Supreme Court Justice Nominee Kagan Hearings

[Jagermeister]

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer Nancy Benac, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 52 mins ago
WASHINGTON – It didn't take long.

Twelve minutes into Day 2 of Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing for a seat on the Supreme Court, she found herself trying to explain away her own words.

Kagan knew that questions about her 1995 article on Supreme Court confirmation hearings were coming, and she was ready.

In the article, Kagan had complained that Supreme Court hearings had "taken on an air of vacuity and farce" because senators didn't pin down nominees on their legal views. Senators, she said, should pursue more "substantive inquiry" and push nominees to be more open about views.

The article was inspired by Kagan's observations as a Judiciary Committee staffer during the confirmation hearings for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

But things look a lot different from the witness seat in Room 216 of the Senate's Hart Office Building.

"You've probably re-read those words," committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told Kagan.

"Many times," she agreed. "And do you know what? They've been read to me many times, too."

"How are you going to live up that standard?" Leahy asked.

Kagan said she stood by the basic thrust of her article — and then started backpedaling.

"I would say that there are limits on that," she said of the need for openness.

"I did have the balance a little off," she said.

"I skewed it a little too much" in favor of openness, she allowed.

Kagan had begun walking back from her words a year ago, during the confirmation hearing for her last job as solicitor general.

This time, she finished the job.

And it soon became apparent that she wouldn't hesitate to employ the artful dodge.

Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., asked Kagan what her "passions" would be as a judge.

"I think I will take this one case at a time," she demurred. "It would not be right for a judge to come in and say, 'I have a passion for this or that."

Kohl reminded Kagan that she'd written that "it was a fair question" to ask nominees what direction they would move the court.

And then he asked her just that.

"It might be a fair question," she agreed.

But it wasn't one she was willing to answer.

[Jagermeister]

When I said I was a racist.............. I had the balance off a little. My Bad. :biggrin:

[Catfish]

Is it normal to nominate to the Supreme Court a judge who has never been a judge before?

[Jagermeister]

Is it normal to nominate to the Supreme Court a judge who has never been a judge before?

No but it's not unheard of either. I don't think she will ever get confirmed.

[Catfish]

Obama is mandated to give the same opportunities to unqualified applicants that he got. That's why he's picking a lesbian/never been a judge before in this Kegels gal. He did the same thing when he nominated the court's first Latino justice.

He's got to be ground-breaking. It's only fair!

In my mind a first-term senator who's never done a GD thing is in the same boat as a judge who's never ruled over a single case.

He has to be fair to everyone :baaa:

[Nickdfresh]

Is it normal to nominate to the Supreme Court a judge who has never been a judge before?

It's not unheard of, and has been done several times before.

[Nickdfresh]

No but it's not unheard of either. I don't think she will ever get confirmed.

Um, it's almost a lock actually...

[Jagermeister]

Um, it's almost a lock actually...

Well great.

[Blaze]

Thought you might find this interesting.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XFkVwvlpXUk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XFkVwvlpXUk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[LoungeMachine]

On day 2 ??????

Fuck YOU if you think you're going to start DAILY threads on this....

closed

[Nickdfresh]

Thread reopened as valid discussion material, and re-titled to eliminate confusion...any problems, PM me...

[ELVIS]

uhh hu hu uh uh hu uh uhuhuhuh

Dickforbreath just OWNED LickMachine !!


:biggrin:

[Jagermeister]

[Updated at 11:07 a.m.]

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan declined Wednesday to directly criticize recent Republican characterizations of former Justice Thurgood Marshall as an "activist" judge.

She did, however, note that Marshall "revered" the courts for considering his civil rights claims at a time when other branches of government would not.

Kagan clerked for Marshall. She noted that he "lived in a time ... and lawyered in a world in which many doors were closed to him." He expected only that courts would rule for him if he was right on the law, she said.


[Updated at 10:37 a.m.]

Sen. Al Franken is asking Kagan about what role the Courts should play in looking at statutes passed by Congress.


"Congress gets to make the laws," Kagan said. "And what the Courts should be doing in applying those laws is trying to figure out what Congress meant and how Congress wanted the laws to be applies. And that's the only thing the Court should be doing."

"Where the text is clear, the Court should go with the text," she said.

[Updated at 10:32 a.m.]

