E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The Washington Post observes, By the end of 17 hours of senatorial grilling, lecturing and badgering, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan had revealed at least one passion: She loves this stuff. Put the woman in front of some stern interrogators who make her explain a dozen times why Harvard Law School doesn't require constitutional law in the very first year, and she comes alive."
More: "Over two days at the microphone, Kagan gave the impression that there was no place she would rather be than seeking to address all questions of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She assured even the openly hostile Republican members that she knows they are men of 'good faith.' And when the Democrats grumbled about the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., she enthusiastically responded that he, too, certainly is a man of 'good faith.'"
"Elena Kagan declined to discuss her passions, demurred when asked anything that might tip her hand on the Supreme Court and invoked her right to remain inscrutable even on cases buried in the past," the AP writes, adding, "Her dodges over two days of questioning prompted chuckles in the Senate Judiciary Committee as members, keenly aware of what she wrote in 1995, watched her rhetorical dances. But the evasive maneuvers created frustration, too."
Per NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, aides to the Senate Judiciary Committee do not expect a vote on Kagan's nomination until after the July 4th recess. Today, the committee will hear from outside witnesses late in the day after the memorial events for Robert Byrd. Although Kagan's public testimony is complete, she has been asked to submit some additional information in writing which is typical. The committee will review that before taking its vote in executive session.
Not surprisingly, the New York Times' editorial page supports Kagan's confirmation. "Elena Kagan delivered an impressive performance at her Senate confirmation hearing. Assuming the commitments she made were authentic and not simply designed to tranquilize the members of the Judiciary Committee, she could act as an important brake on the current Supreme Court's alarming tendency to bulldoze through decades of settled precedents. She deserves confirmation as an associate justice."
"The National Rifle Association scored the Senate's confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor as a "key vote" after her hearings last summer, and people are anticipating whether the group will do it again with Kagan," The Hill reports.
Leave a Comment:
Elena Kagan has made fools of the dopes of nope with her charming witty humor and ability to answer the toughest questions. No surprise as she's more intelligent than any of the dopes of nope who question her ability to become a good Supreme Court Justice. She'll bring intelligence and honesty to the corrupt conservative roberts court which does nothing but play activist games for the rightwing tyrants who wish to destroy our Secular Democracy.
Eric,
She help her own pretty good huh. How about the other day when she had Sessions fumbling for words. I think she has the makings of a very good Justice, she brings honesty, integrity, intelligence to an otherwise dysfunctional court. I am tired of the 5-4 decisions typically in favor of Big Business, Wall Street etc.
The GOP really should pick their battles a little bit more intelligently. I believe they expected to really damage Kagan by somehow showing she was a radical left wing reactionary. All they succeeded in doing was showing how small their minds are and what tunnel vision controls them and their actions.
The GOP is so out of touch they do not even have the sense to realize that by attacking Thurgood Mashall, they have only succeeded in alienating yet another large swath of the American electorate. And, its not like they are likely to block the Kagan appointment. So, after all is said and done, I want to thank the GOP once again for showing the American people their true colors and allegiance.
Bring on the ballots!
Disgusted,
She will win. She did a good job. They did not land one good punch.
Disgusted -in-PA makes an excellent point. The Arizona law regarding illegal immigrants has offended many Latino voters. Some of the polling coming out of that state is showing that it is a drag on the party as those voters abandon the GOP. The attacks on Thurgood Marshall will do the same. The GOP, in recent years, does not seem to get that you marginalize the Party every single time you insult a group that votes. If they don't lose the "tea baggers" and begin to expand their base away from the "Christian" Coalition, they run the risk of becoming also rans in years to come, and may eventually join the Whigs as an interesting piece of Americana, but no longer in existence. Some rational person in leadership in the Republican Party (if rationality claims place in that party) must step up and start to curb the excesses.
What's amazing about the attacks on Marshall is not only is the NAACP not seen as some radical group (unlike the ACLU often is), but the cases he argued for the NAACP, while ground breaking at the time (i.e. Brown v. Board of ED), today no one in their right mind would argue Marshall was on the wrong side of the issue.
Unlike the Arizona law that disproportionately concerns Hispanics (the white center doesn’t appear to be outraged), to attack Marshall and his time at the NAACP (and on the Supreme Court) is not merely offensive to African Americans, but to the white center as well. The number of white Americans who think Brown was wrongly decided is minimal, and anyone who thinks Brown was wrongly decided, or that it taints Marshall’s legacy would never support a Democratic candidate. (i.e. there is no gain) But most white Republicans above the Mason Dixon line (and presumably a large number below the line) find such criticism offensive.
