E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) -- who was one of a handful of GOP senators who voted for Elena Kagan's nomination as solicitor general -- says he is opposing her nomination for the Supreme Court.
Do note that he also voted against Sonia Sotomayor. Also note that Hatch is up for re-election in 2012, and he probably noticed what happened to fellow GOP Sen. Bob Bennett, who lost his party's nomination in May.
Here's Hatch's statement:
"I have carefully examined Solicitor General Elena Kagan's record, actively participated in the entire Judiciary Committee hearing, and considered the views of supporters and opponents from Utah and across the country. Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy. The law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law. I have concluded that, based on evidence rather than blind faith, General Kagan regrettably does not meet this standard and that, therefore, I cannot support her appointment.
"Supreme Court Justices who, like General Kagan, had no prior judicial experience did have an average of 21 years in private legal practice. General Kagan has two. The fact that her experience is instead academic and political only magnifies my emphasis on judicial philosophy as the most important qualification for judicial service.
"Over nearly 25 years, General Kagan has endorsed, and praised those who endorse, an activist judicial philosophy. I was surprised when she encouraged us at the hearing simply to discard or ignore certain parts of her record. I am unable to do that. I also cannot ignore disturbing situations in which it appears that her personal or political views drove her legal views. She promoted the Clinton administration's extreme position on abortion, including the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.
As Dean of Harvard Law School, she blocked the access by military recruiters that federal law requires. And she took legal positions on important issues such as freedom of speech that could undermine the liberties of all Americans.
*** UPDATE *** Per NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, the Senate Judiciary Committee plans to vote on Elena Kagan's nomination for the Supreme Court on Tuesday July 13th at 10am.
Leave a Comment:
*Insert Home Alone Kid Look of Shock*
Nope NEVER saw that coming. I do however think that Lindsey Graham will be a YES vote!
Of course Lindsey Gramnesty will vote for the Sociolist Apparachik, he has betrayed the trust of his party frequently and hopefullly will be voted out of office next time around.
Remember in November, Disarm Obama!
Graham is showing leadership which has been sorely lacking on the Republican side and I admire him for that. Most of the country are moderates and will look at him favorably. I sure do.
Interesting Captain... that you confuse rational with betrayal... Very Telling indeed!
So what in his statement do you disagree with?
Since every bit of it is rooted in fact, You have to vote no on her. After all this is a LIFETIME appointment.
When is Lindsey Graham going to come out of the closet? He is soooooo gay!
Can't this nomination be filibustered? Lindsay is digging his own grave, and it is about time. If you love your freedom, do not allow this leftwing zealot to judge our laws, or to make the laws. Maybe she cannot be stopped, but slowing her@$$ down is a great idea while the pile of leftwing bs is totally vetted.
LMAO! 'Gay'- 'Leftwing Zealot' - 'Disarm Obama'....
It's the 4th of July Weekend and instead of observing the holiday commemorating the birth of this country - you all have your 'panties in a bunch' because the majority of Americans are no longer rolling over and letting the Country First & Family Values crowd drag us backwards...
She's gonna be confirmed and there's not a damn thing you can do about it! Say hello Justice Kagen! :0)
In the meantime isn't it a little bit early to be hitting the Hate-O-Raid so hard? Try a cup of tea instead - I hear it does wonders... lol
Thank you. Isn't all this HATE absolutely AMAZING?