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said Wednesday that Congress has broad authority to regulate financial markets under the Constitution's interstate
commerce clause. Courts have a role to play, but should recognize that they "are not the principal players" in that issue, she said.

[Updated at 10:25 a.m.]

Sen. Kaufman has asked Kagan about how she believes the Court can ensure regular Americans have the same access and fairness before the justices as large corporation with plenty of money to spend.

"If you're right on the law it doesn't matter" if your opponent has more money than you do, Kagan said.

"Every single person who comes before the court should be considered equally and every single claim should be considered" the same way.


[Updated at 10:25 a.m.]

Kagan said Wednesday that "results-oriented judging" is tantamount to picking sides, and that is "the antithesis of what a judge should be doing."

"To be a results-oriented judge is the worst kind of judge you can be," she said.

Kagan made her remarks in response to Delaware Sen. Ted Kaufman's critique of the high court's recent campaign finance ruling in Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission. She declined, however, to characterize the Roberts court as "results-oriented."

[Updated at 10:03 a.m.]

Sen. Ted Kaufman has brought up one of the biggest concerns conservatives have vocalized since Kagan was nominated - her policy work with Democratic administration. Kaufman asked her to address the concerns of those who feel her past experiences and jobs may mean she can't be an independent justice.


"As a judge you are nobody's team," she said. "Your job is to evaluate the law and evaluate the facts and apply one to the other."

Kagan cited the example of Justice Robert Jackson, a Democrat who served as solicitor general and attorney general during Franklin Roosevelt's administration. Once appointed to the Supreme Court, "he was as independent as they come," she said.

"When you get on the bench, when you put on the robe, your only master is the rule of law. Regardless what political administration you worked for in the past, and there are many justices on the Court who have worked for Congress or the executive. But, just as all of them have, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, I'll put on that robe and be independent and not favor any political party."

[Updated at 9:55 a.m.] Asked to comment on the role of the First Amendment and media, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said Wednesday "I think people should be able to write anything they want about me, and I don't think I should be able to sue them."

Kagan strongly praised the famous media case New York Times v. Sullivan. There should be "an extremely high bar" for libel cases involving public figures, she said. But "reputational harm is real harm," she noted.

[Nickdfresh]

uhh hu hu uh uh hu uh uhuhuhuh

Dickforbreath just OWNED LickMachine !!


:biggrin:

Isn't time for you to change a bedpan for $9 an hour?

[ELVIS]

Isn't it time for you to see why jhale is taking such a long smoke break ??

[Jagermeister]

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan told her confirmation panel Tuesday that the landmark decision extending gun rights to all 50 states is "binding precedent," despite a senator's suggestion that the 5-4 ruling was on shaky ground.

As questioning of the nominee got underway on the second day of Kagan's hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pressed her on the high court's Monday decision affirming the right to bear arms everywhere in the country and a similar 5-4 decision two years ago. Citing the plague of gang violence in her state, the California Democrat said "metropolitan states" have different problems than rural states and suggested the court's decision is challengeable.

"Why is a 5-4 decision -- in two quick cases -- why does it throw out literally decades of precedent?" Feinstein asked.

[Catfish]

On day 2 ??????

Fuck YOU if you think you're going to start DAILY threads on this....

closed

LOL!

I see who wears the penis in this forum!

[Jagermeister]

She finally stumbled. America is obsessed with Twilight.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/30/elena-kagan-solicitor-general-supreme-court-nominee-twilight-eclipse-team-edward-team-jacob-video/

[Jagermeister]

Well it looks like this dike is going to get through this. No family , not previously a judge, not qualified. Not good!

[Nickdfresh]

Isn't it time for you to see why jhale is taking such a long smoke break ??

I'm too drunk to...

[Nickdfresh]

Well it looks like this dike is going to get through this. No family , not previously a judge, not qualified. Not good!

How qualified does one have to be to vote for corporatist shill bullshit like abolitionist eminent domain for Wal-Mart?

And since she wasn't much of a judge previously, she's going to have to work on her bribe-taking skills...

[Nickdfresh]

LOL!

I see who wears the penis in this forum!

Don't sell yourself short, you're a penis in every forum. You are what you eat... :)

[Jagermeister]

How qualified does one have to be to vote for corporatist shill bullshit like abolitionist eminent domain for Wal-Mart?

And since she wasn't much of a judge previously, she's going to have to work on her bribe-taking skills...


The good news is she is just one vote.