Sen. Coburn: Kagan ‘Ignorant’ of Constitutional Principles; ‘I Wouldn’t Rule Out a Filibuster’
EmailABC News' Rick Klein reports: Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn has provided some of the most contentious exchanges of the rather tame Elena Kagan confirmation hearings. He's raised questions about Kagan's generally liberal political beliefs, and contends that Kagan would usher in vast expansions of government power as a member of the Supreme Court. On ABC/Washington Post’s “Top Line” today, Coburn ratcheted up his critique of Kagan, saying she hasn’t been as forthcoming about her views as she should be, and questioning her interpretation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause as well as her expressed willingness to follow court precedents. “I think the thing that's very worrisome is that she has a very expansive view of the Commerce Clause, and I find that she's ignorant of the Constitution's limitation of that, especially what our Founders wrote,” Coburn, R-Okla., told us. “And her reliance was that, ‘Well, here's the precedent that's been set, and we can't go back to original intent,’ which comes back to another thing that she said earlier in the hearing — is that precedent trumps original intent. And I think most Americans would reject that. If that was the case, then we would have never had Brown vs. the Board of Education, and Plessy-Ferguson would still be the law. And to have a Supreme Court nominee that actually says precedent trumps original intent is worrisome, in my opinion.”
As far as what his concerns amount to, Coburn said he isn’t prepared to say that a GOP-led filibuster won’t be warranted. “I wouldn't rule out a filibuster,” he said. “Look, my two main concerns are …: We're in trouble as a nation, and one of the reasons we're in trouble is the expansion of the federal government into areas that our Founders never thought we should be in. And we have a nominee to the Supreme Court that is fully embracing that and with no limits in terms of the Commerce Clause. So to me, that's very concerning. The second point I would make, again, is that she believes precedent trumps original intent. And she defended that. And so that — both those things are very concerning — should be very concerning to the American people.” Coburn also said he’s concerned that Supreme Court confirmation hearings don’t serve a useful purpose. “This is a relatively new phenomenon in our country's history, and I'm not sure they're beneficial for us other than to show — to be a show,” Coburn said. “So my hope is, is to make 'em as serious as they can be, and also ask the hard questions so that the American people can see what somebody believes, what they think. And she also had written an article about she thought she ought to be forthright. I'm not sure she's as forthright as she professed that others should be.”
Coburn said he was troubled by the decision Kagan made to ban military recruiters from Harvard Law School’s office of career services: “I think that you can sum up the military recruiting issue at Harvard is that she valued the doctrine of Harvard more than she valued the U.S. law. And I don't know whether she's been forthright or not — I don't know the details and what actually went on there — but her decision was to honor Harvard's rules more than honor the law. And I think that's problematic.”
Coburn said he couldn’t say whether he would have confirmed Thurgood Marshall – Kagan’s legal mentor – to the Supreme Court, or how he would have voted on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s confirmation. Marshall was confirmed 69-11 in 1967, and Ginsburg won confirmation on a 96-3 vote, in 1993. On whether he would supported Marshall, Coburn said, “I have no idea. I don't know his writings. And I haven't — I think that's an important part of her history, but I don't think it's near as important as the two things that I just mentioned.” On Ginsburg, Coburn said: “Well again, I can't tell you, but I did watch some of her hearings when I was — I was not in politics at the time. And the fact is, is she didn't ever answer a question. And so, you know, you oughtta have to answer a question, and she answered none.” Watch the full interview with Sen. Tom Coburn HERE. For our “Post Politics” segment, we chatted with Dana Milbank of The Washington Post about Kagan’s attempts at humor, plus the congressional candidate who has summoned the ghost of Abraham Lincoln in his run-off race. Watch the portion of the program with Dana Milbank HERE.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Ya.. right…zzzz
Posted by: New Wave | June 30, 2010, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm
Funny…I gave Coburn more credit for common sense and/or brains than what he is showing with that “bravado statement”. Guess I was badly mistaken… Was he sober when he said that??? LOL…LOL
Posted by: CND FOX | June 30, 2010, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm
Let’s replace the “no” in “The Party of No” to “The Party of Filibuster”!
Posted by: noneother | June 30, 2010, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm
Blah …. blah …. blah …. yada, yada, yada.
