think the qualification test will be met," he said. But he added that questions remain about whether or not Kagan can keep from "channeling" her political views while serving on the court.
1:52 ET: Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is up next. He was the only GOP member of this committee to support Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
1:43 ET: Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Penn., is the ninth senator to speak. He was once the first member to deliver opening statements at hearings like this one; as a Republican, he chaired the committee between 2005-2007, but he lost his seniority on the panel when he changed parties last year.
1:37 ET: Several Republicans, including Kyl, have warned that Kagan's writings show that she would be a "results-oriented" judge who would make decisions based on her opinion of what the outcome of a case should be, regardless of the rightness of the judgment under the Constitution.
1:33 ET: Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., hinted at the fact that the court, while it has become more racially diverse over the last century, still lacks wide geographic diversity. (If confirmed, Kagan would be the fourth New Yorker on the court.)
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., joked that he, too, hopes for more geographic diversity on the court, considering that it's been three years since a justice from his home state (retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor) served as a Supreme Court justice.
1:27 ET: Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says that Kagan's lack of experience as a judge is not "dispositive," but says that because she has not served on the bench, "it's even more critical that we are persuaded that you have the proper judicial philosophy and will practice it once confirmed."
1:18 ET: "Snoozefest?" Feinstein said that if this week's hearings aren't full of fireworks, it's a testament to just how qualified the nominee has shown herself to be.
1:15 ET: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. is next to speak. She praised Kagan's experience as Solicitor General and said "I believe that you are eminently confirmable."
Noting that Kagan has come under fire for never having served as a judge, Feinstein countered: "Frankly, I find this refreshing." All of the current judges on the Supreme Court served as federal appeals court judges before being nominated to the high court.
Feinstein also noted that she is "extremely dismayed" by today's Supreme Court decision regarding the Chicago gun ban, citing the decision as an example of a dramatic shift on the court in recent years.
1:08 ET: Hatch to Kagan: "Something tells me that this is going to be your last confirmation hearing."
1:05 ET: Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah now giving his opening statement. He was one of two Republicans on the committee who voted to confirm Kagan as Solicitor General last year. (The other was Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.)
12:58 ET: In calling for Kagan to be transparent about her judicial philosophy, Kohl references a memo Kagan wrote in 1995, in which she called judicial confirmation hearings "a vapid and hollow charade."
Saying that Kagan's "judicial philosophy is almost invisible to us," he added that, while senators don't have the right to know in advance how she would decide particular cases, "we do have a right to understand your judicial philosophy and what you think about fundamental issues that will come before the court."
12:56 ET: Next up in opening statements, Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc. Statements will proceed in order of seniority on the panel, alternating between Democratic and Republican members. There are 19 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
12:53 ET: More Sessions: Kagan has "associated herself with well-known activist judges" like Thurgood Marshall and Israeli Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak. He says that President Obama "calls on judges to base their decisions on empathy and their broader vision of what America should be. He suggests that his nominee shares those views."
12:46 ET: Ranking member Jeff Sessions, who will lead the GOP argument against Kagan'sconfirmation, promises a fair and respectful hearing, goes on to cite Kagan's lack of judicial experience and her career path as a political aide in the Clinton White House among his "serious concerns" about her ability to serve impartially on the court.
12:40 ET: In his opening statement, Leahy urges Kagan to "be open, be responsive" and "to share with us and the American people her judicial philosophy and indicate her judicial independence."
"I believe that fair-minded people will find her judicial philosophy well within the legal mainstream," said the Vermont lawmaker.
12:33 ET: Opening the hearing, Leahy offered a tribute to the late Sen. Robert Byrd, who died this morning at the age of 92. He called Byrd "a mentor and a friend" and an example for future generations.
12:32 ET: The nominee was all smiles as she entered the hearing room. She's seated now and Chairman Leahy has gaveled the hearing to order.
12:15 ET: Live from Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, we are live-blogging the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. If confirmed, Kagan would be the 112th justice of the high court, and only the fourth woman to serve in the court's history.
