By Nathan Koppel
- Associated Press
- Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 29, 2010, for the second day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
WASHINGTON — Senate Judiciary Chair Pat Leahy opened the proceedings this morning in friendly fashion, asking Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to talk about her parents. She spoke warmly of her father, a tenants-rights lawyer, and her school teacher mother.
Leahy then quickly delved into a topic that came up often yesterday – Kagan’s clerkship for Justice Thurgood Marshall and her supposed allegiance, according to Republicans, to Marshall’s belief in a living Constitution.
“The framers were incredibly wise men,” she said, quickly trying to ease concerns that she would be an activist. But she said the Constitution was open to interpretation. She cited the 4th Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable” searches and seizures. “The question becomes what is reasonable?” she said, noting that the framers didn’t spell out specifically answer that question.
Leahy next addressed another topic certain to come up again and again: a book review Kagan wrote in 1995, in which she said that nominees should be more forthcoming with their views on issues.
Kagan created some distance from the article saying she was “wrong” when she said that nominees should be able to talk about past Supreme Court cases and whether they agreed with the holdings. Now, she said, she thinks that would be inappropriate because those precedents could come before the court again.
Kagan said, “I still think that the basic points of that book review were right.” But she said she should have made clearer that nominees should avoid talking not only about cases directly before the court but also about other matters that would reveal their views about pending cases. “I did have the balance a little bit off,” she said. “I think that that was wrong.”
In a nod to another major topic, Kagan made clear that the Heller and McDonald rulings on the Second Amendment are ”well settled” law.
She sounds very much like the law professor she is: confident and in full command of the issues.
She will lie to get the job, they all lie but this job is like getting the keys to America, the Constitution and Bill of Rights handed to you. No job should be “for life” especially this one. The judicial is seriously flawed. The recent 5-4 2nd amendment case is a good example Sotomayor said she would uphold 2nd amendment and then voted against it. Lying should be grounds for dismissal and prosecution at this level of power and trust.
kagan appears to be a progressive, and as such will say anything that advances her agenda. I would not trust her to respect the Constitution.
Ariana: the GOP is sooo predictible, eh? just like BHO ran as a centrist despite being a hard left “community organizer” or Kagan tap-dancing away from her scant written record today. . .
Of course Kagan is backing away from her previous positions. She will now contradict everything she has said and done over her entire life and present herself as another John Roberts if that is what it takes to get through these hearings. Then she will take her seat next to Sotomayor and start voting as an activist liberal because THAT IS WHAT SHE IS!
You know, Republicans are SO predictable. Obama could nominate Jeebus himself and Republicans would manufacture some excuse to oppose him.
Jesus was a socialist.