• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Elena Kagan’s Double Standard

    President Obama’s nominated Solicitor General of the United States, Elena Kagan to be justice on the Supreme Court yesterday.  Kagan has no judicial experience and a scant record of writing, but Kagan did express a very illuminating opinion concerning the Senate’s confirmation process.  In a book review of “The Confirmation Mess” by Stephen L. Carter in the Spring of 1995, Elena Kagan wrote:

    When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in a meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.

    Senators should apply the Kagan Standard to Elena Kagan.  Both Republican and Democrat Presidents have been guilty of nominating candidates for the federal bench that refuse to answer direct questions about their judicial philosophy.  Senators should not bow deeply to the administration’s attempts to rush Kagan through based upon artificial timelines, but must require, through extended debate if necessary, that Kagan engage in a “meaningful discussion of legal issues” and answer detailed questions about her judicial philosophy.  Having claimed that judges need to answer questions, she must not now be permitted to hypocritically engage in the very vacuity and farce that she denounced.

    The Constitution states in Article 2, Section 2 that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court.”  This has been interpreted many ways by different Senators and pundits.  Kagan advocated that the Senate use the confirmation process to “properly evaluat(e) nominees.”  Senators should take Kagan’s admonition to heart and apply the Kagan Standard to this nomination process.

    If history and Senators’ prior experience with Kagan are any guide, there is reason to believe that this nominee will be evasive.  Senator Arlen Specter, Republican Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, grilled Elena Kagan during her nomination to be Solicitor General of the United States.  Specter joined 30 other Republicans in voting no on the nomination on March 19, 2009.

    Specter’s reasoning was telling:

    I have gone to substantial length, really great length, to find out about Dean Kagan’s approach to the law and approach to the job of Solicitor General and to get some of her ideas on the law because she is nominated to a critical public policymaking position. I had the so-called courtesy visit with her in my office, which was extensive, as ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. We had an extensive hearing, where I questioned her at some length. Written questions were submitted, and she responded. I was not satisfied with the answers that were given, and when her name came before the committee for a vote, I passed. That means I didn’t say yea or nay. I wanted to have her nomination reported to the floor so we could proceed, and I wanted an opportunity to talk to her further.

    Senator Specter was not satisfied by Kagan’s answers to questions during his one-on-one meeting and during the hearing on her nomination:

    After the long process I have described, I still don’t know very much about Dean Kagan. It is frequently hard, in our separation of powers, for the legislative branch to get much information from the executive branch. We look for information, and frequently we are told it is executive privilege. We are told it is part of the deliberative process or we are simply not told anything, with long delays and no responses. The legislative branch has two critical pressure points. One pressure point is the appropriations process, to withhold appropriations, which, candidly, is not done very often. It is pretty tough to do that. Another point is the confirmation process where nominations are submitted to us to be confirmed, which the Constitution requires. So there the executive branch has no choice. They can’t talk about executive privilege or deliberative process or anything else. But there is a question as to how thorough nominees’ answers to questions should be.

    Senators should not rush to confirm a nominee who fails to answer questions about how they would interpret the Constitution.  Indeed, if the nominee—particularly a nominee who has no prior judicial record to judge—fails to directly answer questions about judicial philosophy, the role of precedent, the role international law, and whether they view the Constitution as a living document, then Senators may be required to engage in extended debate to get answers. There is no other way for Senators to engage in their constitutional duty of advise and consent.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Elena Kagan’s Double Standard

    1. R Scott DeBoer, Tamp says:

      Senators know President Obama's character. He is cunning and crafty. He is trying to collapse our systems by overwhelming them with debt. He is a big government socialist and wants to take away our freedoms. Elena Kegan is Barak Obama. Why would conservative Senators vote to confirm another Barak Obama? Why wouldn't they fight this with all their might?

    2. pete columbus ohio says:

      Where do they find these weak individuals? Why the Ivy League of course! She has no experience to speak of, and deems to fly in the face of the law by banning recruiters from campus. Who is she to do this? Where was Harvards president during this? I know, feeling the same way and backing her up. Well she got overturned and that sums up her judicial record. Great pick Barry!

    3. Stefano says:

      Republicans would be wise to fight against Kagan with all their might…like Obama she has very little in her background that we can really look at…this is

      very suspicious…looks like a clone of Obama, extremely liberal..that is why Obama can't wait to get her on the Supreme Court.

    4. Stefano says:

      Looks like a clone of Obama…Republicans should fight against Kagan with all their might.

    5. G. Scott Boyer says:

      There is no way she should be confirmed- if Obama likes her there's a reason !!!!

    6. chuck, maryland says:

      This nomination must not stand. She is not qualified and

      is against the military. Her record is a not a record of

      legal issues at all. She has not served in the trenches of

      judicial anxiety nor does her nomination reflect that this

      administration cares for America. All they care for is themselves

      and liberal lies.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.