E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The Boston Globe's front page: "Senators pounce, Kagan parries." The paper's lead: Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan came under blistering attack yesterday from a leading Republican who, on the second day of her confirmation hearing, said she went too far by limiting military recruitment when she was dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan strongly defended her record on that issue and an array of others during round after round of sharp questioning led by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In doing so, she responded confidently and injected doses of humor into the long hours of sometimes-tense dialogue."
Here's Pete Williams' Nightly News piece wrapping the hearing.
Speaking of Sessions, Politifact writes that he was operating with a "half truth" when it came to Kagan and pamphlets. And he got a "Barely True" when he said she "violated the law of the United States at various points" with her opposition to military recruiters. Kagan, for her part, got a "full flop" on how forthcoming a SCOTUS nominee should be.
The AP says Kagan "displayed a cool demeanor and a sense of humor during her Senate Judiciary Committee hearing" and "was expected to move one step closer Wednesday to succeeding Justice John Paul Stevens, barring a major gaffe. Republicans who oppose her nomination will need to resort to a filibuster to block a confirmation vote, a prospect that seems less and less likely. A few uncomfortable exchanges with Republican senators about her treatment of the military and her political views didn't slow down Kagan during Tuesday's hearing."
Yesterday's hearing was notable for something that's not usually seen in serious congressional confirmation hearings -- humor and crisp, straightforward responses. The AP wraps some of Kagan's responses.
Leave a Comment:
And Sessions' point was what? As it finally turned out, those who practiced "separate but equal" prior to Brown v. Board of Education also "violated the law of the United States" as represented by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Until courts interpret the laws, this is always a real possibility.
And that's exactly why we have courts, as I'm sure Senator Sessions would probably agree, especially after the Supreme Court's latest ruling on state and local gun control laws. Courts exist to tell us what the law is, but often it happens only after the fact.
Someone yesterday complained about how boring the Kagan hearings are. This is exactly what is wrong with democracy today. Democracy is hard work, but hardly anyone wants to do the hard work anymore. As citizens, we should all be on the edge of our seats for these sorts of things. If we're not, then we certainly deserve what we get. And I think we're finally starting to see that in action.
We are a nation of willfull ignorants.
Okay, I hope that was a play on words, but if it wasn't, try this one "We are a nation of willful ignorance".
Either way, you gave me a good laugh.
Both apply, I really meant the former as a more important point. And it is sad, not funny. If you mistake it for ironic you are possibly part of the problem.
Anna Molly,
I think we'd be on the edge of our seats, if we actually had substantive questions, and honest answers. There was an earlier thread where someone (I think it was Ron of Indiana) spoke of the Bork nomination, and the lack of any willingness on the part of the nominee to take a risk, and actually answer a question, subsequent to Bork's rejection. What you really have in these hearings, in my opinion, is a whole bunch of self important politicians (both parties) that get their necessary fix of tv time, and don't actually perform their function. You also have a nominee, (not just Kagan, all of them) who doesn't want to torpedo his or her chance at a lifetime appointment to the highest court in our land, thereby leading to some vapid response to a hypothetical question. Close the hearings to tv, and you might actually get some sort of real dialogue between the Senators, and the candidate. In this particular instance, I don't think that "we the people" are being served by televising the hearings. Actually, in most cases, I don't think that we the people are served by televising any hearings, primarily because of the inability of Senators and Representatives to stop playing to the cameras, and do their jobs.
Yes, clearly transparency is the problem. Let's do more behind closed doors. Grandstanding is an obvious activity to anyone who is paying attention. Most are not. The ignorants and the ignorance of that fact is the problem. Every moment on the job in an elected official's working life should be on camera and audio recorded.
Paul,
Do you actually think that televising this hearing has been of benefit to anyone? Can you honestly say that you have a better understanding of the candidates position, given that no substantive answers have been provided, and given that no substantive questions have been asked. Are you better able to determine how the selection of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court will be to your benefit, or to your detriment, if, or rather when, she is confirmed? I'm certainly more than willing to have transparency, but this isn't transparency, it's showboating and grandstanding. Hearings that have to do with policy, i.e. HCR, banking regulation, student loan reform, open those up. Confirmation hearings that do nothing other than offer Senators and candidates tv time, not so much.
We're not seeing the forest for the trees here. Most of the ignorants don't even see the grandstanding because they don't watch the news. They certainly don't read the paper and if they did, they wouldn't read the transcript of a confirmation hearing, no matter how substantive the questions. You worry about how the ignorants are effected by what they see and hear . Fox has good ratings because they pander to the ill informed, we are growing ignorants like weeds and mushrooms.
Interesting how easy Kagen's nomination is sailing through. I believe she is getting
preferential treatment because she is white. When Sotomayor's nomination was
under consideration her "wise Latina" comments were taken out of context to
argue if appointed she would give preferential treatment to Latinos on cases. How
come not one senator has asked Kagen would she give preferential treatment to
whites given her abysmal record of minority hiring during her tenure at Harvard
Law School. The mainstream media has often created a mythology that she is
more intelligent and could bring together diverse factions on the court. BS- what
make anyone think that those judges hardened in their views would cave to a
neophyte like Kagen. I support her appointment but am troubled by this double
standard. Lastly, she has little experience, has never been a judge,
yet she gets a free ride. Sotomayor had 15 years on the bench, former prosecutor,
etc and she was grilled. White supremacy at its best.
Howard Jordan
Disgusting post.
Sotomayor herself injected race into the questioning, with her "wise Latina" comment. Those comments do suggest that one would possibly give preferential treatment to a particular class of people. Race should not be a criteria (at all, whatsoever) in deciding the LAW! The mere fact that she was Latina did not prompt senators to ask her questions about providing preferential treatment to Latinos. If that had been the case, I may be able to see why your eyebrows would be raised. However, given the fact that it was SHE who seemingly had injected race into the mix, I don't see why you should be surprised that she was asked about it.
As for Kagan's hiring practices at Harvard, several of the school's black law professors support her nomination and DEFEND her record at Harvard.