Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Elena Kagan Draws Opposition From Senators Who Backed Sotomayor

4 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
There is no question that Elena Kagan will be easily confirmed by the Senate this week to join the U.S. Supreme Court. But in recent days, Kagan has lost a handful of key votes from both sides of the aisle that Sonia Sotomayor secured during her confirmation process a year ago. Several moderate senators say Kagan's limited courtroom experience makes her too much of an unknown to support.

When the Senate voted 68 to 31 to confirm Sotomayor in 2009, every Democrat and nine Republicans backed her, while 31 GOP senators voted no. Among the nine Republicans who supported Sotomayor were Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and Kit Bond of Missouri. At the time, the three said they disagreed with Sotomayor's politics, but felt her lengthy experience as a lawyer and appeals court judge made her well qualified to join the high court.

But when the full Senate began debating Kagan's nomination on Tuesday, none of the three said they would vote for the former Harvard Law School dean and current U.S. solicitor general.

"General Kagan has an extremely limited written record, which should make all of us unsure as to what sort of justice she might be," Voinovich explained, as he stunned Senate watchers with his announcement that he'll oppose President Obama's nominee.

Days earlier, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), another Sotomayor supporter, said that he, too, was troubled by Kagan's lack of a judicial record, which "makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded."

Alexander, a third senator to support Sotomayor but oppose Kagan, said her role in limiting military recruiters' access to Harvard's office of career services proved to him that Kagan's political opinions would color her legal opinions. "She acted based upon what she thought the law should be," Alexander said.

As late as Tuesday night, several key senators who voted for Sotomayor had not yet announced how they'll vote on Kagan's nomination. Among them: Sen. Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat locked in a difficult re-election battle; Sen. Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat from Pennsylvania; and Bond, who told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Tuesday that he is "definitely on the fence" about Kagan.

The Missouri senator said he had asked to meet with Kagan to clarify several issues, but the White House had told him she has been too busy to meet with him. "So apparently, the White House thinks they don't need my vote if they're not going to send her in so I can talk with her," Bond said.

Citing the opponents, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said: "They do not like the fact she is genuinely committed to judicial restraint rather than enshrining the Republican agenda in the Constitution. . . . We need judges and justices who will fairly apply the law and use common sense. . . . It is a standard I believe Solicitor General Kagan has met."

The Senate will continue to debate the nomination on Wednesday, with a vote to take place by the end of the week.

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.

28 Comments

Filter by:
Terry

It is a pisspoor excuse to vote against someone because you can't predict how they will vote on cases that come before them. And that's all it is, an excuse.

August 04 2010 at 10:52 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
MICHAEL

I hope others are as tired as I am of the Congress and Senate doing as they please and ignore the people who elected them. Time is running out on these people, but their arrogance will not allow them to accept reality. Be sure to buy plenty of Gold! Time's a comin'......

August 04 2010 at 10:37 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
Edward

She should be confirmed and she will be confirmed.

August 04 2010 at 6:56 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
wroyceh

I support her nomination as she is qualified for the job and has shown that she is capable of filling the post.
Royce Hamby, San Francisco

August 04 2010 at 6:29 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
Georgia A McD

She should not be confirmed. She is not qualified!

August 04 2010 at 5:59 PM Report abuse +34 rate up rate down Reply
Gary

Why is a lot experience as a judge so important. Oliver Wendell Holmes has been considered one of the great Supreme Court Justices Yet I seem to recall once reading that he nevedr even prcticed as a working lawyer.

August 04 2010 at 5:26 PM Report abuse -11 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Gary's comment
BLONDIE & GRUMPY

Gary; Holmes practiced admiralty law and commercial law in Boston for fifteen years.

August 04 2010 at 5:42 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
DuckinDonutz

What will be will be. The only recourse left to the average person is to comment on an article. It seems to be the only "voice" we have left. Sad. But on a more positive note, it is wonderful to see that finally "family" will be sitting on the bench and having a say in the rules of the road in the future. About time too.

August 04 2010 at 4:54 PM Report abuse -5 rate up rate down Reply
dolph66

the supreme court's sole purpose is to make decisions as to what is legal under our laws of the land. it is NOT!! thier job to make laws. that duty belongs to the legislative branch. activist judges have no place on any court. it seems with the politicions justice is blind as long as one eye is open to their cause

August 04 2010 at 3:48 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
Jones Alloys

WILL SOMEONE SEND HELP TO WASHINGTON.

August 04 2010 at 3:40 PM Report abuse +47 rate up rate down Reply
Steve

Do you 'conservative' minded 'posters' ever have anything good to say? The constant "whining" is unbelievable. What a drag. This site used to be somewhat constructive-not anymore. A dialogue would take place, some give and take, some copnstuctive critiques.
Now-it's just "no,no,no, whine, me ,me, me".
Just like Congress.

August 04 2010 at 3:39 PM Report abuse -70 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Steve's comment
Andie

By your post, it seems you like to "whine" too. DO as I say, not as I do.

August 04 2010 at 4:20 PM Report abuse +47 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
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>>