E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
She didn't offer a memorable line like John Roberts' "balls and strikes" metaphor. She didn't have a devoted spouse looking on like Samuel Alito did. And she didn't have a proud parent sitting behind her, a la Sonia Sotomayor.
Nevertheless, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan delivered quite a performance in her opening remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Kagan was deferential to the senators who will decide her fate ("Each of you has been unfailingly gracious and considerate); she talked about her family's immigrant past ("My parents lived the American dream. They grew up in immigrant communities; my mother didn't speak a word of English until she went to school"); and she gave shout-outs to two past/current female SCOTUS justices, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Yet the meat of her remarks drew on politically neutral comments about the law. Kagan praised the law's "even-handedness and impartiality, even when it's not always even-handed or impartial ("What it promises is nothing less than a fair shake for every American"); she talked about how the Supreme Court should be "modest"; and, sure to please court-watchers looking to see if she would uphold the health-care law, she said that the court should try to be deferential to the American people and its elected representatives ("the court must ... recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people").
And she channeled her inner Barack Obama. "I've learned that we make progress by listening to each other, across every apparent political or ideological divide. I've learned that we come closest to getting things right when we approach every person and every issue with an open mind. And I've learned the value of a habit that Justice Stevens wrote about more than 50 years ago -- of 'understanding before disagreeing.'"
Today, of course, was the easy part of Kagan's testimony, and she didn't refer to any of the GOP critiques of her nomination (lack of judicial experience, the military recruiters at Harvard, that she was a political operative/adviser for Bill Clinton). Tomorrow and Wednesday bring us the Q&A, where we'll find out the answers to those questions.
Leave a Comment:
If her opening remarks are any indication... Elena Kagen will make a FINE SCOTUS...
And 'Bullregard' Session's behavior this morning was nothing short of reprehensible! Talk about playing to the right wing nuts... *Sheesh*
Session's is an idiot. The fact is that militray recruitment actually increased when Elena Kagen was at Harvard. We are getting off to another fine week here. The Supreme Court says the second amendment is a National Issue so all the states that gun laws no longer have gun laws. Big Tobacco wins another round. The rebublicans are scrapping the barrel in trying to muster support against our new Supreme Court Judge. I tell you, it just never stops.
Right you are Retired... the hits just keep on rolling with the Cheeto eatin - basement dwelling - knuckle dragging 'crowd' lol!
From the looks of things... it's gonna be another good week for us lefties...
As my Mother used to say... Give some people enough rope and they will eventually hang themselves.
Feisty,
Can they used the rope for more than one? I just cannot understand why people are still voting for these people. Man, I used to like cheetos, especially the extra crispy.
Agreed Retired... For the life of me I can't figure it out... The Republican party of today has absolutely no resemblance of the party 20 years ago - I could at least tolerate them back then!
Now... they're just plain bat sh!t CRAAZEEE!
Ummm, First Read -- when did Ruth Bader Ginsburg resign?
Good catch, Anna Molly. Thanks
"And I've learned the value of a habit that Justice Stevens wrote about more than 50 years ago -- of 'understanding before disagreeing.' "
Good thing she's only looking to be a Supreme Court Justice and not, say, a political blog commenter.....
Ha ha I choked on my coffee :)
Good one, JoAnne!
Friendly reminder to watch (or set your DVR) to HBO tonight at 9:00 EDT for 'Gasland' if you want the REAL 'skinny' on the effects of deep water drilling & 'fracking'...
If I'm not mistaken this was filmed PRIOR to the Gulf catastrophe...
Hey, Feisty - Just had a power failure here and when I re-booted, the first headline that popped up on MSN's home page was "Biden Gets Feisty Over.....Custard?"
Anything you'd care to share with the rest of us? :)
Best chuckle of the day JoAnne!
Girls.. I am SO not going there....:0)))
Fiesty,
You are an idiot. Like the other postings here, you cannot formulate a cohesive smart thought out of a wet paper bag. Keep on thinking the world is horrible because of Bush and Obama is your hero. You and Eric from Salinas are really pathetic.
Keep on posting your intellectual thoughts! They are so insightful. Whatever.
Fiesty and Eric are soooooo smart!!!!!!!!!
There are many important world affairs. There is oil in the Gulf, we are at war, and the Congress is contemplating a Supreme Court appointee's qualifications. The only thing Dumb (which you apply to yourself serendipitously) Feisty can think of to post about is a personal attack against a First Read regular. You say much more about yourself in this post than you do about the person you attack. I feel very sorry for you that you cannot allow that other people may not see things the way you do, and have a different vision of the world. Shame on you for acting like a 12 year old, and perhaps next time you will do us all a favor and limit yourself to whatever narrow minded view of the world you have instead of personal attacks. You owe Feisty, and the rest of us an apology.
Thanks NewDay... Consider the source!
But it does beg the question that if I'm an 'idiot' what does that make someone who uses the moniker 'Dumb Feisty'?
And BTW - was that suppose to be an insult comparing me to Eric? If so... didn't work - I'm proud to be included with strong liberals such as him!
Umm, Dumb, you labeled yourself pretty well there, however, making an account JUST to insult another person who does not share your views shows the rest of us how terribly desperate you really are. Why don't you go outside, breathe some real air with oxygen in it, and make the attempt to get a life.
We are Not impressed in the least!
Let's face it. She was right when she said the confirmation hearings are a "vapid" exercise. A nominee s correctly restrained from commenting on specific issues, and is thereby limited to the expression of judicial principles we learned in civics class (until they stopped teaching civics). The committee members use the "questioning" process for speechmaking ... "vapid" indeed. There was a time when a supreme court nominee DID NOT ATTEND confirmation hearings, and in fact he WAS NOT EXPECTED TO BE THERE because if he followed the required ethical restrictions he would have nothing useful to say. That remains true today. They should consider the appointee on his or her record, public and private, without this useless charade.
I agree with you Robert, and thought so when the Republican appointees were going through the process. It seems like it has become an excuse for rants, and they make no effort whatsoever to find out anything real about the person in question. It is a game of who can define the poor nominee first, and I am not sure what the winner gets, but I do know the rest of us lose.
Hello America, did you watch the proceedings? Kagan's Peers who know her best say that she is a """ Legal Progressive""", do we want a Legal Progressive sitting on the United States Supreme Court?, now you may ask, what is a Legal Progressive? in laymens terms its a Justice (Kagan has never actually been a Judge) its a Justice who uses the Bench to, promote Laws or Changes to Law, which are held by the Constitution in reserve for the Legislative Branch of Goverment, and not to the Judicial Branch, in other words a justice who would legislate from off the Bench, I for one would say we don't need a Kagan or anything like her on the Supreme Court of the United States. sincerely Fezzy Bear
As if the Right Wing Cabal of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas are not Legislating from the Bench?? What in the world was Citizens United then, nothing more than BLATANTLY twisting the case around so that instead of making a narrow ruling on whether a group can show an "Infomercial" about H. Clinton or not into a case where they decide that Corporations have the RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH?? Something that has been reserved for Citizens from the founding of this Nation? Where have YOU been all this time? Your repeating the same post on multiple threads is not so impressive either, being a right wing troll is bad enough without ya just repeating yourself!!