I'm 61 years old, and I have NEVER seen such outrage. I guess it's better to save it all up and put it all on one man. Namely Obama. Obama is to blame for everything wrong in america. I guess Obama is a perfect example and a constant reminder of how slavery did not work. Is that the problem? Inquiring minds want to know. Give me a break. All you're doing is exhibiting to the rest of the world how little humanity YOU righties really have. You righties should be ashamed of yourselves. I guess that would only count if there was shame in you. Are you haters teaching this same hate to your children? Oh I forgot - of course you are. They are in the form of skinheads, and white nazi groups, etc. Kagan is in - it's just popular for the righties to dis her every chance they get. That would be the case NO MATTER who Obama nominated. Are any of my other fellow posters beginning to let all this hate fall on deaf ears? I'm sick of it. It has gotten SO old. But small minds produce little or no logic.
so if one opposes the troll being appointed they are all skinheads or nazis?
bcarol8
Why don't these groups just admit the fact that they don't like or want her because she's female and a Jew.
a female a jew a commie and of the beaver
Because, JUST like with Obama, it is not because he is black, it is not because she is a she, it is not because she is a Jew..
It is all about the lack of experience AND the policies that they push.
Why cant the leftist groups just admit that it is not about race, color, sex or religion and everything to do with the policies of the people in question?
lefties love the victim mentality
Bcarol8, yet another disgusting post. You think that people disagree with Obama because of his policies ONLY because he's black? You are ridiculous. Newsflash, Bcarol8, but white people (those skinheads you apparently think encompass the white race) voted Obama into office. You should realize, with all your age and experience, that whenever someone pulls out the race card where it is unwarranted, it does nothing to further their cause. You are the one who sees Obama as ONLY a black man; I don't, and an overwhelming majority of people don't. We actually see him as our PRESIDENT, and as someone who should be held ACCOUNTABLE for the policies he asserts and the actions he takes.
And Philip, your post is a close second. Nobody cares that she is Jewish nor do they care that she is a female. What is with the lefts' fascination with identity politics? I find it utterly disgusting.
Bcarol8 & Phillip excellent posts!
I only hope that Elana Kagen is in FACT gay! It would positively cause their empty heads to explode!
Oh and the phony Democrat... also... too! You Betcha!
The choice of Ms. Kagan is both interesting and disturbing, not withstanding, she has a strong legal background as a litigator and college educator. Fair enough. However, what I see happening here is a candidate that leans more toward creating law; than interpreting it. Let me be clearer. Our Constitution dictates there are three branches of government; the Judicial, the Executive, the Legislative. Congress is the Legislative. It is the function of the Legislative to introduce bills or amendments that create the laws of our nation. The Executive, or Presidential branch, then confirms those bills into law or veto them. If vetoed, the bill goes back to the Legislative for 2/3 vote to override the Presidential veto, or bill fails. It is the responsibility of the judicial branch to ensure current laws abide by the outline of the Constitution, and, protect the rights of the citizens.
However, ever increasing, we have a Supreme Court that is creating new laws by overruling current laws based on personal beliefs. Creating new laws is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court. Our founding fathers, concerned regarding excessive judicial power deliberately separated each branch of government’s power and authority. During the last 20 or so years, we have seen increasing liberal appointees placed on the Supreme Court. These new judges are now interpreting and striking down constitutional laws based on personal beliefs; rather than following the strict outline of laws, set forth by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendments, etc.
A perfect example of this is Roe vs Wade. Regardless of which side of the abortion issue you are on, it was not the judicial branch of government (Supreme Court) to set a new federal law into place. Constitutionally, Roe vs Wade should have been a bill introduced to Congress, passed by both houses and signed into law by the President. At this point, the Supreme Court responsibility would be to hear any challenges for or against the new law and rule accordingly, based on Constitutional Law and Bill of Rights, and other laws in place. However, our Supreme Court bypassed these steps and created a new law on their own.
How many times since the 1970's, have we seen our ever increasingly liberal Supreme Court strike down law after law passed by states and Congress based on personal beliefs? What really concerns me, is our current President. He has made several statements lately regarding bypassing the Constitution on the Illegal Immigration issue. The Constitution is clear on the steps Illegal Residents must take to become legally recognized members of society. Our President's position is to ignore these constitutional laws and sidestep the issue by proposing "Amnesty" bills to deal with the situation.