The hearings are slated to begin at 12:30 ET, so check back to this space often to get the latest news. Here are five things that we'll be watching throughout the week as the debate unfolds.
Leave a Comment:
The hearings have not even started yet and I am already disgusted by the bloviating attacks that the GOBP will attempt to hurl at this individual. Lead, follow, or GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!
I guess by "Lead" you really mean "follow". Never mind that there are legitimate questions about her activist leanings. Never mind that there legitimate questions about her judicial philosophy. Never mind that there are legitimate questions about her experience and how her political life will impact her judicial rulings.
Never mind, Idiot.
We need to scrutinize those with possible Zionist/Talmudist roots. Do your research.
I do not know what 'disgusting in Pa' is trying to say, except; "Freedom bad,,,socialism good,,,Bush bad,,, BHO good. Talk about followers!
I understand this person is not married, has no children, do you think she can represent the family unit?
Stopping the neo marxist take over over the SOTUS is important. We do not need another ACLU lackey or la Raza supporter
If the Republicans hadn't automatically, without merit or thought or reason, started complaining about Kagan, I would have been shocked. If Obama nominates, suggests, wants, whatever, the Republicans have shown they will fight it. Regardless of the good of the country, the Republican strategy has been openly stated that they will oppose anything/anyone proposed by Obama and the Democrats. It's on tape. It's recorded. That is your strategy and you've shown it at every point. This country has problems and all the Republicans want to do is regain power. They have no suggestions. It's all about power.
Kagan will be seated. She's a brilliant legal mind. She's no more of an activist than say, Roberts... Personally I believe in term limits for all forms of government from the president, through the Congress, and yes, through the Supreme Court. Our forefathers never imagined that people would live so long.
"This will be Obama's Waterloo."
"No wait, THIS will be his Waterloo..."
"OK OK, THIS time, I'm totally serious. Waterloo."
The GOP is tenacious, at least.
Kagan is a misleading liberal as all of them are! She will tell them what they want to hear so she is nominated. Once seated, she will begin her own agenda for the liberals of this country. We are at a point that conservative Christians should stand up and shout to the highest heavens in the name of the Lord. What is happening in this country is despicable. Same sex marriages, gay rights, the governement taking over private business, etc. etc. etc. Oh well. The Bible predicts all of this in the last days. Non Christians must repent and accept the Lord as your Savior before it is too late. Christians need to stand up and fight for what is Biblical and fight against what is not.
Excuse me but have you heard of separation of church and state? Not to mention Christians are not even in the majority in the United States, just scream the loudest.
I wonder if anyone will bring up and question her on her authorship of the tabacco case appeal that the Obama administration lost before the Supreme Court?
These hearings are nothing more then scoring points for either side..it has little or nothing to do with the person in question....A good attorney already knows the answer.. before he even asks the question...Theses clowns are putting on a show !!
I could not have said it better myself.....this is all dogs and ponies. Sessions would have a problem with whomever was nominated, it would be no different from that of a Republican nominee.
Agreed. The fact that it took over three and a half hours for the nominee to get a chance to speak, shows how much meaningless posturing is involved (on both sides).
These particularly hearings are going to be relatively tame - probably about 4-5 days then confirmed by a solid majority like Sotomayor got. You will not see a knockdown, dragout confirmation brawl unless someone like Antonin Scalia retires during the Obama presidency, which I doubt very, very much will happen. Scalia will hang on until another Republican is in the white house to replace him.
this nominee is the poorest pick in my adult life. she does not have any or enough expierence for this position. we need a justice with some experience for the job ahead. these hearings are nothing more than a sham. really makes me sick. but then again we have a person in the white house with no executive experience either, and it really shows. we need better than this choice on the supreme court.
Hey Golf Guy,
It really is a shame that the current President has less experience than the previous occupant. Do you happen to remember what businesses Dubya was in and how well those turned out? Being an executive and being a SUCCESSFUL executive are two VERY different things.
Being a Governor and not being one is two VERY different things. Enough with he damn experience BS. I have no problem with Obama's experience but I have a problem when you start making comparisons.
