Show Time: Kagan Hearings Begin Today

Today the Senate will begin one of the longest running Kabuki shows in history. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearings — a process long ridiculed for its ritualized and exaggerated content. The big question is whether Kagan will abandon her previously stated position that nominees should have to answer substantive questions on their views — a rejection of the so-called “Ginsburg Rule.” I will be commenting on the confirmation process at noon on MSNBC and later on Countdown.

I have previously criticized the modern confirmation process as an increasingly ridiculous exercise. Recently, in writing a column on the nine top justices, I opined how unlikely it is that our current process will yield another Brandeis or Story. I have also written columns against the Ginsburg Rule. Kagan herself as a ” vapid and hollow charade” but proceeded to backtrack on that principled position when she faced confirmation as Solicitor General. She is expected to invoke the same rule to refuse to delve into her views in some areas this week.

Kagan is likely to be attacked on her role in banning military recruiters from the Harvard Law School career services office while Dean of Harvard Law School.

Republicans are lining up for a showdown. She appears headed toward confirmation, though Democrats have lost one vote for confirmation in the death last night of Senator Harry Byrd of West Virginia.

On a side and sad note, Justice Ginsburg has lost her husband, Martin Ginsburg who was a highly respected professor of law at Georgetown.

Source: ABC.

26 thoughts on “Show Time: Kagan Hearings Begin Today

  1. Buddha:

    So what if the justices were republican appointed? Grow up.

    I don’t see you whining about the Florida Court (which ruled in favor of Gore) when it had only democrat appointed justices. I’m certainly not whining about it.

    Even three of the democratic appointed justices on the Florida court believed that the Gore instigated recount was unconstitutional; and three of the democratic appointed Florida justices thought the handling of the recount was a violation of equal protection.

    The main point is the correctness of a ruling not who sits on the bench. I don’t care who sits on the bench as long as they are faithful to the law.

    Have you gotten medical treatment for your vicious bullying yet?

    By the way, don’t lick the dust powder in those curly-cue light bulbs.

    You have enough problems.

  2. Tootles,

    It was a Court dominated by Republican appointed Justices, you hyper-partisan nitwit.

    As usual, you’d get more value from eating a book than from reading it.

  3. The weird thing in the link Buddha supplied (outside of the dumb answer Kagan gave) is the strange question with somewhat of a false premise.

    It wasn’t Bush that brought the case before the court. It was democrats who took the case to the Florida high court (loaded with leftist judges). Dems were pleased as punch when things went their way in Florida. When Bush wanted a second opinion (it was only fair that he would), well that was evil, apparently.

    It was democrats who put the case in the courts and once they opened that door, they should have realized what might happen. Instead of just complaining about the decision or their foolishness for risking a case going against Gore, they complain that Bush took the case to the court.


Comments are closed.