At this point, the President is no fool. He is looking at an increasingly disenchanted American voter populace; midterm elections that offer severe challenges in many Democratic stronghold states; plus, a illegal resident issue that is being profoundly fought on both sides of the spectrum by American voters. More voters want to see tougher regulations and control along our borders. This is something the Democratic Party, plus, our President doesn't want; primarily, both rely heavily on the uneducated Hispanic vote. I find it enlightening that an ever increasing number of Educated Hispanic Voters leaning toward Independent and Republican views.
This brings us back to our current Supreme Court Candidate, Ms. Kagan. President Obama has already appointed one Hispanic Liberal, to the Supreme Court. Ms. Kagan purpose is to capture the Liberal Female Vote and Jewish Voter.
My real concern is her expertise as a strong litigator. A comment was made in the article announcing her as the President’s choice, should concern all. Ms. Kagan has the ability to sway other minority points of view to her side. In a nutshell, the President's agenda appears to be motivated by striking down certain Constitutional laws, such as the 2ND Amendment (the right to bear arms); Citizenship and Residency Requirements, outlined in the Constitution toward foreign and illegal residents; more government control and less personal freedoms for citizens. What better way, than appoint a liberal minded litigator sympathetic to his causes. Although, Ms. Kagan has an outstanding record as a litigator, she has no actual "on the bench" experience as a judge.
In essence, she has only experienced one side of the judicial system; that of an attorney and college educator. She has never experienced the judicial side of being a judge. This expertise encompasses taking both sides into consideration; researching constitutional law and other previous rulings; thus, making decisions based on said laws in place. What one must consider, Ms. Kagan without Judicial Experience would be setting or striking down Constitutional Laws, which would affect this nation and all citizens for generations to come. It is one thing arguing a case, as a litigator, for or against a cause; it's entirely different being the judge and ruling on that case based on the laws of the land.
It appears President Obama is making this candidate proposal based on political maneuvering rather than judicial experience. There are many fine State Supreme Court Justices across the country, with the background and "on the bench" experience that would be better qualified for this appointment.
The Supreme Court has become the most political branch of the United States government ~ and congress has made that way. SCOTUS no longer divines the law and Constitution but each justice is expected to be an extension of political philosophy and vote in that manner. Nominations and confirmations are based on a virtual pledge from the nominee that fealty to political philosophy is generally assured. When a candidate refuses to reveal to politicians how s/he would vote on an issue before the facts in evidence are even considered by the court, s/he is labeled "evasive." Early writings pertaining to SCOTUS proved conclusively that the founders intended it to be an apolitical body. Today, one's politics is considered by most as being the only qualification for the court. Oh, there is a vain attempt to make it look otherwise, but IMMEDIATELY a nominee is branded "conservative" or "liberal" ~ and forced to choose between those two options ~ ~ ~ or else they are "evasive" and "can't be trusted to promote the desired philosophy."
Kagan will be confirmed for two reasons that have NOTHING to do with real qualifications for the job. (1) The Obamasheep still control congress. (2) Like Obama she refuses to give direct answers to any intelligent questions posed to her that may make her look bad. #2 makes her the perfect pick for the Obama version of the U.S. Supreme Court. In this way she will be free to cast her vote (as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice) in any manner Obama tells her to. Kagan's confirmation/appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court will be a great help to Obama as he continues to destroy, (or should I say to be politically correct,)"remake" America.
The only chance we have of her NOT being confirmed is if enough Obamasheep who are up for re-election this year, think it will help get them re-elected by not confirming her. At this point I think most of them have seen the light and know it is the bus Obama has thrown them under to get what he wants, and they realize it is too late to save their respective political careers.
I'm taking bets: Specter will also vote against Kagan. She just drove that lame duck insane.
Specter is a Democrat and will vote the way he is told, thank God he'll be voted out soon.
Remember in November, Disarm Obama!
