Kagan: Confirmation Hearings are a "Charade"

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

In her private meetings with Senators, Elena Kagan is making a point that's pretty hard to dispute. But in doing so, she's turning up the pressure -- on herself.

Kagan, the no-nonsense solicitor general, is criticizing past Supreme Court hearings as lacking in substance -- and the performance of at least one justice now on the Court, according to senators who talked to her.

"She identified a specific justice who she thought was not appropriate in responses," said Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter after he met with Kagan. "I'm not going to tell you who it was, but I'm going to take a look at that record in preparation for the questioning."

Hers is a widely shared view: Senators pontificate; nominees stonewall.

"The last several hearings have been, as she has indicated, pretty superficial," said Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl, who met with Kagan yesterday.

Kagan tackled the problem in a 1995 University of Chicago Law Review article. She said the hearings had become a "farce" and a "vapid and hollow charade." Not since Robert Bork, she wrote, had any nominee candidly discussed his or her views.

Of course, perhaps there's a reason for that: The Senate rejected Bork. But her article became an issue in her hearings last year for solicitor general.

"I wrote that when I was in the position of sitting where the staff is now sitting and feeling a little bit frustrated that I really wasn't understanding completely what the judicial nominee in front of me meant," Kagan explained last year.

Specter said today that Kagan didn't back away from her views, and stood by the word "charade."

She wrote in the article that the Senate should focus on substantive issues in the hearings--and Senators should expect the nominee to engage in a serious discussion about the Constitution, the role of the Court and the views of the nominee.

Kohl said Kagan told him in their meeting she hopes the hearings will be a "teachable moment." That certainly wasn't the case in last year's hearings for Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Her answers baffled people on both sides, and dismayed many liberals, because Sotomayor ended up sounding, at times, exactly like conservative Chief Justice John Roberts.

This Sotomayor quote, for example, could have been from Roberts himself: "The great beauty of this nation: that we do leave those law-making to our elected branches, and that we expect our courts to understand its limited role."

As Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told her at the time, "You appear to be a different person."

So Kagan is setting a high bar and raising expectations. Of course, as Kohl said, she hasn't talked about the hearings yet with her White House confirmation team. But already, these senators are expecting to hear a lot more from her than they have from past nominees.

And that, as Kohl put it, would be a real "public service."

More on Elena Kagan's nomination:

Dems, GOP Spar over Kagan's Experience, Bias More People Liked Sotomayor than Elena Kagan, Poll Finds Elena Kagan White House "Interview" Riles Reporters
Elena Kagan Takes Center Stage in 2010 Campaign Battles
Washington Unplugged: Kagan Riles Both Sides of the Aisle
Chip Reid: Why Kagan? In A Word: "Leadership"
Photos: Elena Kagan

[RedCloud600]

Democracy in Action works when the people can be heard, and this goes for the Kagan nomination. The problem is that Congress doesn't allow you to contact the 19 Senators on the Judiciary Committee for free via the Internet. Good luck putting stamps on letters because they won't get through the security screening for weeks or months. So you have to use a commercial "Contact Congress" service like GripeGenie.com (at least there's that) or pray that your own Senators will carry your torch to the Committee (fat chance).

[DallasOrf]

The biggest red flag I see is that the administration seems to be hiding her past. If she were such a great pick their behavior would be much different.

[larry0304]

actornaught - that reply was pathetic, even for you! Try debating what the woman said. Don't put your liberal spin on it, just read every word and try to use FACTS to refute the meaning of what she stated. Now this is just a small part of what she wrote. Not sure where you come from, but when I see someone state " socialism's greatness", I tend to take that as a very telling absolute statement as do most rational free thinking people......

[noloyalisti]

It's pretty hilarious hearing the white wingers talk about how unqualified and dumb Kagan is.

These are the morons who had the bimbo air head Palin as their VP candidate for God's sake.

[larry0304]

I'd rather have a bimbo, than a freakin socialist. For one thing a bimbo has no clue what USSR stands for bet ya can lay money down any socialist does..........

[thesevenveils]

I'm glad she is pointing this out. This fact was so very obvious during the confirmation hearings for John Roberts. By his past this man should have never been nominated much less allowed into the court. Since his tenure he has worked to undermine the rulings of past Supreme Court decisions. So far he has not lived up to what he swore to do during confirmation hearings. Roberts should be removed from the bench.

[kenhamlett]

Apparently she does not take this seriously so why would she be any more dedicated to the job?

[larry0304]

superlaw- this is a direct quote from her college thesis. I don't lie, but I do know how to use a search engine and find real information in order to make up my own mind and not be influenced by political spin. It's people like "actornaught" that lie and spin because they haveno facts to back up their side. They are the REAL danger in this country. Here is the quote:

"In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than pf socialism's greatness. conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties?"

[pragmatist1]

Kagan's already whining and complaining about a process that's been in place for years and which has served the Supreme Court and our Constitution well. If this is any indication of how she thumbs her nose at precedent, she'd be an abysmal failure on the Court. If the process has been good enough for others, it's good enough for her. Unless, of course, she's got something to hide and cover-up. I hope she gets grilled to the point where she's charred like cheap thin- cut steak, about the same thickness as her "illustrious" judicial history.

[pragmatist1]

Guess what? You didn't read the entire article and if you did, didn't grasp the intent. The second paragraph places her continued belief in the hearings in the present-day meet and greet with various senators. Also, what a person says or does in the past, will come to haunt them. Just like her stance from 1995, which she apparently re-introduced in her meetings recently.

[tsigili]

All of politics is a charade. Precisely why the people are fed up with Washington.....it is all make believe, and no one really does what is good for the people.

[Empire-George-]

Did she think we were going to confirm her without any hearings ? so no one will know what radical activist liberal views she actually has ? Don't even have the hearings, they are a "charade", just confirm her on Obama's word alone....she is no moderate, by any stretch.