The Texas Rangers are in bankruptcy not because of Bush but because of the outrageous salaries still owed to players that are retired or have left the organization.
I will not fight you too much on the Rangers issue ITM. Other than the fact that Dubya WAS the man in charge and ostensibly made those rather questionable personnel decisions. I mean, who needs a Sammy Sosa on your team banging dingers all the time?
Ok, so on the other part of the question, how did the oil companies that Dubya was the chief executive of fare?
As for the fact that Obama was never a Governor, you are correct. I also fail to see the comparison as I would much rather elect a successful Senator than a failed Governor. The Gov in your "state" does not really run anything ITM. Your Legislature is the real gears of Government in the LoneStar state. Just ask your secessionist Governor Perry how much power and control he has over at the State House.
Would you prefer Bush who had a lot of "executive experience?" That sure got us a bunch: a war based on lies (Iraq), a war where we didn't send enough troops (Afghanistan), a collapsed economy, a huge Wall Street bailout, plummeting stature on the world stage, and ballooning deficit spending.
Wise up friend. It's time to give the smart thinking people a chance to govern.
There have been MANY Supreme Court Justices who have had no judicial experience. The Constitution does NOT require any Judicial experience; the Constitution does not even require that Supreme Court Justices be lawyers. You may not like Kagan but she IS qualified.
yes, clerking for one of the most strenuous Chief Justices of all time could hardly net you real, practical experience,...or could it?
HMMMMMMMMMMM?
me thinks me spy some political posturing,...
See, Bush is responsible. In fact he was the last responsible politician. Gary Boner says so.
What is critical is that she understands the law and the constitution. Kagan has a brilliant legal mind. Perhaps she will be less of a politician and more of a Supreme court judge.
For Disgusted in PA
"As for the fact that Obama was never a Governor, you are correct. I also fail to see the comparison as I would much rather elect a successful Senator than a failed Governor."
Bush was a successful Govenor. BHO voted, Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present at an absurd rate while in the Illinois Senate. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), conducted "a study of the voting records of all 100 senators, using an average of the ratings of seven liberal interest groups, described Obama as "among the most liberal", scoring an 92%, of the Democrats." This "community organizer" is going to support ACORN (one of his true loves) any way he can! You fools voted for someone you don't really know. Just like the Senatorial race in South Carolina (Alvin Greene)
This Muslim bum is out to ruin America as fast as he possibly can!
Wrongintulsa,
You may want to lift your head out of the sand long enough to read a paper once in a while. Acorn was disbanded some time ago. Maybe you should turn on Glenda and get the current set of talking points. The ones you are using now are stale.
wrightintulsa:
IGNORE LIST for you my racist little teabagger. Your bad breath won't be fogging my system anymore.
Disgusted-in-PA
You need to get your head out of the sand. The name has changed but the same people are committing the same violations of the laws with taxpayer money. If you don't realize this then you are probably someone who supported ACORN's actions and those of the SEIU (organized by the founder of ACORN). Oct. 9th, 2009 SEIU's Michael Kerr sworn in at Department of Labor. The ACORN doesn't fall too far from the tree.
Better be careful wrong. The way you are going through tin foil is bound to tip off the authorities as to your conspiracy theory. Be very careful... They are watching you. Oh, and with the Patriot act, they can do a REALLY good job of watching you with or without a warrant. Who needs FISA?
THIS isn't a coronation, it's a confirmation hearing and THIS is all fair game in finding out if she SHOULD be nominated. GET OVER IT PA.....Your President OBAMA voted against every candidate that BUSH nominated. EVERY SINGLE ONE. OH, but he's the Messiah. Pleaaaaaaaaase. She has NOT ONCE argued a case before a jury???? THAT right there would be questionable. AND I don't like the fact that she barred the military frm. Harvard. A BUNCH OF ELITISTS SNOBS!!! Who the heck do they think they are?? Obama is NOT one of us. Don't ever forget that.
Saying that Kagan's "judicial philosophy is almost invisible to us," he added that, while senators don't have the right to know in advance how she would decide particular cases, "we do have a right to understand your judicial philosophy and what you think about fundamental issues that will come before the court."
Don't worry folks, we can take Kagen's & Obama's WORD for it that she'll not be an "Activist Judge". C'mon, That's EXACTLY the reason Obummer chose a candidate with NO judicial background or record to check into whatsoever. She's the "Stealth" nominee. The perfect person to put in place to tip the court towards dismantling the US Constitution & that pesky Bill Of Rights thingy.
Once again, this is what you get when you elect an Anti-American Marxist to the office of POTUS.
In such a short time we're seeing a trend from this administration of throwing an unbelieveable amount of paperwork at our Congressmen to hurry up and read so they can hurry up and vote. Often with nowhere enough time to read and comprehend what's placed before them (or not placed before them). This is unbelievable. Then Patrick Leahy demands that he confirmation hearings, for a lifetime appointment is to begin 49 days after Obama nominates her. Since Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings began 48 days after nomination, Leahy figures 49 days should be enough. What kind of logic is that?
Mark1949
"IGNORE LIST for you my racist little teabagger. Your bad breath won't be fogging my system anymore."
The only thing I gather from your comment is that you are a race-baiter, and that you are a complete idiot!
Yeah Disgusted-in-PA
"Better be careful wrong. The way you are going through tin foil is bound to tip off the authorities as to your conspiracy theory. Be very careful... They are watching you. Oh, and with the Patriot act, they can do a REALLY good job of watching you with or without a warrant. Who needs FISA?"
It's not beyond the Obama people for example "Joe the Plumber." But it's funny you would bring that up!
NBC - WE NEED CAPTIONING asap please for equal rights/equal access to be able to understand what is going on. 36 million Americans and others globally look forward to having this CAPTIONED by later today or tomorrow.
Deafened and not dumb, daft, or diminished.
Thanks in advance,
www.ccacaptioning.org
IS THIS LIVE or is it a session to just hear talking heads from MSNBC yabbing endlessly? These people never tire of hearing their own voice; they don't really want us to hear what is going on in the Senate and come to our own conclusion. Amazing!
Â
Dr. Sam
Old, senile prone white men attacking a young, single, Jewish woman--good luck with that GOP...Sessions is a comedic farce...Chris Matthews needs to shut up, many of us are disgusted with his ego and pseudo political genius, and cover the real show, the politicking going on in that committee...
Jeff Sessions could be nominated himself and find something to object to!
So true! All I can hear from Sessions is blah, blah, blah. So predictable.
funny enough he was and they did.
Kagan calling these hearings a "a vapid and hollow charade" is dead-on. Just like legislative debates, there are no issue discussions going on, here; this is 100% politics. Those senators that think she will vote "their way" culturally and philosophically will find an excuse to praise and vote for her, and those who don't, won't. Barring a complete meltdown, has anyone's mind ever been changed by these "debates"? Who doesn't know how they're going to vote going into it?
Since the largest controversy regarding Kegan is her treatment of Military and specifically Gays in the military, and since she is single and rumored to be gay herself, wouldn't a prudent person simply ask if she is gay and if that has an impact on her rulings, as it appears to have impacted her policy at Harvard?
This is not an anti-gay question, its merely a question of principal and bias. It's a question that many Americans want to know, but political correctness won't let it be asked or even more importantly, be answered. Inquiring minds want to know.
CPA
I guess it would be fair to ask her if she is gay.....of course it would then need to be asked of everyone who has an option of voting for her confirmation as their vote could be affected by principal and bias....
I say go for it!
not sure that doesn't violate all kinds of HR and ethics issues,...but it would be fun to hear the panel's response.
What has being or not being gay have to do with being a SCJ? BTW - Asking about her religion would violate the constitution that so many of you how should be followed to the letter - except when it doesn't fit your ideology than all bets are off.
It is quite evident that many of you have never read or you've read but not understood what the constitution says.