Captain Marvelous,
Do you think Harriet Miers and Bork would have been better picks? Because they were both so impartial right. Go back to drinking the Glenn Beck Kool Aid.
Actually, I had no problem with Bork. I disagree with him, but there was no legitimate argument that he was lacking in any qualification for the job. Putting Meiers into that category is simply an insult to Kagan and Bork.
And Bork is the reason that the process has become so contentious and ridiculously formulaic. That's the Democrats' fault. They decided to turn confirmation hearings into character assassination forums when Bork came up, and thus we have the utterly colorless process we get with candidates now, and we receive correspondingly lackluster candidates, for the most part - like John Roberts and Samuel Alito. I blame the Democrats for sowing the seeds of this sad parody of a job interview. After their hatchet jobs in the past against qualified candidates, I can't say I'm sorry to see them have to put up with the same nonsense they started. And I actually think Kagan is a pretty decent candidate for the court.
I have trouble with the issue that she blocked access by the Military recruiters at Harvard. She has not adequatly explained this or refuted it.
Chris N.-1932876
Alito and Roberts are legislating from the bench along w/ Thomas and Scalia. We have no idea what kind of judge Kagan will be, look at Stevens whom she will replacing and Souter who Bush Sr. thought was a conservative but proved to be quite the opposite. The 4 mentioned above are indeed activists and have of course shown this to be true w/ their decisions of late. I don't believe Bork to have been qualified because of his extreme views on matter of race and a woman's reproductive rights. But you and I both agree that Harriet Miers was a extremely bad choice and would have been extremely partial in her judgements correct?
From my perspective these are the questions to be asked:
The interstate commerce clause says no, but the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn allowed the government to fine a farmer for growing too much wheat and not taking enough of it to market — because his actions, when aggregated with those of other farmers, could affect national wheat prices. How would Ms. Kagan have decided that case? If aggregating economic activity transforms that activity into interstate commerce, ask her to give examples of activities the government cannot regulate.
The government only imposes three duties: register for the draft, sit on a jury, and pay income tax. All are fundamental duties of citizenship tied to specific constitutional provisions that have nothing to do with the Commerce Clause.
Senators can't ask about the individual health care mandate — the issue will come before the Supreme Court — but how about a requirement to buy spinach or join a gym?
In 1946, Congress passed the Hobbs Act, which allows the federal prosecution of extortion and robbery that impedes the flow of commerce across state lines. The act is now used to prosecute crimes having no effect on interstate commerce. In United States v. Baylor, for example, the Sixth Circuit allowed the federal prosecution of a man who robbed a Cleveland-area pizzeria because the shop obtained its flour, sauce and cheese from various states outside Ohio. There are many other examples where the federal government intrudes on states' police powers.
The Depression-era Supreme Court said yes because constitutional protections for property and contract rights can be sacrificed to "protect" homeowners. More recently, the court allowed the Chrysler bankruptcy to proceed even though the government subverted the rights of secured creditors. How would Ms. Kagan have voted in those cases?
In the infamous 2005 case of Kelo v. New London, the city condemned people's houses and gave them to a company that promised to use the land to create jobs and increase tax revenue. The court, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, whom Ms. Kagan would replace, approved this eminent domain abuse because the Fifth Amendment's "public use" requirement included the "public benefit" contemplated here.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented: "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." Which opinion would Ms. Kagan have joined?
Bear in mind. She has been solicitor general, and it was her job to use existing law to argue the governments case. This goes far beyond politics and who's up and who's down. This hits at the heart of what it means to be governed and the Rule of Law. The law does not affect Demorcrats and Republicans differently, it affects us all.
A little paranoid?
Good post, Rob. These are questions that actually matter, and from which senators (and the American people) can gain the necessary insight into Kagan's judicial philosophy. Unfortunately, most of the people on this blog do not care about the answers to those questions; they're much more interested in coming up with crafty insults to hurl at people who don't share their point of view....you know, those same people who pride themselves on their "open-mindedness".
