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:
I have listened to parts of the Kagan hearings. Sen. Hatch's opinion could be drawn from the hearings. Kagan does not have private practice experience. Ms. Kagan's work as an attorney with the government does not allow for meaningfull inquiry into her personal philosophies, she always represents the interest of her client, in part, the current administration. However, Kagan is intelligent, hard working, and has a wealth of experience in life and academics. The fear of judicial activism is more of a political statement than a reality. We have 9 members on the US Supreme Court. Everyone of them bring with them opinions. However, they know their roles and I suggest remind each other of those roles from time to time. Ms Kagan is significantly qualified. I would support her.
Respectufully well articulated. These fears of activism, judicial extremism, etc., are essentially political statements. They're for the media and for people who do not properly understand, or embrace, the values of what makes a good judge. No person is born a judge, nor are they a judge outside the courtroom. Kagan is making the case that, in the courtroom, she will be impartial and judicious. If the ABA supports her, I say we all should.
Despite the dog and pony show for the Senators to blow off and vent in their normal manner, Kagan will win nomination easily.
But, at least here in this forum is a way for the non-Senators to blow off the same way. Sounds like a lot of good Senatorial material here (NOT!).
"...more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy". Senator Hatch, what does that mean? If one's judicial philosphy does not agree with your's it is not appropriate?! If one does not agree with Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Scalia's puppet, Thomas they don't have the "appropriate" philosphy!
I wholeheartedly believe in the Constitution but I also look at in the context of when it was written over 200 years ago. To me, it is a living and breathing document that is still growing and still open to interpretation. I don't think the founding Fathers had visions of the telephones of all kinds and 24/7 news cycles on the internet.
Excellant post dan-1951257
I would only add that the US Constitution is not a suicide pact!!!!
And thats the problem I have with liberals and progressives.
The Constitution is not a "living and breathing document". The bill of rights should not change just because we are a different society than 200 years ago.
To say that it is living and breathing means that you believe that it can be changed. And that is just flat out wrong.
Hatch's vote depends upon the views of his electorate, and, of course, the NRA's direct order to vote against Kagan. Go to Utah and find out who Hatch represents. My suggestion is that you take a Bible in one hand and an AK-47 in the other. They'll tell you in Utah that, if Christ were alive today, he would have gone down shooting. He would never have allowed himself to be taken and crucified!
What is a liberal?
What is a conservative?
What is a socialist?
What is a moderate?
What is a fascist?
What is an extrme right winger?
Do all of the above consider themselves moderates? Or, do they see themselves for what they really are?
Who sees themselves as and admits to being any of these?
Only a few of us have the insight and courage to see who and admit what we really are. Yet, it is with ease we pin labels on others and most of those labeling the others lack objectivity and the true knowledge as to what their labels really mean.
Socialist apparently is the new word for communist and seems to have been develolped by Fox and promulgated by others of their ilk and their blind followers to prevent Obama from governing. I have yet to see a single right winger properly define a socialist or socialism or offer insight and analysis into their own far right views and how they so differ from our Constitutional principles, democracy and liberty.
Anybody, left - right - or center, care to answer the above?
This country always has been far closer to going extrme right then extreme left and still is. We have to be ever vigilant of the extreme right as they pose the gravest threat to our Constitution and individual freedoms. We have to be very careful the far left don't impose their own totalitarian state but the far right remmains the real threat.
McTash: Excellent post! You're right on the mark!
McTash You make many great points in your posting and I hope everyone takes a minute to think about what you wrote.
It doesn't matter how Hatch thinks about Kagen, if he votes for her the Republican party will cut his legs off. If you're a Republican there is no such thing as thinking for yourself, they're putting a ring in everybody's nose. As long as Republicans are operating from fear there will be no bi-partisanship in the legislature.
I would expect nothing less from a man like Hatch. He has nothing of substance against her, just that she's not a product of the far right. Unbelievable!!
Isn't Orin Hatch the same, lame senator who opposed re-upping the Unemployment Benefits because "They're just going to go out and buy drugs with the money"? And that doesn't strip away his credibility as a representative of the people? But then again, he is from Utah and the only thing Utah has going for it are the Osmond's. They Call it Puppy Love!
