Sessions: Kagan Confirmation Hearings Will Be ‘Big Deal’
EmailThe ranking member of Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said this morning in an exclusive interview on “This Week” that the confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan will be a “big deal.”
Sessions said they are particularly important because Kagan “has so little other record.”
Sessions explained he will be looking to understand how broad her reading of the Constitution is.
“I think we’d like to know, in a real honest sense, whether her philosophy of law is so broad in her interpretation of the Constitution that you are not faithful to the Constitution and laws,” Sessions told host Jake Tapper. “In other words, a judge under their oath says you serve under the Constitution, not above it. So we want to know whether she faithfully will follow it even if she doesn’t like it,” he said.
“I think we’ll be looking at her testimony because she has so little other record, it’s going to be a big deal. It’s so important how she testifies,” Sessions added.
WATCH VIDEO HERE:
Rick Santorum Defends Earmarks 
Ron Paul Ad's Call Santorum a 'Fake'
Kagan is far left and she is gay and she will vote Obama’s way.
Posted by: Buffetking | May 16, 2010, 9:30 am 9:30 am
I think the Reps really like this Kagan (though it may not be politically safe to admit it.) I don’t know, but something tells me she’d be fine. At least I’m pretty sure she’s not gay, but government isn’t using sexual orientation to cut itself off from talent anyway.
Posted by: Jim | May 16, 2010, 9:43 am 9:43 am
Article I, Section 8: The federal government can “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” a really broad array of powers. This “elastic clause,” as constitutional scholars call it, grants the federal government far more power than the Republicans are willing to admit. They really should read more than the Second Amendment.
Posted by: behaha | May 16, 2010, 10:11 am 10:11 am
Obama would give his left arm to get Republicans to stop their destructive “waterloo dance” and come to the table with substantive suggestions for solving our problems. Kagan’s strenth is as a collaborator – she defuses the taxic partisan bickering in a respectful way. She is definitely liberal and as it usually follows very intelligent and compassionate. Look into her life story – that will tell you who she is.
Posted by: Robin | May 16, 2010, 10:13 am 10:13 am
Actually “Buffetking” everyone that KNOWS her says she is more than a little to the right, not gay and she will vote her own mind, but I’m sure your little con brain can’t accept the opinion of knowledgeable people over your own pimplefessed nit.
Posted by: JR | May 16, 2010, 10:25 am 10:25 am
Article 1 section 8 enumerates 16 things the federal government can do and 11 states “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)” This is not elastic this is specific and limited. the 10th amendment states ” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This means if it is not one of the 16 designated powers it does not belong to the Federal Government. To violate any one of these is unlawful and a crime of treason.
Posted by: NativeAmerican | May 16, 2010, 10:29 am 10:29 am
First of all, WHO CARES if she is gay or not? I can’t see how a person’s sexual orientation has any bearing on their qualification for ANY position. The Supreme Court has been dominated by right-wing idealogues for too long- we need some balance from the left.
Posted by: cobb | May 16, 2010, 10:35 am 10:35 am
Shouldn’t there be a word between “big” and “deal”? It’s the 21st century, Sessions. Get with it.
Posted by: DTK | May 16, 2010, 10:35 am 10:35 am
The only question a judge should be asked is if the Constitution is a living document, or should it stand the test of time? Anyone who thinks the Constitution is supposed to be a living document should go back to the history books, those written by the Founding Fathers, not some academician’s interpretation of their work.
To address Ms. Kagan’s qualifications as a Supreme Court Judge, this will be a difficult decision. I can’t believe after 25 years you can only find a handful of articles and book reviews she wrote in the aggregate. It is not important that she was never a judge. Senators will have a tough time assessing her true intent, which may have nothing to do with what she says.
Posted by: TTC | May 16, 2010, 10:44 am 10:44 am
We need no balance from the left. Those that say she is a little right defy those that know her and realy like her even if she is gay and left. She was picked by Obama to vote for Obama’s issues when he soon starts to dismantle the Constitution. She has no backbone and she is a lefty liberal.
Posted by: Buffetking | May 16, 2010, 10:48 am 10:48 am
Cobb. Obama cares that she is gay. Your gay community cares if she is gay. How hard would it have been for Obama to nominate a midle america straight family oriented judeo-christian vales individual? There can’t be more than a few bizillion of them…..BUT HE PICKED her for his reasons.
Posted by: Buffetking | May 16, 2010, 10:51 am 10:51 am
I care if she is gay or not…..me, that who.
Posted by: jacl | May 16, 2010, 11:07 am 11:07 am
Buffetking, you seem to be one of the few people who is making a big issue about what you suppose is this nominee’s sexual orientation. I will not speculate about any unresolved issues you have about homosexuality.
Posted by: cobb | May 16, 2010, 11:09 am 11:09 am
I was amazed to hear Tapper using such an aniquated term as “straight” to describe heterosexuals.
Posted by: John McManus | May 16, 2010, 11:16 am 11:16 am
@TTC:
You wrote: “The only question a judge should be asked is if the Constitution is a living document, or should it stand the test of time?”
Um… Living documents stand the test of time for that exact reason. Rigid things break over time.
As behaha mentioned, the “elastic clause” was written because the framers knew that the document couldn’t be all encompassing. No one could have forseen the Internet and cybercrimes in the 1700s, for example. Are things like cyberstalking and cybercrimes “free speech”? What about DRM? Those issues will come up before the Court, and they need to be interpreted by the Constitution. Just as we were given the Miller test, Miranda rights and the Lemon test, the Constitution has to sometimes be clarified to make sense in the 21st century. That’s not undermining the document, but it’s interpreting it in a modern world where black people are no longer considered chattel and we now have electricity. Yes, the Constitution lives, and it stands the test of time.
Posted by: Karen | May 16, 2010, 11:39 am 11:39 am
What is sad is how having “no real record”..no paper-trail..has become a prerequisite for high office. So if you are a young person in politics, the way ahead is to steer clear of any issues that require you to reveal your convictions…(if you have any.) Kagan is the natural choice for Obama..after all, his lack of experience was his defining credential.
Posted by: cindy | May 16, 2010, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
..after all, his lack of experience was his defining credential.
Posted by: cindy | May 16, 2010 12:26:57 PM
___________________________________
Seven years as a state senator and three more as a U.S. senator. Lack of experience. Sure thing.
Posted by: tierra | May 16, 2010, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm
Cobb, you’re right but we’ll never get back to that even though it would make us a stronger nation. Both militarily and economical.
Posted by: kenema | May 16, 2010, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm