Top 10 Things We Learned About Kagan

By: Jan Crawford
Topics: Supreme Court ,; Crossroads

After two days of tough questioning, here are the top 10 things we learned about Elena Kagan:

1. She likes Chinese food on Christmas.

2. She is woefully uninformed about the Twilight series.

3. She doesn't agree with John Roberts' analogy that judges should merely act as umpires who call balls and strikes.

4. She's a self-described progressive Democrat.

5. She isn't opposed to considering legislative history when interpreting a statute.

6. She cribbed off Miguel Estrada's notes in law school and thinks he should be on the DC Circuit--and is qualified for the Supreme Court.

7. She reveres the military, but opposes Don't Ask/Don't Tell.

8. She doesn't have moral objections to the death penalty.

9. She admits to only one passion: the law.

10. And she regrets calling past Supreme Court confirmation hearings a "charade" because nominees don't answer substantive questions.

More from Jan Crawford:

Democrats Miss Point on Campaign Spending
Why is Al Franken on Judiciary?
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: Analysis of the Kagan Hearings
Grade Elena Kagan's Confirmation Hearing
Jeff Greenfield: The Kagan Charade Remembered
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 »

19 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 19 Comments


by Stevenapoli7 July 5, 2010 5:50 AM EDT: Kagan's explanation about military recruiting was BS. If she spews BS in a Senate hearing, she'll have no problem doing "what she wants" at the expense of the constitution.; Reply to this comment


by alien_view July 2, 2010 8:54 AM EDT: The time has come to start the impeachment process againist the President and Congress for failure to protect our country. " do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Mr. President you are "FIRED".; Reply to this comment

by Topgun61 July 2, 2010 2:37 AM EDT

I have found it hard to believe this is the BEST candidate they could nominate for the Highest Court in the land. They are telling me that they could find no smarter, less politically motivated person in this country. Another fine example why this will be a one term administration.

Reply to this comment


by user000049586849302948602 July 2, 2010 7:46 AM EDT: I don't think so. The repugs threw all that they could at her and she knock the ball out of the park. I would really love to see the repugs even try to filibuster her nomination.


by whosaid1 July 2, 2010 11:09 AM EDT: user000049586849302948602: "she knock the ball out of the park".

wow !!! you really do live in a strange...strange ...naive world


by cbs_bull July 1, 2010 11:29 PM EDT: We need judges who are able to interpret laws impartially. Not ideologues from either far left or right. Unfortunately, a few current judges and many Americans are too polarized in recent years ...; Reply to this comment


by maistir July 1, 2010 8:53 PM EDT: The Senate could refuse to vote on a nomination to the Supreme Court until the nominee answers the questions of its Judiciary Comm. members.
That would force nominees to discuss their legal and political views.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the Senate to assert its power *not* to consent. "Evasive" is the Senate's m.o.; Reply to this comment


by either1or July 1, 2010 7:42 PM EDT: I stand by my first impression. Elena Kagan is an entry level person destined for the biggest job in the country.; Reply to this comment


by RobAla July 1, 2010 7:29 PM EDT: 11. Kagan is political activist, and should not have even been nominated. Too late for that.; Reply to this comment

by ajvw July 1, 2010 4:30 PM EDT

only a woman could talk for the better part of 3 days and say nothing

Reply to this comment


by larrryshrine July 1, 2010 5:07 PM EDT: A little sexist, eh?


by bradkt1 July 1, 2010 4:23 PM EDT: Like the people considering her confirmation had open minds in the first place...

...That was the charade.; Reply to this comment


by pragmatist1 July 1, 2010 4:15 PM EDT: Reason for #1: "...like all Jews I'm probably spending Christmas in a Chinese Restaurant"...although many Jews do service work at hospitals and the like and relieve Christians so they can spend their religious holiday with their families...here's a few more:
#11 She knows how to avoid answering questions and gives non-answers (she never did answer the question about Christmas as it related to the underwear bomber).
#12 She's guilty of doing the same things she was previously critical of Supreme Court Nominee hearings.; Reply to this comment