July 20, 2010 12:34 PM

Committee Approves Kagan Nomination, Sends to Full Senate

By
Stephanie Condon
Topics
Supreme Court
Elena Kagan (Credit: CBS)

Updated at 1:20 p.m. ET

The Senate Judiciary Committee today approved Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, but nearly every Republican on the committee opposed her nomination, saying her personal and political views inappropriately drive her legal views.

Just one Republican joined the Democrats in voting in favor of Kagan's nomination: Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The final committee vote was 13 to six. Kagan's nomination now goes before the full Senate for consideration; Graham's vote ensures that Democrats will have the 60 votes necessary to overcome a potential Republican filibuster of the nomination.

Graham said he would clearly prefer a more conservative nominee, but that he has a constitutional obligation to honor President Obama's choice, so long as she is qualified.

"I could give you 100 reasons on why I could vote 'no.' No one spent more time trying to beat President Obama than I did, except maybe Sen. McCain," Graham said. "But I understood we lost."

Mr. Obama said in a statement that today's vote in favor of Kagan "is a bipartisan affirmation of her strong performance during her confirmation hearings."

"Elena Kagan is one of this country's leading legal minds, and has shown throughout this process that, if confirmed, she would be a fair and impartial Supreme Court Justice who understands how decisions made by the Court affect the lives of everyday Americans," the president said.

Graham said Mr. Obama chose "wisely" in his nomination. His Republican colleagues disagreed.

"Much of what she's done has been defined by her involvement in politics," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the top Republican on the committee.

A judge "must set their politics aside when they put on the robe," Sessions said, adding that he is not convinced Kagan would do so.

He criticized her testimony before the committee, saying she "repeatedly chose to give the committee political spin."

Sessions added on CBSNews.com's "Washington Unplugged" today that Kagan's career indicates she has some "serious judgmental flaws and errors" that are "quite significant."

Democrats flatly disagreed.

"There's no question Elena Kagan is eminently qualified" to join the Supreme Court, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Like other Democrats, Feinstein praised Kagan for her inclination to reach out to others with different views, as she did as dean of Harvard Law School when she hired a number of conservative faculty members.

"I, for one, have very high hopes for the philosophy of moderation and restraint that a Justice Kagan could bring to the court," Feinstein said.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Elena Kagan

Feinstein said Kagan's "credentials place her squarely among our nation's top legal minds" and that her reasoning, composure and humor were all apparent during her confirmation hearings.

Along with citing Kagan's personal political views, Republicans also complained that Kagan revealed little to the committee about how she would serve as a judge. Republican Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.) criticized Kagan of being "disingenuous" in her testimony.

Added Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), "She failed to answer many of the questions posed to her... I worry that if confirmed her deep set personal beliefs will cause her to overturn precedent."

Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl (Wisc.) also complained "the substance of her answers were so general at times it would be difficult to distinguish her answers from any other nominee." He said, however, that Kagan's vague answers speak to problems inherent in the confirmation hearing process, not to problems with Kagan's nomination.

Kagan, he said, is "unquestionably qualified."

"I believe her judicial philosophy is in the mainstream of our country's thought," he said.


Add a Comment See all 34 Comments
by newsterI July 22, 2010 12:13 PM EDT
but nearly every Republican on the committee opposed her nomination,"

Oh wow thats a real surprise!!! the party of NO opposes her nomination, they oppose her because she is not a rePUBIC-CON and was nominated by a BLACK, DEMOCRATIC President.

What the repubes WANT is an ultra right wing anti abortion, anti gay marriage, pro school prayer whacko.

"Republicans also complained that Kagan revealed little to the committee about how she would serve as a judge."

