The Senate Judiciary Committee is postponing by one week its vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan after objections from the panel's top Republican.
The committee had planned to vote on Kagan's nomination Tuesday, but Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions invoked his privilege and was granted a one-week delay. The vote will be held July 20.
"I think we are cooperating in a fair way to move this nominee forward," Sessions said in asking for the automatic postponement.
Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said he thinks "everybody's made up their mind" on how to vote."
Kagan's nomination is not polling well. According to the latest numbers from Rasmussen: ...voters are almost evenly divided over whether Kagan should be confirmed by the full Senate: 39% say yes; 40% say no, and 20% are undecided.
By comparison, at this stage of the process last year, 41% supported the confirmation of the president's first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, and 37% opposed it.
A delay may not be in Kagan's interest. In a we won't be fooled again moment after Justice's Sotomayor's vote in MacDonald v Chicago the NRA has come out against the Kagan nomination.
Showing posts with label Senate Judiciary Committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate Judiciary Committee. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Sotomayor lied about the right to bear arms; what's Kagan going to lie about as she bobs and weaves in the kabuki theater
The most important question members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should ask Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is, "Who do you think you are kidding?"
The hearings process for high court nominees has become ritualized to the point that it is almost useless. Nominees are extensively coached to avoid voicing a real opinion. There is no intellectual give and take. Spontaneity is largely absent. Anyone who can reasonably keep his cool and regurgitate platitudes for a few hours can enjoy a lifetime appointment to the most important judicial body in the land.
Ms. Kagan is playing her expected role in the predictable manner. We saw the same kabuki dance during the hearings for Justice Sonia Sotomayor less than a year ago. When asked by the sympathetic Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, if she agreed that "the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions," Ms. Sotomayor answered: "It is." Yet her answer to this obviously staged question was untruthful. On Monday, Justice Sotomayor joined the Supreme Court minority in saying that there is "nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental,' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes." In other words, when she said the right to bear arms was guaranteed, she lied.
For her part, Ms. Kagan is equally dishonest when she says that she would approach her duty impartially. We know the intellectual milieu from which she has emerged. We know that her heart and mind are devoted to leftist causes and that she can be counted on to find rationales to further those aims in whatever cases come before the court.
The hearings process for high court nominees has become ritualized to the point that it is almost useless. Nominees are extensively coached to avoid voicing a real opinion. There is no intellectual give and take. Spontaneity is largely absent. Anyone who can reasonably keep his cool and regurgitate platitudes for a few hours can enjoy a lifetime appointment to the most important judicial body in the land.
Ms. Kagan is playing her expected role in the predictable manner. We saw the same kabuki dance during the hearings for Justice Sonia Sotomayor less than a year ago. When asked by the sympathetic Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, if she agreed that "the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions," Ms. Sotomayor answered: "It is." Yet her answer to this obviously staged question was untruthful. On Monday, Justice Sotomayor joined the Supreme Court minority in saying that there is "nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental,' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes." In other words, when she said the right to bear arms was guaranteed, she lied.
For her part, Ms. Kagan is equally dishonest when she says that she would approach her duty impartially. We know the intellectual milieu from which she has emerged. We know that her heart and mind are devoted to leftist causes and that she can be counted on to find rationales to further those aims in whatever cases come before the court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