Stopping unemployment benefits will force people off their buts to take back the jobs from the Mexicans. Solving unemployment and illegal immigration all in one fell swoop.
And I suppose if you were unemployed, you'd be the first one in line to pick tomatoes in 100 degree heat, right? If you lost your job you woudn't apply for UI, right? What planet do you wing nuts live on?
bcct: My hope and prayer is that you find yourself unemployed and that everything you believe will come back to force you to live in the land that's better than life you idolize. Don't give me that usual right wing BS that I'm on welfare. I'm well off and very likely pay more taxes than you do now or that you ever will.
Not defending what he's saying necessarily, but you guys are misinterpreting the source of bcct's anger about the continuous extension of unemployment insurance benefits.
See, the problem is not with the EXISTENCE of unemployment, it's the fact that these benefits CONTINUE to be extended for, what seems like, forever. Unemployment, like welfare, is meant to be a social safety net to help people who have fallen on hard times TEMPORARILY. Neither programs are, nor should they be, seen as PERMANENT solutions to poverty.
I'm all for social safety nets; I'm less in support of entitlements, which is what the continuous extension of unemployment benefits is at least starting to look like.
Jill F: Come on, Jill. I know what bcct is talking about. It's the social Darwinist argument, namely, that each person is born with some given degree of ambition, and then, that innate level of ambition is reached as one lives out his or her life. Some people, for example, are born with a great deal of ambition, and consequently, they properly make it to the top of the social order--naturally. Those who don't have so much innate ambition will naturally make it to, say, the middle classes. Those who have a very small amount of innate ambition are innately lazy and will remain in the lower classes. The poor, the naturally lazy, are people who are begging on the streets, or are the homeless. The social Darwinists say, "Don't give them a dime because, if you do, you are just helping them to stay beggars." "If you don't give them any aid, then those who are strong enough to survive will find work and survive. Those who don't, will die." "We feel sorry for the poor devils, but nature just made them that way." They go on to argue that the human poor are no different from any other animal on the planet. The strong survive and the weak die. We feel sorry for them, but that is the way nature works. Some good Christians got into the argument and said, "Yes, God made nature that way. The strong survive and the weak die off." It's God's plan!" "Government should not help anyone!"
The above is the social Darwinist argument. It's often called the Libertarian argument today because social Darwinism sounds too harsh, too much the anti-Christ---Charles Darwin! Social Darwinism is also the far right's argument, the Tea Party argument, and they are having some success moving the Republican politicians to that end. Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul are the best spokesmen for the social Darwinist/Libertarian argument today, and I have a lot of respect for them. I don't agree with them, but I respect them because they don't back away from their political philosophy. The rest of the Republican politicians spout Libertarianism, but don't have the backbone to cast their votes on issues that require a lot of courage. That is exactly why the Tea Party people, the right wing of the Republican Party, hates what they call the Republican traitors, and that is exactly why they are doing everything they can to have them defeated by right wing candidates. More to the issue, that is exactly why Orin Hatch plans to vote against Kagan! He won't be elected by his constituents in Utah if he doesn't.
My hope and prayer is that these "big talking" social Darwinists have the opportunity to live in the world they say they want to bring about. I hope and pray they all have the opportunity to personally struggle and die as well as watch their loved ones die in a purely natural world that they claim God designed. I strongly believe that, if they had any semblance of self respect, they would ask the government to issue them such an official card that they freely sign saying they will not accept any welfare of any kind or health insurance from the American Republic they hate so much. I believe that so much that I am willing to prorate their taxes to that end. I also strongly believe it will be a cold day in hell before any of them ask for such a card! I am not a good Christian, I fear, because I am not a pacifist, nor do I suffer fools well.
Very well stated, TJefferson. Kudos.
Now there's an image... Orin Hatch's grandchildren working in a field picking tomatoes or scrubbing toilets in a downtown office building. But you're right, bcct: and they'll show up to their jobs in BMW's and Mercedes Benz's. News at 11.
Actually, TJefferson, I get what you're saying, but the simple truth is that it is much easier politically to call those who do not want to see unemployment benefits the next entitlement "social Darwinists". In reality, even Republicans don't see unemployment benefits as evil, per se. It's the continuous renewal of benefits that becomes a problem. But, it's much easier to demonize them by casting them in that light, isn't it, TJefferson?