Their REAL complaint is she is not ANTI woman's right to choice, and shes not ANTI gay marriage, and that she is not a rePUBIC-CON like them.
Reply to this comment
by bajajohn1 July 22, 2010 12:12 PM EDT
Republicans truly need to get a message to their Senators. Republicans need to remind those partisan robots that being obstructionist does not consitute doing the nation's work. In short, perhaps Republican need to consider removing their dinosaurs from political office.
Reply to this comment
by bajajohn1 July 20, 2010 8:42 PM EDT
Republican truly need to consider removing their dinosaurs from political office. So far, they have stood against all administration iniatives and appointments for reasons based upon sheer hypocrisy.
Reply to this comment
by andrewjsacks July 20, 2010 6:52 PM EDT
Senator Graham may be the only principled Republican in the Senate; Thomas Jefferson, et al, would have been proud of him today.
Reply to this comment
by enwr77 July 20, 2010 10:52 PM EDT
He is a southern gentleman
by magicwolf1 July 20, 2010 5:30 PM EDT
Republicans can go jump in their hypocritical lake of fire. A pathetic self-serving agenda from what has become a pathetic party.
Reply to this comment
by GTR5 July 20, 2010 3:49 PM EDT
This is a very bad day for the U.S. and the court. She should not have been approved. Israel and the ACLU are cheering in the streets.
Reply to this comment
by MerrellObrian July 20, 2010 3:59 PM EDT
I have such a hard time keeping up with the changes in the Tea Party haters list. Are you folks now Jew Haters, too? I knew it was all blacks, all gays, all hispanics, all foreigners, all democrats. Just join the Westboro Baptist Church and be done with it.
by curse914 July 20, 2010 8:44 PM EDT
They don't like women either.
by MerrellObrian July 20, 2010 3:26 PM EDT
I'm originally from South Carolina. One of the few things which makes me proud of my home State is Lindsay Graham. Right after Mr. Graham voted, the Tea Party accused him of voting for her because "He's gay!"
First of all, that's friggin' funny! But the real humor, and I'm so grateful to the man with the brain, goes to Lindsay Graham. He said something to the tune of, 'Well, I ain't gay. I realize about right now, tens to hundreds of men are throwing themselves off the Golden Gate Bridge but, sorry fellas! I ain't available.' You know what, Mr. Graham? I'm damn proud of you, sir! Fine Answer smacked right across the bigots face without being offensive. You sir are an appreciated artisan. Thank you for your service. BTW... Screw y'all haters. She's in!
Reply to this comment
by mjlewis6 July 20, 2010 2:27 PM EDT
"If a judge must put aside their political leanings when putting on the robe...."

Please tell me how Harriet Meiers, a Nominee of President Bush's, who was his private counsel, could have done so with a lifetime of personal service to Bush and no judicial experience or appearances before the Supreme Court?

That is a corker for any Republican resistance to Kagan's nomination.
Reply to this comment
by propitiation July 20, 2010 3:25 PM EDT
Harriet Meirs was a mistake by President Bush, and after opposition from both sides of the aisle had her name withdrawn.

Kagan is like Meirs in that the President is nominating his friend and not looking at qualification or considering the make-up of The Supreme Court. For instance, Stevens was the only Protestant on The Supreme Court when there are 58% Protestants in the United States.

Just like Business America, it isn't how much you know, it is who you know, and how much blah-blah-blah you can do to bluff your way into the job. She is a friend, and that is the way it is done.
by mjlewis6 July 20, 2010 2:06 PM EDT
I have not forgotten "Long Dong Silver" Justice Thomas...who was appointed despite his former assistant's testimony as to sexual harassment... so, for any Republican resistance based upon the individual's preferences or agenda....there was no similar criticism of Kagan.

Thanks to the Republicans who truly LOOKED for something astounding and found NOTHING of substance..(how unusual they could find anything of substance, given they have had 8 years of Bush and Cheney and could not find anything illegal done...BLIND is a good word to describe such lawmakers)
Reply to this comment
by GunsInTheSky July 20, 2010 2:12 PM EDT
Iraq did have WMDs...I just know it!
by FabricSoftenerKills July 20, 2010 2:02 PM EDT
Who cares about the Bill of Rights or having experienced judges - Mickey Rourke in Drag will now join the Supreme Court - meaning the next gun vote will be 5-4 in favor of disarming Americans.
Reply to this comment
by GunsInTheSky July 20, 2010 2:10 PM EDT
Hold tight to your guns!...and bible!

BTW, the bill of rights talks about ARMS, not just guns.

A well regulated militia that has these arms was the idea from day one. The founding fathers understood we couldn't have heavily armed private militia groups.


Today the cry is for only guns. Why? There is no intellectual or constitutional argument one can make to support this limited view.
by bajajohn1 July 20, 2010 8:40 PM EDT
Yes, and I want to have some bear arms.
See all 34 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...