You, sir are an idiot. Men don't want smart, successful women. Kagan doesn't have to gay to be single. Not that it would matter if she is gay.
The reason her being gay could be an issue is if she would use her seat on the Supreme Court to push through the gay agenda. Sorry, but the court is not the place to further a bully agenda.
old lady, you should tell that to John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Sam Alito,...cuz THEIR agenda is what we're being force fed now.
Wanna' bet?
What we should be asking Kagan:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11920
We have the most conservative Supreme Court in our history and these Republicans think it is somehow Obama's duty and even obligation to pick yet again another Conservative. What part of Democrat, Liberal or Progressive do they not get. The current court has become nothing more then an arm for corporate America! Let's put the balance back into a court that is very much out of balance. These guys (Roberts and his gang) are so far to the right that even a moderate addition to the court would be to little and maybe even to late!
I wish the right would just come out and say 'The reason we oppose her, is she's a Jew, a women and we think she might be gay because we saw her playing softball and her batting stance was fundamentally correct'.
get real. There are real objections to this choice.
With all due respect Falsaffsmind, I come from Jewish heritage, your argument is shallow and uneducated. You might want to compare our prior administration's treatment of the state of Israel with that of the current administration. Our current president recently treated Israel's president like an outcast all the while embracing and supporting the Palestinian President. As far as the "woman" comment, Bush actually nominated a female to the supreme court, however, Dems would not even let her come up for a vote. Get educated and then argue with some common sense.
Not really, historically speaking she has as much or more relevant experience as many of the justices that have sat on the Supreme Court. In fact her experience compares favorably to many of the Chief Justices of recent history. And since there is certainly no constitutional requirement that she should have prior experience as a justice... it's a moot point.
CPAFlorida,...I didn't think anyone (including Republicans) thought Harriet Miers was a serious Supreme Court pick. A loyalist, yes - Supreme Court Justice, not hardly - which is why she withdrew. So yes, I'm educated. Are you?
CPAFlorida, support for the state of Israel and it's policy toward the Palestinians, has very little to do with how you feel about Jewish people or Religious tolerance in general. The blind support of Israel among some Republicans is not born out of any felicitous feelings toward Jews. The common cause is really two-prong. They find it difficult not to lump all Muslims into the same hoard, and for their own private religious reasons, they want to see Israel re-unified as a condition of the second coming of Jesus. Do not mistake common cause for affection.
Clara KCMO, you obviously didn't read Falstaffminds original comment that I was replying to, you might want to read it first before you spout off. He stated that Republicans oppose her because she's Jewish, a WOMAN, and that whe might be Gay. Apparently that went above your head. Sorry.
Um, no, CAPFlorida:
I am also of Jewish faith and I agree with Falstaffsmind's assessment and found your point to be moot. I don't agree with everything Israel does just because I am Jewish. That sheep mentality doesn't work for me. Why the Republican party chooses to feign indignation with matters concerning Israel is beyond me.
PS. You are the one that trotted out Harriet as "W's" street cred for trying to place a woman on the bench. That's the same generous EQUAL RIGHTS tactics your team endorsed Sarah Palin with. How'd that work out for you? Women don't just vote for women candidates, just like Jews don't blindly think everything Israel does is Divinely Ordained. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative.
Falstaff- maybe the right is not as bigoted as you are- did you think of that
I accidentally gave you an approval. My bad!
You couldn't be more wrong on all three points. I would vote for someone that is a conservative Jewish, female and gay if they did not use their position to promote those three agenda's.
How RUDE!
The woman is another elitist from Harvard. She and Obama go way back along with buddie to both, William Ayers. There was a plagerism case years ago and as head of the Harvard Law School she should have dismissed both professors involved, and yet, as lib/marxist friends, she did nothing. So as judge? Supreme Court? Obama couldn't have planned it better. Good for our country.....................hideous.
