Elena Kagan: Confirmation Hearings 'Vapid and Hollow Charade'

[babylonsister]

Elena Kagan: Confirmation Hearings 'Vapid and Hollow Charade'
Kagan, On Short List for Supreme Court, Wrote in 1995 that Nominees Need to be Pressed Harder

Post a Comment
By ARIANE de VOGUE
WASHINGTON, May 7, 2010


If potential Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan ever makes it to the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation hearings, she might have to explain comments she once made that modern day confirmation hearings have become a "vapid and hollow charade."

In 1995, after spending time as a staff lawyer on the judiciary committee during the nomination of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kagan made clear her frustrations: "When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce."

Kagan's opinion appears in a 1995 book review of "The Confirmation Mess" by Stephen Carter. In her lively and at times humorous piece, Kagan takes issue with Carter's 1995 thesis that the process has broken down, in part, because Senators are too focused on getting candidates to reveal their views on important legal issues.

On the contrary, Kagan wrote, the process has not broken down because nominees are pressed too hard, but because they are not pressed hard enough.

"Senators effectively have accepted the limits on inquiry," Kagan wrote. She said the process had become one where "repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis."

Blaming both the nominees for stonewalling at times and the Senators for failing to probe, Kagan wrote that the hearings "serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government."

more...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/elena-kagan-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings-vapid-hollow/story?id=10578169

[flpoljunkie]

1. It's hard to argue with Kagan's assessment.

[babylonsister]

2. It sure is. But if she's the nominee, expect her to have to defend

her position. She could just tell them to look around.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Yep!

[Beetwasher]

11. Why Do I Have The Feeling That She Might Actually Welcome The Opportunity

To defend that statement?

[LiberalFighter]

4. It is a charade!! Each of the dumb ass Senators (both Democrats and Republicans) waste time

with their introductions. They should eliminate the intros and get right into the questioning. And ask real penetrating questions.

Like, ask why they ruled a particular way or if they would rule differently now and why.

[Enrique]

5. they will make a big deal out of this at the hearings

thus proving her point.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. Well, it certainly might have kept Opie Roberts off the bench

That dopey looking son of a bitch is no more qualified to be on the Supreme Court than the Chimp who put him there.

Doesn't make me a Kagan fan by any means, but she's right about this one.

[harun]

7. President gets to pick who he wants. Senate's job is to determine if they cannot

do the job effectively. Senate's job is to bring to light any stands of the nominees they think are important for the public to know. The public can then take this knowledge and vote for a Pres. who they feel will nominate people who have or don't have these views.

[Arkana]

8. Kinda hard to argue with her logic.

The confirmation hearings have become vanity exercises for the hostile Senators. Sure, there are one or two who ask insightful questions, but the rest ask things like "Judge Sotomayor, do you hate white people?"

[tanyev]

9. I certainly don't need that comment explained.

[saltpoint]

10. Recommended.

If it turns out that Kagan is the nominee, it sounds like she can likely handle anything Jeff Sessions might ask.

[skepticscott]

12. My biggest pet peeve

of the confirmation process is when judges promise to "interpret the Constitution as it is written". It's become essentially mandatory for every SC nominee to mouth this idiotic and self-contradictory platitude. But instead of being praised for it (as they always are) they should be taken out behind the Capitol and horse-whipped for taking such an idiotic position and still presuming to be intellectually qualified for the Supreme Court.

[secondwind]

13. that was then,,,,,this is now.....no big deal.

[Phx_Dem]

14. When you're right, you're right. She should have added grandstanding. n/t

[ShadowLiberal]

15. Definitely true, multiple US sentors of both parties have said they should do away with the hearings

I remember reading an article around when Bush nominated someone for the Supreme Court (I forget which one) where a couple of senators, both democrats and republicans, said that the confirmation hearings were a waste a time, and that they should just skip it and have an up or down vote.

It's not hard to see why when the nominees have to refuse to answer the questions, and give meaningless answers like "I'll defend the constitution". I mean really, most of the stuff that the Supreme Court hears the constitution either says nothing about, or is so vague that it needs clarified because of how many different interpretations there are.

A smart supreme court in those situations thinks of the impact each ruling can have, and lays out clear guidelines for future cases like that.

[depakid]

16. When they allow unethical judges like Alito to be seated, with nary a mention of the problem

she's correct.