Kagan Hearings Day 3: Confirming Obama
After three days of hearings, the Senators couldn't lay a glove on Kagan. The closest they came was the discovery that Kagan, as a White House policy advisor, had helped draft the expert opinion of a doctor's group in opposition to a bill to ban partial-birth abortion. Even then, the questioning wasn't over Kagan's view of Roe v. Wade, or its extensions, such as the looming question of same-sex marriage.
This should come as no surprise. Kagan's day job is to argue the fine points of the law with her future colleagues; the Senators never had a chance, especially with the limited time they have to ask questions and the, let us say, infirm grasp some of them have of constitutional law. Evading Senators' questions should be child's play compared to bobbing and weaving at the counsel's table in the Supreme Court.
What should be clear is that the confirmation represents a Democratic Senate confirming a nominee who will vote to uphold the Obama administration agenda in all of its particulars. Her resistance to the idea that the Commerce Clause wouldn't reach government-ordered diets is a clear signal that she would uphold Obamacare. She criticized Citizens United, the decision attacked by Obama during his State of the Union address for freeing corporations from campaign spending limits. She also, to her credit, supported the administration's use of military commissions to try terrorists.
Republican Senators don't have the votes to stop Kagan. It's been 23 years since the Senate actually voted down a Supreme Court nominee (Judge Robert Bork), and even then, the Senate was held by a different party than the one that occupied the White House. The last time, I think, a majority party in the Senate could not confirm their own President's candidate was the nomination of Abe Fortas by LBJ to be elevated to Chief Justice -- and even then, it was because he was taking money from private clients.
So what should Republicans do? They can use the rest of the hearings, committee vote, and floor debate to make clear to the electorate their differences with the administration over constitutional vision. Turn the vote into a confirmation of Obama -- especially since several of his core agenda items, like Obamacare and global warming control, depend on an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause, and his terrorism policies reflect a desire to reduce the President's Commander-in-Chief powers in wartime. Perhaps the voters can show their buyers' remorse in the November elections.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Kagan Hearings Day 3: Confirming Obama
Sadly, it is true that this woman will be confirmed easily. My dream scenario is that every Republican express his/her misgivings and vote against her. It won't make any difference, but it would be refreshing.
Re: Kagan Hearings Day 3: Confirming Obama
I think this is a great strategy. She's a sure thing for confirmation, but it would be useful to set the table a bit for the campaigns to come.
Re: Kagan Hearings Day 3: Confirming Obama
Absolutely. If we don't make a fuss now, then we can't really say "we warned you" in 2012, when Kagan and Sotomayor have established themselves as the far-left wing of the court.
Re: Kagan Hearings Day 3: Confirming Obama
In addition to establishing themselves as the political party in favor of constitutional limits, Republicans can set down a marker for the next vacancy. Obama's last two nominees -- Sotomayor and Kagan -- did not change the balance of the Court, replacing two liberals (Souter and Stevens). The next vacancies could have a bigger effect. Ginsburg, who is 77, could be the next retirement and she may well want to leave while a Democrat is President. Her retirement wouldn't change things. But Scalia and Kennedy are not far behind -- they are both 74. They would have to stay on the Court to age 76 to outlast Obama's first term, but to age 80 to outlast an Obama second term. It may be an unnoticed item with 2012 still far off, but if Obama were to win re-election, he could shift the Court as much to the left as Nixon and Reagan did to the right.
Jun '10
Re: Kagan Hearings Day 3: Confirming Obama
I seem to be a bit more alarmed than most on this. I'm alarmed not because B.O. is appointing another far lefty that will plunge this country over Steyn's waterfall, which we anticipated, but that the American voter doesn't seem to care. Kagan opposes banning the heinous act of partial birth abortion (a 'procedure' 90 % of Americans oppose), she supports bad B.O. policy such as Obamacare (which 60-70% of Americans oppose) and speculatively allows for ridiculous policies like monitoring citizens' diets (which 100% of Rob Longs oppose).
The time for "we warned you" is now. Thomas Sowell (among others) warned us in October 2008 that B.O. is a far left ideologue who will put extremist judges on the court - shaping it for decades. Voters didn't think much about this at the time, or at least threw such considerations aside when they pulled the lever for B.O. Now that he has nominated judges from the far fringes of the left, somehow the consensus, even among conservatives is, "well, it could be worse." Perhaps it's the case that this country has no memory. So what good are 'we warned yous?'
May '10
Re: Kagan Hearings Day 3: Confirming Obama
Ah, there's the mention of the Commerce Clause. My husband and I were discussing it this morning and he said, "The Commerce Clause has become kudzu: growing out of control and choking the Constitution."