I think it's a good idea to have qualified people on the Supreme Court. I would be concerned if someone like, oh let's say, Sara Palin had been nominated. I think we all saw what happens when people are placed out of their depth in a job (Witness "W"). They get taken advantage of by the smarter ones around them. I'll take a shot with Kagan, although, she's not as progressive as I would like, she won't be led around by the nose.
Mark1949, Yes, we do see what happens when people are placed out of their depth in a job, His name is Obama, No executive experience at all, No business owner experience at all, Only community organizing law experience except for 2 years in the Senate one of which was spent on the campaign trail, and of course 20 years of sitting in the pews listening to Rev. Wright. Good Point!
The absurd notion that because a person is affiliated with one of our oldest, most respected and prestigious educational institutions, they should be disqualified for our highest court, is somewhat mind-numbing.
CPAFlorida,
"Mark1949, Yes, we do see what happens when people are placed out of their depth in a job, His name is Obama, No executive experience at all, No business owner experience at all, Only community organizing law experience except for 2 years in the Senate one of which was spent on the campaign trail, and of course 20 years of sitting in the pews listening to Rev. Wright. Good Point!"
Hey now! Obama has a lot of experience. Golfing and doing shout outs!
Mark1949, you are still showing your idiocy. Why would you bring Sarah Palin in the conversation? She would have been more qualified than Obama (57 states) to be the POTUS, were you trying to insinuate she "acted stupidly"!
And Falstaffsmind
"The absurd notion that because a person is affiliated with one of our oldest, most respected and prestigious educational institutions, they should be disqualified for our highest court, is somewhat mind-numbing."
This institution (Harvard) is losing it's respect and prestige more and more each day thanks to the Obama administration!
Jeff Sessions is such a worthless politician. Just the kind of political hack they need to do their dirty work. He won't be around much longer.
Mark 1949
Why are you such a racist hater. Can't we all just get along.
Mark,
"Jeff Sessions is such a worthless politician. Just the kind of political hack they need to do their dirty work. He won't be around much longer."
Mark, is that a threat? It must be cause I don't see him going anywhere anytime soon.
This party clone is getting payback for giving affirmative action grades, exceptions, and law degree to BHO. She didn't pay the bills, the Weathermen Society did that, but she allowed him to buy the degree with their money. She has not one day experience on any bench except the park bench. She, herself, was dean by affirmative action at that Ivy League diploma seller 'university'.
Mike:
Your 'facts' are BS, and you know it. Your just a little dufus sitting there at your little computer dreaming up crap right out of your head and publishing like it was truth.
The President will be out in 2016 and you can try again, if you actually bother to vote :)
Mark 1949:
Oh, I don't think we'll have to wait that long! ;-)
Perhaps one should "not count chickens before they hatch." However, if 2008 is any indication, the momentum could carry through until the end of President Obama's 2nd term. Those stuck in a more reactionary position will shake their heads in disbelief as the world advances around and despite them. Maybe then, they will be inspired to lift a book instead of a remote, assuming of course, that the book was not published in Texas.
Finnegans,
"However, if 2008 is any indication, the momentum could carry through until the end of President Obama's 2nd term."
LOL!!!! That's funny! You're being sarcastic right? What momentum?
Republicans object to everything..............why? Because they are paid too.........by special interest groups and lobbyists. Republicans are so corrupt they are a threat to our democracy by holding just enough votes to block any iniitiatives. The solution............vote the evil bums out of office in 2010. Restore our democratic republic to what it was designed to be................the voice and will of the people of America.
Agreed!
Republicans: evil. Democrats: good. Is that your point? How about this?: Politicians from either party: lying, self-serving, unprincipled bags of sh*t who don't give a damn about you, me, or anyone else that doesn't shove a fistful of money into their grubby hands each and every day. Neither party can claim the high road. They ALL suck.
Orangensaft
Republicans object to everything..............why? Because they are paid too.........by special interest groups and lobbyists
.........
Oh you mean like the 900K BHO took from BP?
"At the end of the day, I think the qualification test will be met," he said. But he added that questions remain about whether or not Kagan can keep from "channeling" her political views while serving on the court.
