SEARCH BLOG: POLITICS
In another instance of "do as I say, not as I do," Elena Kagan shows why she fits so well into the Obama-mold of government:
WASHINGTON — At the opening of questioning in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Solicitor General Elena Kagan quickly backpedaled from her past call for nominees to speak more openly and in specific terms about their constitutional views.Blame the people who voted for the person who nominate that person who will be confirmed by the people who were elected by the people who simply didn't understand what was meant by a "pig in the poke." Or, to put it another way, "... we have to pass the bill [confirm the nominee] so that you can find out what is in it [her mind]...."
Doug Mills/The New York Times
Ms. Kagan repeatedly refused to offer an opinion about Supreme Court rulings.
Under questioning by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, Ms. Kagan said she thought it would be inappropriate for her to talk about how she might rule on pending cases or cases “that might come before the court in the future” — or to answer questions that were “veiled” efforts to get at such issues.
Moreover, she said, she also now believed that “it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to talk about past cases” by essentially grading Supreme Court precedents, because those issues, too, might someday come again before the court. [read more]
Well, since Ms. Kagan does not feel it is appropriate to let Congress know her views about past and pending Supreme Court cases, how about this for a question:
"Ms. Kagan, given that 1) you are unwilling to comment on past and pending Supreme Court cases, 2) your arguments before the Supreme Court on behalf of Harvard University have been rejected, and 3) you have absolutely no judicial record, why should anyone in this Congress vote to confirm your nomination to the highest court in the land?"