When the healtcare matter does come up she should have to Recuse herself from hearing it because she is part of the Administration that is trying to force this Abomination on the American people..
Your response was very thoughtful. Both sides of the aisle should take note.
Senator Hatch can't vote for her judicial philosophy but it's his that matters. He voted for for the republican philosophy when he voted fo the Bush appointees; included our favorite uncle. Uncle Clarence Thomas was really falling in line with judicial philosophy with his vote to help the NRA. Uncle Tom was very vocal on helping citizens defend the right to kill each other. Would somebody please wake Uncle Tom up. He compared the 2nd amendment to a uprising during American Slavery.
As far as Hatch is concerned he is only interested in keeping his seat.
Hatch is a hypocrite anyway, he votes for her as Solicitor General, the US Attorney who argues before the Supreme Court but doesn't see her fit to be on the Court. Didn't he also say that Harriet Miers was a fine pick as well. Didn't he want to put Blumenthal of Connecticut in jail for lying about his war service but when all this stuff about Kirk comes out he's silent. The hyprocisy of the GOP knows no bounds.
And yes, Clarence Thomas did harass Anita Hill, the idiots on the Judicial Commitee didn't understand what sexual harassment is or was because they probably practiced the same stuff on their on staff.
Beverly, what the Supreme Court found was the the Second Amendment originated from the importance of protecting a person's ability to defend themselves and their property. Nobody defended the right of citizens to kill each other. Have you ever considered that those gangsters running the streets in Chicago are threats to the American way of life? If I lived in Chicago, I would probably reconsider my aversion to guns. People SHOULD be allowed to defend their lives and their property if an intruder enters their home.
You're delusional, and your reference to Clarence Thomas as an "Uncle Tom" is ignorant.
And Philip, wasn't one of the main reasons that Democrats refused to support Harriet Miers due to her lack of experience as a judge? Wouldn't you say that the Democrats' offering their ready support to Kagan, who likewise has no judicial experience, be hypocritical as well?
POLITICIANS ARE ALL THE SAME!!!! HYPOCRISY IS A BANNER THAT BOTH PARTIES HOLD HIGH!!!!
Hatch won't vote for Kagan because she's twice the man he is.
I wonder why Hatch didn't apply the same philosopy to the Bush nominees?
Another Repulican shoing their true color; 'Keep My Seat At Any Cost'! The Hell with everthing else what matters is I KEEP MY SEAT!!!!!!!
He's probably afraid of the NRA. They are putting all kinds of pressure on the GOBP senators.
That is what the author has led you to believe - but if you read what the Senator has written... It seems pretty clear exactly what is behind him saying no to Kagan.
Don't let the media tell you what to think so much hampster.
I have been watching the Kagan hearings on TV. I am impressed with Kagan's grasp of the law and feel that she will be an outstanding judge.
I am also amazed at the so called liberty and freedom folks who only want that only for themselves and no one else. The NRA is threatening the GOP for not thinking for themselves. The old tired white guys are chastising Kagan for taking a stand as a team player and supporter for the Job situations that she has been involved with.
As an employer I expect any employee that works with me to honor my work philosophy and she does that well.
So I guess Hatch does needs an excuse to be mean, jealous, vindictive and partisan.
Utah must be so proud that they have such a Sage as Hatch. Old white Bigot, hates women, gays and anyone that is of a different color or cult.
I think you are right. He looks just plain angry and is ridiculous in repeating questions. I think maybe these hearing should be private as it looks like just a side show.
Party before country! How surprising. And these clowns will gain seats come November? Explains how Bush could get elected twice.
Then I guess you are overjoyed how our present administration is producing TRILLION dollar deficits and Toeing the Party line also, i.e. the health care fiasco, when there have been examples presented and ignored by Democrats who want to support the President's Socialist agenda. Party before country! It's not followed by one party only! By the way, Has anyone heard anything about next year's budget since that starts Oct. 1???????