I am no Republican, but I understand where they're coming from on this....Democrats could have their unemployment benefits extension if they would simply use unspent stimulus funds. And why not? Why approve more spending on extending unemployment insurance when you can dip into the stimulus funds and, if more spending is "necessary" later, then address it then.
No, instead it's the same old political theater as usual for both parties....Sad. Very, very sad.
i don't understand all this nonsense about electing conservatives in november. it took the conservatives eight years to ruin our country by starting two wars and reducing taxes on the wealthy. they doubled the deficit from 5 trillion to 11 trillion and sent us into the worst recession since the great depression and now want back in power. we the people have to let the democrats fix their mess. it might take a few more years to get back on track, but you know that the only people better off with republicans are the wealthy. of course they are going to fight back with all the leftwing,liberal socialist communist nazi talk, but in the end they just don't want to pay taxes.
Why isn't the main stream media showing video of Orin Hatch on every TV show he was on saying " the President is ENTITLED to have his nominee confirmed " when W. Bush was President?
Hatch can't vote for her because he fears she'll legislate from the bench ... but didn't he vote for Roberts and Alito?
Ohhhhhh ... that's right ... it's ok to legislate from the bench if you're a republican!
pot, meet kettle.
Hatch votes aganist Kagan WHO CARES WHAT THIS OLD MAN DOES!
Hatch is just another weak Republican afraid to stand up to the right wing. Any party that puts the likes of Clarence Thomas on the supreme court shouldn't criticize anyone.
After reading the article and most of the posts here, I still have to wonder why this article was even written? Is anyone actually surprised the republicans and or Hatch will vote NO? Is this not what they have been doing for quite some time in the congress of the United States? The republicans will not stop until they have "NO'ed" themselves either into power or out of existence!
This is the first time I've read the comments for an article. I'm ashamed of the lying, tale twisting and pending doom talk of the GOP. Grow up and take a look at the REAL facts. The GOP (corporate america) is controlling the ignorant and having them do their dirty work. In time the right will run this country again and I'm afraid of the results (see the past eight years). The rich will fiinish their goal of dividing this country in to rich and poor. No more middle class. The corporate vote will dominate. No more individual votes. Don't sit in front of your computers typing all their talking points. Now as for the supreme court vote, good for her. At least she will slow down the control by corporations.
Reading some of the comments from the right shocking. Kegan will make a fine Justice. The attempts to turn her into a monster are sickening. Some of those GOP Senators showed their real side and it's only got one color...
I seriosly think that everyone needs to take a look at the need of a third party. A party that represents middle America. The GOP and the Dems are so busy fighting their little pissing battles that we have an ineffectual government. Truly ther are, or at least were a majority of American in the middle class. We are as endangered as every species along the Gulf Coast. We need to stop bickering amonst ourselves and let government know what we really think!
No big surprise ..... getting closer to election day ....... count down to 2012...
I agree. We need a party that represents middle america. The two parties are corrupt but the GOP takes the cake. I hope everyone takes a look at how much money your representatives, judges and political candidates have received from corporations. See how much your vote really counts. At least Kagan (misspelled her name earlier-sorry) isn't under the influence of corporate america. Look at all the judges in the south who at heavy invested in BP/oil.
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."
Excellent observation, Jim in Texas. It's great to read an intelligent comment in the midst of all the irrational hateful ones!
The divisive politics that has overwhelmed Washington in recent years is becoming disgusting. Perhaps Sen. Hatch can explain why he voted to confirm Justice Ginsberg in 1993 using the same criteria under which he now finds Ms. Kagen to have the wrong "judicial philosophy"?
This is why the GOP is called the party of "no". Once again, it's just easier to say no than do what's clearly right. Little did anyone know, way back in the early 80's when Nancy Reagan launched the "just say no" campaign, that every Republican would take that phrase as gospel (who'd have thought), and not just for drugs, but for everything. And Conservatives say that Liberals have no back-bone? Like lemmings to the sea...
I'll take an activist judge on the bench over one more inactivist Republican in the senate any day.