Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Elena Kagan: Day Two of Hearings Reveals Poised, Judicious Court Nominee

5 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
Appearing more comfortable and poised than she did yesterday, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan Tuesday turned her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing into a law lecture of the sort that she performed so well and famously at Harvard Law School.

She told one senator after another that she would not "grade" past Supreme Court decisions. And of her own formative background, she noted that "You didn't slide by" in Mrs. Kagan's sixth-grade class, a reference to her mother, a teacher.
Kagan walked away from President Barack Obama's "empathy" standard of judging, but said the act of deciding cases is neither a "robotic" nor an "automatic enterprise." She explained to the panel her views on the intersection of law and politics. "My politics would be, must be, have to be, separate from my judging," Kagan said. "My political views are one thing," my legal views another. She told Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.): "I will try to decide each case that comes before me as fairly as I can." She wants to be a Supreme Court justice, she said, because "it's an opportunity to serve this country, which fits with whatever talents I have." And when asked by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) if she believes the current court is a so-called "activist" one, Kagan replied: "I am not going to characterize (the) court. I hope to join it one day."

Supreme Court nominee Elena KaganOn the military recruitment controversy -- she is accused by Republicans of thwarting efforts by the Defense Department to recruit students from Harvard Law School -- she told ranking Republican Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) that "military recruiters had access to Harvard students every single day while I was dean." When Sessions pressed her on the matter -- he accused her of actively working against the Pentagon -- she said: "I have always tried to convey my honor for the military," and then reminded him that recruitment during her tenure as dean actually rose. The senator didn't buy it, but he's already signaled he's unlikely to vote for Kagan anyway.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who has not yet committed either way on confirmation, spent virtually his entire 30-minute opening round of questions asking Kagan about her views on the First Amendment, free speech, and the Supreme Court's notable Citizens United campaign finance ruling earlier this year. Their dialogue was certainly not the "hollow" or "vapid" charade the nominee once called these sorts of confirmation hearings.

In fact, much of the morning session was substantive and dignified. There were many minutes of dizzying details about the issues presented in Citizens United before Hatch pushed the nominee to declare whether she thought the court got the case wrong when it decided to give corporations and labor unions more freedom to spend money on political advertising. Kagan said: "I argued Citizens United. I did believe that we had a strong case to make (for keeping spending restrictions in place) and I tried to make it to the best of my ability." Later, under questioning by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), she conceded that it was unusual for the court to have unilaterally expanded the breadth of the case.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) also pushed the nominee on controversial issues. She asked Kagan if she recognized and agreed with the woman's health exception to abortion regulations -- the nominee said she did. She asked Kagan about the Court's recent Second Amendment firearms cases -- and the nominee said they were both "settled law." And she pushed Kagan to discuss her views on executive branch power over terror law issues. So far no one has asked Kagan about same-sex marriage, or affirmative action, or many other "moral" issues that once dominated Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Kagan was clear about one thing. She very much would like to see the Supreme Court opened up to cameras. "It would be a great thing for the court and a great thing for the American people," she told Kohl, because the public would see that the justices are "so prepared, so smart, so thorough, so engaged."

She was also very clear in establishing herself as judicial and judicious -- precisely what her supporters had hoped she would do. More friendly than nominee Sonia Sotomayor in 2009, more polished than nominee Samuel Alito in 2006, it's no wonder so many legal insiders have suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts may have finally met his match on the court in Kagan. She essentially has to implode in order to ruin her chances of confirmation. And so far she hasn't come close.

Click play below to watch a Medill Washington video report on the second day of the Kagan confirmation hearing:

Filed Under: Elena Kagan

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.


Filter by:
Rob & Kathy

Give all the right answers to get confirmed. Then do the opposite on the bench...

June 30 2010 at 5:47 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

To speak and not say anything reveals a poised, judicous court nominee?

June 30 2010 at 5:15 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

Some Hearing, when they can barely Pry an honest answer out of her..

June 30 2010 at 3:20 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

The biggest strike against Elena Kagan is simply that Obama nominated her. Considering obama appointees, it makes me wonder about her.

June 30 2010 at 2:39 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

the kagan hearings are a waste of time and tax payers money. there is no doubt she is as far left as could be permitted by even liberal senators, and that's why obama picked her. and with the lefty majority, she will become a member of the supreme court. i am glad that a few patriots got to her. one more obama supreme justice and the constitution changes radically.

June 30 2010 at 2:28 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to madsarro's comment

Speaking of "empathy", I wonder how much influence her ties to Goldman-Saks would have on her judgment?

June 30 2010 at 3:04 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
Rob & Kathy

A justice should not be a political operative...

June 30 2010 at 12:39 PM Report abuse +8 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Rob & Kathy's comment

Do you mean justices like Roberts, Alito and Thomas???

June 30 2010 at 1:50 PM Report abuse -4 rate up rate down Reply

TOM're beating a broken drum.

June 30 2010 at 2:00 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

"Kagan walked away from President Barack Obama's "empathy" standard of judging.".........One of the smartest things she could have done. "Empathy," while a desirable quality, has no place in the SCOTUS. This is a body of nine whose responsibility lies in deciding the constitutionality of legislation, and in protecting the freedoms guaranteed the American citizens by the Founding Fathers. It is not their job, nor privilege, to show favor to any individual, group, ethnicity, race, or gender.

June 30 2010 at 12:29 PM Report abuse +7 rate up rate down Reply

At least Rhenquist had experience in law. He had a law firm, was involved in many administrations as advisor, so I would say he has a bit more experience in the arena of the law in a hands on way. He knows how to argue a case. Elana Kagan has only argued a couple of cases and that has been since she was named Solicitor General of the U.S. Not a lengthy term.

Elana Kagan is not hiding the fact that she is for big government, but what would we expect? She has been in the political or educational arena her entire adult life. She is a liberal and she will bring her liberal views regarding society with her to the court. No one is saying she is not intellegent, but, for those of us who are conservative see the concern that her belief's bring with her. I thought no one could be as liberal as Justice Ginsberg, but Kagan is and more so. She has made it very clear her position on free speech and the role the government should play in it. She has also made clear her position on the second amendment. She was very instrumental in gun control issues during her stint with the Clinton Administration.

June 30 2010 at 11:19 AM Report abuse +7 rate up rate down Reply

She is a liberal activist and should not be allowed in any political arena. This should apply to any other individual that embraces this kind of belief system. They seek to change, deny and go beyond our constitution and that is not acceptable.

June 30 2010 at 9:44 AM Report abuse +7 rate up rate down Reply

Goodness, Mr. Cohen!
Could you turn down the sycophantic praise even one notch? Ms. Kagan has shown little support for my right to speak... or yours. What reason do we have to expect, based on her prior stated positions, that she would be a champion of the rights of the citizens vs the power of the Federal colossus?
While I may often disagree with you, I would not seek to silence your voice. Can you say the same for Kagan?

June 29 2010 at 11:35 PM Report abuse +12 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>