Is Lindsay Graham for real? What does he think is happening with the existing court? OH, PLEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAASE!
I don't wish ill on anyone; but Katy bar the door if one of the 5 rightwingers has to be replaced by this president, there will be NO END to the pissing and moaning,...
What a collection of idiots on this blog! Some of the greatest, most respected Justices, ever, did not have any judicial experience prior to being named to the Court. Kagan has the education and knowledge to do the job, period. Objectors are, either homophobes or conservative smucks who would object to anyone Obama nominated. One more thing, Jeff Sessions is an absolute moron, if this guy were my Senator I'd be ashamed to live in a state that would elect such a pea brain to a high office.
Agreed. Sessions is a moron and a shameless shill for big business and everything that is wrong with this nation. I mean, just look at him. He looks like a mannequin with all his makeup and barbering. I never trust guys like that.
Highly agree.....
Tfear-I thought you were speaking of Harry Reid
TFEAR, Mark1949, MID VERMONT: You are right (What a collection of idiots on this blog!) I doubt if the three of you together, could come up with one coherent thought!
"Some of the greatest, most respected Justices, ever, did not have any judicial experience prior to being named to the Court."
Which justices do you speak of? I would venture to guess that was a good while back in history, when men were more honorable and impartial, not everyone had a political agenda, and serving on our highest court---and serving our country as a justice---was an honor and not an opportunity to steer decisions according to one's own agenda instead of upholding the constitution, and our country was still closer to the founding fathers' original vision for it--which was, among other things, One Nation Under God.
Ummm, juneygabriel?
what are you talking about? I see you harken back to a time of yore (own choosing, apparently). I don't know what Founding Fathers you are referring to because this nonsense was added in the last 56 years. Nothing even remotely like what MY Founding Fathers intended which was a FULL Separation of Church and State:
The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an oath of loyalty to the national flag and the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The Pledge has been modified four times since then, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954.
Clara, respectfully, people who want to forget and/or deny that our nation was founded as a Christian nation make a big mistake. Please read the Declaration of Independence and other early documents, and also recall that one of the big reasons the Mayflower sailed was in pursuit of religious freedom. The idea that the phrase 'One Nation Under God' *only* calls to your mind the pledge of allegiance just underscores the trouble we are in in America right now.
As for your common misconstruction of the meaning of the separation between Church and State, I urge you to read up on it.
"So much for any hint of the desire for a “separation of church and state” to be found in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights! While our Founders wanted to prohibit the establishment of an official national church, they quite obviously had absolutely no intention of separating God from the American government."
The Christian Law Association, where the above quote is taken from, has some great resources to help you clarify the spirit in which the Founding Fathers (that's yours and mine both, make no mistake) founded our country. http://www.christianlaw.org/cla/index.php
juneygabriel,
I am just going to have to disagree with you. http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/
PS. Which part of Christ's message involved massacring the Native Americans, Displacing them and Stealing their lands - while violating countless 'Treaties'? Deists are NOT the same as this co-opted 'Christian' lunatic fringe that is trying to take over MY COUNTRY. I personally don't want to revisit the Crusades; but many seem more than happy to comply and if you think about it - could be the genesis of much of the problems we are having internationally - especially with 'oppressed' religions attempting to foster a homeland.
She should be confirmed just for having to listen to that nonsense from the members of the Greasy Oily Party.
Schumer & Durbin are pretty funny guys. Apparently a return to a strict interpretation of the Constitution is now considered "activism".
