Tweet
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.
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.
Comment