Kagan Shifts on Disclosure of Legal Views at Hearings

[Elmore Furth]

Source: NY Times

By CHARLIE SAVAGE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: June 29, 2010

WASHINGTON — At the opening of questioning in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Solicitor General Elena Kagan quickly backpedaled from her past call for nominees to speak more openly about their constitutional views.

Under questioning by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, Ms. Kagan said she thought it would be inappropriate for her to talk about how she might rule only on pending cases or ’cases “that might come before the court in the future” — as well as to answer questions that were “veiled” efforts to get at such issues of current or future controversy.

Moreover, she said, she also now believed that “it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to talk about past cases” by essentially grading Supreme Court precedents, because those issues, too, might someday come again before the court.

In a 1995 book review, Ms. Kagan wrote that recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings had taken on “an air of vacuity and farce” because nominees would not engage in a meaningful discussion of legal issues, declining to answer any question that might “have some bearing on a case that might some day come before the Court.” She called on senators and future nominees to engage in a much more open and detailed discussion of legal issues.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/us/30kagan.html

---

Reality seeps into judicial rare atmosphere.

[marshall]

1. It's a different perspective when you're the one on the hot seat

Moving from arm chair critic to participant can be a real mind changer.

[Unvanguard]

2. The senators don't get it. It's not the nominees who make it a vacuous farce.

It's the senators.

[Romulox]

3. The Senators didn't nominate a "qualified candidate" who's never argued a case

to a jury. That's the genesis of this particular farce. :hi:

[Unvanguard]

4. Why are you repeating silly right-wing attacks on Kagan?

She is eminently qualified when it comes to the things that actually matter for a Supreme Court justice. The ABA classified her as "well-qualified." She is a well-respected legal academic, with practical experience working for Democratic administrations. She will add to the diversity of the Court, which is increasingly made up of former federal court judges. There is simply no credible argument on these lines.

The fact that the confirmation hearings for Sotomayor, Roberts, and Alito were also vacuous are a further demonstration of the emptiness of this argument.

[Romulox]

5. A "centrist" calling people "rightwing" is too rich. And I notice you don't refute my point!

:hi:

[Unvanguard]

8. I don't know what makes you think I'm a "centrist"

since I am not by any means. And I didn't call you right-wing; I don't think you are. I said merely, correctly, that you are repeating a right-wing line of attack on Kagan.

I'm not sure what there is to refute, that I didn't refute. Your statement about her past is correct. Your judgment of its relevance is not.

[Romulox]

13. I've read your posts. I'm not interested in the attempt by some to

appropriate the label "progressive" for the center-right. :hi:

[Unvanguard]

15. Haha. Okay.

You quite obviously have no idea whatsoever what my political views are, but think what you will. :)

[Romulox]

17. Heehee. Alright!

"You quite obviously have no idea whatsoever what my political views are, but think what you will."

This entire subthread was occasioned by your name-calling temper-tantrum after I posted a simple fact about Ms. Kagan about which you are obviously not too proud; I am sincerely not interested in you or your views.

[The Croquist]

6. I agree with you except for "She will add to the diversity of the Court"

I don't care about adding diversity to the Court. I don't want a hospital adding a plumber to the medical staff in the name of diversity. The question should be "Is she qualified" and, so far, the answer seems to be "Yes."

Everything else is unimportant. Supreme court justices are nominated by the President and our current President has deemed her a good choice.

[Unvanguard]

7. Obviously qualification is a necessary baseline standard.

But as with any other policy-making body--and rhetoric about "umpires" aside, ultimately the Supreme Court is a policy-making body--a variety of perspectives are useful.

[The Croquist]

20. That is the problem

The Supreme court shouldn't be a policy-making body. The very fact that they are so often split 5 - 4 is scary to me. I don't care what party you are affiliated to. Read the damn thing.

[thereismore]

10. maybe not to a jury, but she certainly argued cases to the SCOTUS. Besides, she will be there

to judge, mainly, and discuss. Not argue.

[Romulox]

12. She argued cases to the SCOTUS **AFTER** being appointed.

You aren't even curious as to how someone with no legal experience is appointed to so many high posts? :hi: :shrug:

[thereismore]

14. No legal experience? Even I got legal experience. I was sued once. WTF do you mean no legal exper

[Romulox]

16. I mean she has never argued a case to a jury, and only to the SCOTUS

as an appointed government official.

She has no experience as a lawyer, judge, or in any legal capacity save an appointed one under Obama and Clinton. She is not an eminent scholar. She has no influential publication. She has no credential to speak of, other than a mysterious habit of being appointed to high posts in the absence of same.

:hi:

[Winterblues]

18. The Dean of Harvard Law school has no Legal Experience????

I would really like some of what you are smoking because it must be some powerful shit..

[Romulox]

19. Ummm, and what were qualifications for Dean of Harvard law?

Is that considered a good place to get one's start in the legal profession? Else, what was the publication, scholarship, or professional accomplishment that landed her that gig, hmmm? :shrug: :hi:

Turns out that folks like Kagan are chosen for their connections, as she demonstrably has no accomplishments (other than being appointed to things for which she has no special qualifications!)

[w4rma]

9. Great. She's a hypocrite who doesn't really believe in open government. (nt)

[Ozymanithrax]

11. She is a realist who understands the hearing is nothing but sound bites for the next election. n/t