What's amazing about the attacks on Marshall is not only is the NAACP seen as some radical group (unlike the ACLU often is), but the cases he argued for the NAACP, while ground breaking at the time (i.e. Brown v. Board of ED), today no one in their right mind would argue Marshall was on the wrong side of the issue.
Unlike the Arizona law that disproportionately concerns Hispanics (the white center doesn’t appear to be outraged), to attack Marshall and his time at the NAACP (and on the Supreme Court) is not merely offensive to African Americans, but to the white center as well. The number of white Americans who think Brown was wrongly decided is minimal, and anyone who thinks Brown was wrongly decided, or that it taints Marshall’s legacy would never support a Democratic candidate. But most white Republicans above the Mason Dixon line (and presumably a large number below the line) find such criticism offensive.
Hawk,
You raise some great points in your post. Not quite worth posting twice, but close. :)
I agree that attacking Marshall was a really boneheaded (Boehner?) move. They gained nothing and risked a substantial amount. For people that are supposedly such great businessmen, where is the return on THAT investment. For that matter, what ever happened to that budget SURPLUS we handed over to the business mavens on the right about 10 years ago? That's right, it somehow morphed into a trillion and a half dollar DEFICIT. Why is it we keep giving these guys the keys to the Treasury America?
Congratulations to Kagan on his soon-to-be confirmation. To go from pllaying in "Paul Blart-Mall Cop" to being on the SCOTUS in just a few short years is quite an achievement.
Careful Chuckie. I would hate to see you break an arm patting yourself on the back for that amazing bit of witticism...
I shouldn't be ridiculing Kagan's looks. I mean, it's not like people spent HOURS on here yesterday making fun of Boehner's looks...did they?
You mean the orange man with the spray-on hair?
Boehner? Who? Oh, wait... You mean Agent Orange! I get it now... :)
I don’t think people would mock Boehner’s appearance but for his perpetual tan, that is not a natural hue. Its clear Boehner is vain, and spends a lot of time through out the year in his tanning booth. Has anyone ever seen a picture of Boehner since he hit the national stage where he wasn’t tan (orange)?
If people mad fun of Boehner because of a receding hairline, large chin, or physical imperfection that couldn’t be minimized short of significant plastic surgery, that would be wrong, and shallow. However, when a man (or women) his age, and in his position of power, is tan year round, and doesn’t realize that his perpetual tan has made him a caricature, making fun of his looks is free game.
When people made fun of Katherine Harris, during the Fl. Recount, it wasn’t because she was naturally unattractive. Like Boehner in their vain effort to improve their appearance they actually made themselves less attractive to the point of being comical. (Boehner with his excessive year round tanning, and Harris with far too much lipstick) Both politicians remained right wing nuts, but eventually Harris learned (maybe all the SNL mocking) not to overdue the lipstick, that less is more.
Neither Boehner’s wife or staff, or GOP colleagues is doing him any favors by not telling him to cut his tanning by at least 75%.
I truly enjoyed the confirmation hearings. Elena Kagan held her own! Sessions and Coburn were quite annoying with their repetitive combative stance. They got on my nerves as an observer; so, I can imagine how I would have felt being in Elena Kagan's place. She was good; very, very good in not taking the bait to show combative emotions. I applaud her! I don't know where Specter was coming from with his questioning. I almost thought that he was part of the Session's and Coburn's team!
In every way, I do believe that Elena Kagan has proven that she has superb credentials to be a Supreme Court Justice!
Congratulation, Elena Kagan, for a job well done in the hearings.
My guess is Spector decided to punish her a bit for her University of Chicago article about the farce of the confirmation hearings, given she also refused to make it a substantive discussion. But it was an odd sound bite.
Specter was a Republican for so many years, I think he forgot for a while which side he was on again...
Where are the little dogs (chihuahua's). Are they dead? Has anyone been notified?
Just got back from a memorial service for the puppies. Well really I just a cold one thinking , no hoping that we had heard the last from them. Can't wait to have one in memory of CU Farley.
Eric, Salinas, CA
What a great post. Attacking Thurgood Marshall was so stupid.If those idiots knew anything about history, they'd know Thurgood Marshall, one of the most brilliant legal minds in the history of the United States who fought against little chidren being bombed just to enter schools, Blacks not having to walk in the fear of being shot just for wanting equal protection and education under the Constitution.
busbus
LOL... Spector is getting to be a little like the forgetful Mc Cain and can't remember anymore what day it is.