My friend, activism is activism, regardless of the political agenda. A perfect example is today's anti-gun control ruling. There is no strict interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause. It is a blank canvass. The last time it was used to strike down a local law, it was used to declare a California minimum wage statute unconstitutional in the 1930s by a Republican court that believed the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment prohibited states from enacting minimum wage legislation, because it violated the rights of workers to accept lower wages, thus violating their Constitutional right to freedom of contract - There was no real precedent for this decision or congressional history from 1870 saying what privileges and immunities meant - but the Court of judges appointed by pro-business presidents thus amazingly turned a constitutional amendment meant to protect individuals from exploitation by state governments into a tool of big business to prevent individuals from using the political process to protect themselves from big business. The Court's pro-gun rights decision today is also not based on any clear indication of what the framers meant. It just reflects the opinion of 5 judges about what they thought it ought to mean. 4 judges thought the opposite. Conservatism is one thing. Activism is something else. And just because you agree with a conservative outcome does not mean it was attained without activism. The present court has been very activist, striking down several state and federal laws at a rate unprecedented since the early New Deal. Check your history before you start branding people who disagree with you as idiots. You may end up looking like the pot who called the kettle black.
wtf
Freedom was a principal that this country was founded on. How many times we can delute it will be one of the principals this Administration will be known for .
Joey 803180. What the hell are you talking about?!
I would much enjoy hearing a list of the freedoms you do not now enjoy that you did enjoy two years ago, five years ago, or 10 years ago. The only freedoms this country does not enjoy as I see it, is freedom from tyranny by oppressive, unregulated corporations. That limits all of our freedoms. When you can tell me what actual freedom you no longer have, as spoken by the far right wing, please let me know.
Cathy. I do not enjoy the freedom of investing the money for myself that is directly taken from me with no choice to go into social security that has already been spent by congress before I get any benefit from it. Are you in favor of the gun ban that was recently decided upon in Chicago? Why was it even a question? According to the bill of rights I have the right to keep and bare arms. Are we going to go by our constitution or do you just want to jump directly into the full socialist state? Why is it that I can buy a car in another state from which I live but can't buy my health insurance from another state? Why is it decided that a fruit or vegatable that I grow on my own property for my own consumption only is regulated by the fed. govt. under the INTERSTATE commerce clause. You ever hear the saying that if you put a frog in a pot of cold water and then turn the heat on, he will just sit there and boil to death. We are the frog and we have been placed in a pot of cold water. Wake up Cathy they are slowly turning up the heat and if we don't get out we will boil to death. Do you actually think the people in govt. are really out for YOUR interest or are they just in it for POWER and GREED just like the big business you dislike. You do realize B.O. received more money from BP than any other congressman for the last 10 years. You do realize B.O. has direct ties to GE & George Soros. Why do you think he is pushing the smart grid and other "green energy" items so hard. He is in bed with big business easily as heavily as any Republican ever thought of being. Wake up Cathy.
Rick,
But for one very minor issue, I would agree with your post wholeheartedly. If you were to replace the word Government with the word Corporation, I would say you are right on the money. What people like you apparently fail to realize is that it is not Government that is the issue, it is the mega corporations that control Government with their money, lobbyists, and ability to grease the skids for the politicians. If you cannot see that the corporate oligarchs are the ones profiting from all the issues that you find fault with, how can we ever make things better?
You all want to criticize the President and the Administration for not doing a good job. Ok, that may well be a fair complaint (time will tell), but when you are in control of Government, things are no different. Why is that? Because the right wing has gotten very good at using the most basic core issues to stir fear, passion, and intense emotion in those on the extreme of the party. Because of that, you tend to vote AGAINST your OWN best interests and provide the corporatists with exactly what they want and need. When you consistently vote for people that would champion the rights of BP over the rights and NEEDS of the people whose life BP has now destroyed, how can you expect a President and a party that DOES want to make a difference to get through the din of naysayers like you.
I know you will bash me and call me a typical "libbie" and that is fine. The reality is that I care FAR more about this country and our future than YOU do if you find fault in a President that is attempting to hold what was the fourth largest corporation in the world responsible for what THEIR product is STILL doing in the Gulf. How do you people sleep at night and have the stones to actually refer to yourselves as Christians is beyond me. I am sure that Jesus would have apologized to Tony Hayward too. Yeah, you are right.
I watched a portion of the hearing at lunch. No questions were asked of the nominee, just a bunch of grandstanding and posturing by the Senators, including a long, rambling comment by old fud Arlen Specter. I'll be glad when they actually start asking questions.