Kagan Rolls Through Hearings; For Arlen Specter, an Angry Finale

I think kagan is taking a page from the clinton playbook "don't ask, don't tell". The media still hasen't spoke with her brother who is a real radical, as is she. Why would anyone want someone who hasen't sat on the bench, hear an appeal of the lower court?

I think they made the right decision on not confirming Bork. His action and statements over the years makes him out as a bitter and odd man. Some may still think he's brilliant, I think he's delusional.

Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter. If anyone gives an answer of real substance there is always some senator there to slap them down for it. If you kick a dog every time it comes when you call, don't be surprised that it stops coming.

Senator Specter - you are right! It stinks. I watched the nominee "move all over the map" to escape giving a direct answers. As you said, Senator Specter, ""You wouldn't answer anything," She surely did not give direct answers. She refused for perhaps the 100th time over the past two days to "grade" past cases or to offer her perspective on the validity of certain legal principles and standards as the report by Andrew Cohen states in covering Senator Specter's questioning
nominee Kagan. Maybe we need to consider a change with three nominees in front of the senate which gives the question and evaluate each of their answers and then let them defend what they answered with one another. Perhaps they need to sit before the Surpreme Court Justices and have then also present questions and have the senate listen to responses. Then the senate might be better ready to vote on the best one. Sound like a plan?

Vote No!

Obama needs to appoint more liberals on this court.. Hopefully for Kennedy's seat he puts a ragin Lib up there, a nasty one. Yeah Kagan is liberal but she's not out of the mainstream. She's a brilliant lady that deserves the thumbs up.

Specter is a great Senator and will always be one. Too bad he didn't win his primary. It's nice to see some stability in Washington nowadays.

Everyboby seems to have a fit over the politics of the hearings. You can not be in disbelief that it is going the way it is can you? The idea of having a candiate come before the hearings was to determine fitness. As she has never been a Judge elected or appointed how do we, the people know what she is about? I will agree with the person who thinks that justices have term limits imposed form the date of confirmation to a limit of no more than 12 years. after that they could not be re-nominated or appointed for any reason. Just because your bright in one field does not mean that you have the common sense to do the work. A savant in law does not translate well in action. TERM LIMITS!!!

it is time that the confirmation hearings be done in a manner that requires answers from whatever candidate comes in to the senate hall. The waffling has got to stop with sly answers or no answers. It is the right of the American people to know who is being appointed and what they believe. Smart answers are not acceptable and denigration of any race or creed even if it is the nominee's should be treated as though she/he were discriminating against some person. When asked a question on the belief they should answer without problem. This is not a place to plead the fifth by non-answers or deferrment. As Arlen Specter stated, candor is best so the senate and the people know who is confirmed and if they will do a good job.

In these trying times of 10% un-employment and with no job prospects, politicians refusing to give an extension to collect un-employment benefits, the nation funding 2 wars ( for profits ) that we can ill afford, the horrendous devastation in the gulf which eventually will be taken care of at tax-payer's expense - eventually politicians will figure a way to have tax-payers pick up the clean-up tab as they protect thse that grease their palms -, why is the government wasting our tax-dollars on a farce and a charade with the Kagan's hearings?.
By now we all know, those appearing before these committes - since Robert's appearance - are masters at ducking pertinent questions and senators use these hearing for show-boating or to fling mud at their political opponnets - as they all make a mockery of our democracy.
Folks, in these trying times, we can no longer afford to treat our Democracy as a "spectator's sport"; get involved by demmanding your elected representative had better start using our tax-dollars to help fix some of the nation's and our people's problems or risk not getting re-elected.

The US Supreme Court has the duty of protecting the Constitution as it was written. They do not have the right to interpret as to how it would affect us today. The Constitution is a living document but it is not the Supreme Court that is in charge of changing it to meet today's needs. That is left up to We the People in the forms of Amendments.