How Bush was elected twice? Kerry and Gore, two of the biggest hipocrits this nation has had to endure.
Rob-459463
I don't think you need to worry about "repeal and replace". Nearly half of all Americans have a favorable view of the new health care reform law, according to a new national poll. Isn't it strange the way all the Senators had a love fest to confirm Petreaus just to continue flowing money to their corporate masters in the Industrial Military Complex. Yet at the same time don't want to help people here at home.
You are right the public does have a good view of the bill. We have to start saving money or Medicare will be broke and the best chance seems to be with bundled payments. I have been to doctors who have ordered too many tests that I didn't want. It is all about profits. This is a first step towards saving Medicare and hoping to keep rates in check.
You don't have to accept a script for a test. but I bet you will be the frist to cry incompetancel if you are ever diagnosed with a life threatening disease down the road. And you are most likely a hypocrit like the rest of the GOP.
it's just another reason for that party to hold the progress of America up. In this poltical atmosphere don't let there dare be any kind of bi-patisanship unless of course its for war.
Come on people vote out these incumbents red and blue. Let's move to where Politics is no longer a career but the opportunity to do great things.
Oh what a suprise that Horrid Hatch from Moron Mormon country would be scared to death to vote for Elena Kagan. Horrid Hatch only wants corrupt radical subversive conservative activist judges who legislate from the bench to prop up their decrepit shrinking party of Shrieking Violets. What a bunch of lying hypocrites who whine about activist judges, they always strive to nominate and confirm activist conservative judges who will protect Wall Street before Main Street.
I found Kagan's response to the question of whether rights are innate or granted by the constitution very disturbing. She appeared to not understand the question which really bothered me. Why is this important? Because every bit of history and writing on the constitution at the time it was written and political philosophies like Thomas Paine's are predicated that we have certain rights based on the fact that we are human beings, regardless of location or what a government says. The constitution very specifically does not grant rights, else we wouldn't have a 9th amendment. All the BoR does is specify some specific rights in terms so clear that congress knows some rights it can't mess with at all so don't even try.
The notion that our basic of freedoms, like freedom of assembly, speech etc. are granted by the constitution supposes that before the constitution we didn't have rights. That flies in the face of everything we know historically about the framers and the debates of the time. Many opposed the BoR because they didn't want anyone to think that the ONLY rights we have are the ones listed there.
For her to be anything other than crystal clear on this decides me against her and I voted for Obama and like him. She's just a party apparatchik and Obama can do a lot better. There are lots of other liberals out there that would be a great replacement for Stevens.
Name them and show us how they would ever get past this party of NO. I believe one of the reasons she was selected was because she is an intelligent person who is moderate enough to make it through the ever increasingly partisan Senate..
The woman is intelligent enough to not answer any questions. She blathers on with no answer coming forth. Get rid of her leftwing socialist @$$.
Yeah, thats right Dasvet.
Except that when alito and roberts were in their hearings they "blathered" on providing even less information in their answers. alito and roberts are not moderate judges that deserved their appointments because of their legal scholarship and intelligence, they were placed their because they are right wing ideological appointments. They are the conservative activist judges that will overturn established law and precedence to return us to a backward time (the old days for the republicans) where minorities and women had no civil rights, or the right to vote, etc. They are also their to codify the extreme republican right wing religious ideals found in their various bibles. And finally, they were appointed to be the "friends of corporations" at the expence of the people as all republican appointees are. As a whole however, alito and roberts in legal knowledge terms do not add up to one persons IQ between the both of them.
Conservative blather about her judicial philosphy is pathetic. With the clowns Bush 1 & 2 put on the court, crying activist is the height of hypocracy. The party of no and negativism strikes again.
Finally! A Republican not afraid to stand up and tell Obama where he can stick his liberal-nutjob nomination!!
