July 20, 2010
Elena Kagan recommended for SCOTUS confirmation by Senate Judiciary CommitteeI am off-line most of today to talk about the Eighth Amendment at the annual conference for the National Association of Appellate Court Attorneys. But a lunch break allows for a post on this SCOTUS news from the AP:
Pushing toward an election-year Supreme Court confirmation vote, a polarized Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday approved Elena Kagan to be the fourth female justice. Just one Republican joined Democrats to approve Kagan's nomination and send it to the full Senate, where she's expected to win confirmation within weeks.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., broke with his party to cast the sole GOP "yes" vote on President Obama's nominee to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. The vote was 13-6. "What's in Elena Kagan's heart is that of a good person who adopts a philosophy I disagree with," Graham said. "She will serve this nation honorably, and it would not have been someone I would have chosen, but the person who did choose, President Obama, I think chose wisely."
A few more Republicans are expected likely to back Kagan in the full Senate, where Democrats have more than enough votes to confirm her. But most GOP senators are against her, arguing that she would put her political views ahead of the law. They point to what they call her liberal agenda and on such issues as abortion and gun rights, and have chastised her for the decision as dean of Harvard Law School to bar military recruiters from the campus career services office because of the policy against openly gay soldiers.
July 20, 2010 at 01:21 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Elena Kagan recommended for SCOTUS confirmation by Senate Judiciary Committee:
I'm embarrassed by my own Sen. Cornyn's "no" vote. Harriet Miers would be terrific, he thought, but not Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor? In Texas, Cornyn is defying the White House because he wants to himself name our 4 US Attorneys, which is why we don't have any yet. It's one thing to oppose an occasional Bork, another to become routinely obstructionist toward a sitting president, like him or not, which is where Mr. Cornyn seems to be at these days.
Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | Jul 20, 2010 4:05:34 PM
Three cheers for Lindsey Graham.
Posted by: Michael R. Levine | Jul 20, 2010 4:48:48 PM
What a waking nightmare for the nation,, another lawyer who will impose her sick personal preferences on the law of the land, throwing laws around like a two year old on a sugar rush. A Hate America former Commandant of Treason Indoctrination Camp No. 1, Harvard Law School, she will always vote to grow government powers. She will repeatedly sign the death warrants of millions of viable babies. She will support the plunder of all productive entities to enrich her parasitic constituencies, especially the government lawyer. And, she will deem herself morally superior to regular folks, in her unbound arrogance and supreme self-confidence. She is far smoother and intelligent than the in-your-face racist, hate filled feminist Sotomayor.
If anyone believes in prayer, pray these awful people are mugged and carjacked by their good client, the ultra-violent career criminal. Lord, we prayerfully supplicate you. Send an ultra-violent, plus size, black, lesbian, Democrat Party card carrying, career carjacker with a speech defect, coming off crack cocaine, having a bad day, the week before her period, to detain and rob the awful people on the Supreme Court, and to pistol whip them when they fail to move fast enough due to arthritis or old age, or in one case, due to a stress induced epileptic fit. One carjacking is probably worth years of policy debate among these supercilious lawyers.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 21, 2010 12:26:41 AM
supremacy, you're off your meds again. Remember: the 2 yellow ones in the morning; the green one at noon, and a handful of the blues at night.
Posted by: anon12 | Jul 21, 2010 11:18:34 PM
Anon12: Ironic. Someone accuses a person of needing mental medication when it is the lawyer that believes in mind reading, future forecasting, and that 12 strangers can detect the truth after excluding any with knowledge. As cuckoo as a Swiss wall clock chiming 12 o'clock. Worst, he uses the word, reasonable, on nearly every page of legal utterance, and has no clue of its real unlawful religious origin and meaning. Despite a very high IQ, he has been played by the cult hierarchy like a dime store fiddle, and buys their con.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 22, 2010 12:13:02 AM
Graham was eloquent here though made clear he was a 'no' for Goodwin Liu, who is also qualified, and if a liberal cannot be appointed by a Democrat to an appellate bench where s/he is but one vote of many, I guess blocking conservatives is fine too, eh?
The amusing thing here is that Kagan was nominated for the appellate bench in '99. Hatch never gave her a hearing while another nomination (a former Rehnquist clerk who got some support from that side, even Bork liked him) was blocked as well, providing room for ... Kagan's 1L seat buddy, Miguel Estrada. Who (the horror!) was blocked as well. I had to read this via media coverage linked by Wikipedia (some mainstream newspaper).
Posted by: Joe | Jul 23, 2010 10:55:25 AM