Why is Al Franken on Judiciary?

By: Jan Crawford
Topics: Supreme Court

(Credit: AP)

Ok, now it's just sad. Sen. Al Franken actually was onto a significant question: Should the Court ever use legislative history in interpreting federal laws (except he used Justice Kennedy as its main opponent, which the Real Enemy of legislative history is Scalia). This is a big issue! It divides liberals and conservatives!

Kagan started to answer: When the text is clear, you look to the text, but...

And Franken cuts her off. Not once but twice.

But....But what? What's her answer? Does he even know what he's asking?

But wait...Kagan IS engaged. She blows off Franken's next question, to return to the IMPORTANT ONE, after asking permission to go back and answer. Franken graciously agrees.

"The job of the court is to use whatever evidence of hand," Kagan said. Courts "look at structure of statute, the title of the statute, when the statute was enacted and by looking at legislative history.

"Courts have to be careful in looking at legislative history and make sure it's reliable," she said. "But courts should not exclude signs of congressional intent....when the text of the statute is unclear."

So this is progress. Kagan is answering a question--on an issue that divides the justices--even when the Senator who asked it apparently does even care to hear it.

More from Jan Crawford:

Low Temps on Day Two of Kagan's Grilling
Watching Kagan: Reality Check
Kagan on Military Recruiting: Reality Check
Kagan Supports Cameras in Supreme Court

Follow Jan Crawford on Twitter
Jan Crawford's Facebook Page

Washington Unplugged: How Did Kagan Do?
Pictures from the Conifirmation Hearing
CBSNews.com Special Report: Elena Kagan

Jan Crawford
Jan Crawford is CBS News Chief Political and Legal Correspondent. She is from "Crossroads," Alabama.
Follow on Twitter »

15 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 15 Comments


by wfw3536 July 15, 2010 10:35 AM EDT: This guy has made jokes about Jewish folks and is a fool. How can someone like this be a senator. Oh, that's right they allowed convicted felons vote for him when they are not allow to have this right.; Reply to this comment


by rockcutr July 15, 2010 9:37 AM EDT: Texans have a lot of nerve complaining about minnesota politics. Weenie Perry who would be king of tejas, and his gang of oyl men of entollerance to environment, continue to dummy down the education of their youth, allow judge roy bean lawmaking, incarcerate as many people of color as humanly possible, to the point of dickycheneys private prison system money making scheme.
Oh the list is just too long on corruption in texas.
Underestimate the brain of Al Franken, just shows how bloody stupid people really are. Cheers for the Winner.
Jeers to pawlenty and his gang of rainbow boys of minnehaha falls.; Reply to this comment


by Joeindallas July 7, 2010 7:15 PM EDT: Sen Franken has a BA from Harvard in Mathematics, and a Masters from MIT. So he did comedy we as a nation elected a B Movie actor twice, who was upstaged by a chimp; Reply to this comment

by Perish1 July 1, 2010 2:24 PM EDT

Just as Franken was a comedy writer for SNL, someone must be a legal question writer for him. But whereas a comedian knows how to handle a joke, he doesn't know how to ask a legal question and allow for the answer.
I recently was driving north of Sioux FAlls, SD. I turned right and went east about 30 miles until I was in Minnesota. I got out and urinated on the side of the road. I just wanted to p*ss on the state that p*ssed on the rest of the nation by electing Al Franken.

Reply to this comment


by 1notrub11 July 28, 2010 8:41 PM EDT: LOL


by StewieEsq July 1, 2010 1:34 PM EDT: Oh, come on. Most of these confirmation hearings are simply about giving the senators time to pontificate. What else do you call Sessions' prattle? Franken was doing the same thing the others do--using his question time to score points. They already know about Kagen from the FBI investigation, and the already know, that like every other nomiinee, she will avoid giving any specifics about judicial philosophy and commit no more perjury than activists like Roberts and Alito did when they talked about judicial modesty and judges just calling balls and strikes.; Reply to this comment


by janareader July 1, 2010 9:12 AM EDT: Jan I listened to the entire hearing and you are picking on Franken?.. and not on anyone else... there were so many interruptions let alone grand standing by the republicans that was so rude. What gives here.. as a journalist.. if you bring the issue up you know you should at least be fair. What was your point? I'd like to hear what you have to say about someone else too.. like say Sessions? You are reporting on one question that Franken asked and not on how many times one question was asked over and over trying to get a different answer on the Harvard military decision. Talk about wasting time. Come on now Jan I find you article silly.; Reply to this comment


by JPMcGrath86 June 30, 2010 10:16 PM EDT: I got the distinct impression that Franken did not really understand the issues concerning statutory interpretation. At first, it did not seem to occur to him that a judge might find the text of a statute clear, and therefore not delve into the legislative history. Fortunately for him, Kagan was very diplomatic in the way she explained it to him.

I have no idea what he is doing on the Judiciary Committee. He is an embarrassment.; Reply to this comment

by scubbasteve01 June 30, 2010 4:33 PM EDT

HI! I'm AL FRANKEN. Because he's Al Franken and he is qualified to draw.
Hey can I get a recount of those votes please even though I don't live in that state?

Reply to this comment


by doctor_know June 30, 2010 5:40 PM EDT: He may be a great senator..... time will tell

by mrjustice1 June 30, 2010 3:38 PM EDT

GIVE US TWO MEXICAN-AMERICAN AND SIX MOSLEM-AMERICAN SUPREME COURT JUDGES

That will be fair, for 'in-advance' representation, given the demographic rates of change, ethnic population growth, etc.

The remaining traditional American Supreme Court Justice, should symbolically represent America of a past era.

Reply to this comment


by doctor_know June 30, 2010 5:41 PM EDT: Huh? Where do you get your info?

by thesevenveils June 30, 2010 2:07 PM EDT

Don't you people get it? He asked her an important question, so important that she blew off supportive cloaks of indifference and answered the question. What is important is she sees Scalia for what he is, as revisionist; one who has gone back reopened finished decsions of the court and reversed MAJOR court decisions for his party's favor, and Kagan recognizes the importance of precedence and seems to realize Scalia's injustice in doing so.

It is time to revise the constitution, to place if not term limits on congressional members, to at least require tri-anual tests of cognizance to assure the public their representatives are not zombies and have become reduced to a face of a machine like Senator Byrd.

The Supreme Court has obviously taken a political note and the judges politics are swaying decisions in most obvious ways. IT is time to impose term limits on the Supreme Court, not only to address competence but to also address the increased longevity of the American population. Of all courts, the Supreme Court should have judges aware of the now and not the then (past). The Supreme Court has become the most important legislative branch and yet is has no over sight, and is an entity upon its own, sort of like the Supreme Leader of the Iranian government.

Reply to this comment


by Perish1 July 1, 2010 2:33 PM EDT: I think that each SCJ should be re approved every ten years or at least limited in some way. This "til death" thing smells too much of monarchy.

On the issue of the SC becoming more important, it is only because the legislature has become so worthless and corrupt.