I find it terribly upsetting how little senator Hatch seems to know about Law and Judges. FIrstly, all judges have some political bias. They are allowed it in their personal lives. When they act as a Judge, however, they put that away.
This is not a question of what she has done, but how she will do. Even (for an extreme example) if someone killed kittens and spat on graves, if they were impartial and judged with proper reasoning, they could be a fine judge. I think that the ABA (American Bar Association's) recommendation is really the only vote she (or any other SCOTUS judge) should ever need.
ALso on Judges not making law. The majority of judgements in the US are based on common law. That law comes from the rulings made by a judge in an appelate, district, circuit, etc. court. They make law. They always have. They did before we split from britain. A judge's decision acts like law. It's not activism, it's the way the law works. For some reason Senator Hatch (And so many other senators, including lawyers to my great dismay) seam to ignore or forget this fact. Instead they try and scare the populace by saying, "she'll make laws!" when justices do that all the time. Read about your states appellate courts, and you'll see that, indeed, they rule whether things are unconstitutional, which makes it common law. Senator's go take your bar exams again or something, because you are acting very unprofessionally.
And the constitution sets NO qualifications for a judge either, unlike for Congress and President.
His statement is misleading. Federal law does NOT require a school to allow recruiting. It simply states that if you don't allow it, you get no federal funding.
There is NO federal REQUIREMENT to allow campus recruiting. He's simply a typical political chameleon, who wants to be re-elected.
And federal law also sets up conflicts...EOE requires equal opportunity for ALL citizens to get that same federal funding. Since the military is violating the EOE with their DADT policy, they should be denied access to the campus.
Great observation! So true.
VERY good point.
There is also no federal requirement for me to recruit for the military? What the hell has "not required" have to do with military recuritment. I am "not required" to breathe, by the Constitution, but I will continue to do so.
I think the more pertinent question is "what the hell does military recruitment necessarily have to do with college?"
Of course we need recruitment. My statement is that there is NO LAW that says a school must allow it, and the good senator misspoke in saying so.
What Hatch wanted was for her to tell him how she would vote on abortion, civil rights,womens issues, etc. beforehand and she ran rings around him. No judge can tell you how they will vote before the fact; if they do express such opinions they are supposed to recuse themselves. That's something Scalia seems to ignore at will but he's still there.
This is just more of the party of "NO". Expect the vote to come down along these lines, Dems-yes, Repbs.-No.
Gilbo, Kagan should then recuse herself from the nomination, since she has stated her opinions on abortion, civil rights, andwomen's issues. (your rules, not mine)When confronted with those facts, she just says, I am not that person now. What a buncha bs. She is a leftwing political hack, no more, no less.
Dasvet, Everyone is entitled to an opinion and can express their opinion freely even judges (shocking I know). The senators were not asking for her opinions on the issues but were asking how she would rule on cases. The job of a judge is to set aside their background, personal opinions, and any other sources of undue influence and decide cases solely based on the law and the evidence presented. Asking a prospective judge how they would rule on a case that they have not presided over is the problem with the Senators lines of questioning (as exibited during every judicial confirmation in recent history by both sides of the Senate floor) and any judge that would even consider rendering a decision on a case prior to hearing the facts presented should not be a judge.
A person's public record, actions, statements, etc. must be part of her vetting on qualifications for the SC. Would we ignore Hitler's speeches in the past, if he had been nominated to be a SC judge? We should look at her past closely, and most of the time, it is apparent how she will judge. It is the committe's responsibility to make the judgement on her which should be bassed on HER comments, and HER actions. There is no evidence that she will be an unbiased judge, and we know what that bias is.
Sure, if Hitler was a republican appointment to the supreme court the republicans sure would ignore his past speechs and actions. Case in point, when the republicans tried to appoint the extreme right wing Borke to the supreme court. The republicans tried to pass Borke off as an intelligent, even handed, and moderate jurist and that was definitly not true according to his past at the time.
Hatch voted for and actively supported Clarence Thomas who had very little private practice and judicial experience. Hatch wasn't troubled by the following testimony by Anita Hill:
"[Thomas] spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes....On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess....Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office, he got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, 'Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?'"
As history has since shown Thomas is less than the brightest legal mind ever to assume the high bench.
Think politics might be at play?
Nah
i think obama should pull her nomination and then during recess just give her the job just like george bush did with so many...paybacks are a bitch !
Maybe you should check your facts John because there can not be a recess appointment of a Supreme Court Judge. Believe me if Obama could make a recess appointment he would in a heart beat. Obama is always blaming republicans but Obama's idea of bi-partisanship is vote for my ideas or I will label you as an obstructionist. Obama does not believe in compromise since he has never had any experience in running anything except his mouth.
elena kagan will be a great justice. it amazes me that the conservative justices are ACTIVIST conservatives and you people downing kagan see nothing wrong with that. but when it is turned around all you idiots scream about it. kagan is the new supreme court justice and there is nothing you conservative activists can do anything about it
Typical right wing extremist MINORITY vote.
I'm shocked I tell ya!
Isn't he the same moron that wants to introduce a bill to drug test every American on unemployment?
Gina, I don't want my taxes to fund a drug addict, do you? What is wrong about testing the unemployed for drugs? I was/am tested at my workplace, even if the taxpayer isn't paying me. So I gather you want a "privileged class" for unemployment recipients.
Omg, Dasvet. What does "privilege" have to do with it?! There is no law requiring workplace testing of all employees. If I work somewhere that doesn't test, that doesn't make me "privileged." So what on earth makes the unemployed a "privileged class" if they're not subjected to testing?
The company owns the choice of drug testing for safety reasons and other reasons, because they pay the employee. I pay the unemployed, so shouldn't I have a choice of not supporting a drug addict by eliminating my choice of paying him? They are a "privileged class" precisely because the unemployed, at this time, cannot be required to pass a drug test. That is a pity!
The unemployed also have paid themselves.....through their payroll deductions, just as you still are Dasvet. That is what part of your deductions are for.....to provide you with some support should you be laid off from your job.
Now besides the obvious financial ramifications (but then again the cost of the drug test could just come out of the individuals unemployment check) what exactly is wrong with that idea?
The use of drugs is illegal in the United States (with the exception of mediaclly prescribed drugs obviously). At my job we have random drug testing and if I was to use drugs and get caught I would be fired on the spot.
Why should it be any different with people recieving unemployment or welfare or any other public assitance?
If the gov't did pass a law requiring an initial drug test and (to take it a step further) at least one random drug test a year it would get rid of the people who are getting the Obama money just to fuel their drug habit.
This would actually do two things.....
1. If a person is serious about needing federal assistance it would force them to clean themselve up OR....
2. If a person chooses to continue doing drugs then that would be less money the govt would have to give out.
Way to go Beverly, we have a few billion every month to help prop up a failed state but no money to extend unemployment for millions of Americans. It's great world we live in, where our Goverment cares more about imperalism on sticking their nose in world affairs and not take taking the hard steps to fix this country.
Wake up republicans that liberty you proclaim to love has been taken by
Here's Kagan with no answer to Sen. Coburns (R) question on whether the Commerce Clause would allow for a law forcing all Americans to eat fruits and vegetables every day. Thanks Senator!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo
Judges may not give opinions prior to a ruling to any case that may reasonably end up in front of the supreme court. Any judge that does will be unable to rule effectively on that case. THis is a legal issue, not, as so many say, an issue of politics.
the hearings were a sham of a bunch of radicals kissing the nasty ass of another radical who tried to pretend she was a moderate. she couldn't give a straight answer to question of whether the regime could dictate the foods we eat. you apologists for this regime are out of your minds!!! there are examples of this regime around the world and throughout history and you want the destruction to continue. amazing.