The about is Mr. Coburn speaking & what I hear.
Posted by: Linda | June 30, 2010, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
He’s correct about the issue of original intent vs. precedent. Bad law is passed and original intent is always there to help correct it.
Brown vs. Board of Education is a great example of it. The bedrock founding principles of this nation don’t blow in the political winds like a flag.
Posted by: Mojoski | June 30, 2010, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm
I watched a little of Kagan’s confirmation hearing’s–I got the impression that she was a liar. I hope that the Republican’s do filerbuster her appointment to the Supreme Court.
Posted by: debora.thompso | June 30, 2010, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm
“I got the impression that she was a liar”.
Why is that not surprising coming from a republican?
Go ahead and “filerbuster”. That’s all republicans have to bring to the table anyway!
Posted by: crazy | June 30, 2010, 6:01 pm 6:01 pm
So according to Coburn, “She’s ignorant of the Constitution’s limitation…especially what our Founders wrote.”
But wait….didn’t President Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general, who worked with Kagan at Harvard, say: “She’s very, very smart. She’s a very fine lawyer. She understands everything, and she particularly has been a student of constitutional law.”?
Coburn will say and do whatever it takes to fight Kagan’s confirmation. See, this Oklahoma Senator is a member of a holier-than-thou secretive Washington cult called The Family. (You may recall the Family’s claim to fame in covering up political conservatives’ sex scandals.) Members believe that God’s will works through them as an “invisible hand” to promote their twisted version of free market ideology.
Posted by: green.goddess | June 30, 2010, 7:14 pm 7:14 pm
Over and over and over again, Coburn provides evidence he’s more concerned about how HE interprets what the founders actually said and wrote, than what actually was said and written.
Coburn is a fool. And, since he spends most of his time dictating legislation in foreign countries (Uganda) rather than ANYTHING of substance that effects people here… He does NOTHING.. He stands only for obstructionism… he works as a congressman ONLY for big business… and in Oklahomie he believes he is now God.. based on the recent laws passed in his state giving the DOCTOR the right to FORCE women not to have abortions, even if the pregnancy will kill the mom!
Coburn is worse than the lowest form of life in the food chain and has landed there for good reason.. he works at it..
Posted by: Winski | June 30, 2010, 8:28 pm 8:28 pm
No one believes that she isn’t going to be confirmed, or that the senate isn’t 100% on board with it. Only conservatives get ‘Borked’.
Posted by: Ruler4You | July 1, 2010, 2:26 am 2:26 am
Plessy-Ferguson was the original intent of the Founding Fathers… In what universe? Coburn’s off his meds.
Posted by: Frederick | July 1, 2010, 6:35 am 6:35 am
I got news for you…Democrats and Republicans are a farce…The entire US government under Obama is a farce…You people are indulging in idol worship, especially liberals…Anyone Obama pushes forward gets idolized…It just happens to be Kagen at the moment…Most of you liberals never heard of her until O nominated her, but you will idolize her, and defend her now…Had Bush nominated her the same liberals would be tearing her apart…
And Coburn would be supporting her…
Elvis sang about this…’A whole lot of vacillating going on’…No wonder the French are laughing at you…
Posted by: duh_swami | July 1, 2010, 6:35 am 6:35 am
duh_swami, it sounds more like anyone that Obama proposes you’d hate.
Posted by: pol | July 1, 2010, 7:45 am 7:45 am
The problem is that we have no idea how Kagan would deal with the differences between her personal beliefs and the way the Constitution is written. And that is because she has never had to do that. She has no experience applicable to the job, on which we could make a reasonable decision. What she says in these hearings is all rehearsed, so that adds nothing to the decision-making process. And once she’s on the court, she’s on for life. You can’t go back 10 years from now and say “During your confirmation hearings, you said xyz, and you just voted abc. You have to resign from the court.” We are stuck with her by then.
Confirming her for the Supreme Court with no judicial experience would be as ridiculous as electing a man to the Presidency who has absolutely no executive experience in his life. We wouldn’t be foolish enough to do that, now, would we?
And pol, considering how inept and corrupt 0bama’s administration is, opposing everyone 0bama proposes would be the sensible thing to do.
Posted by: Nick in Virginia | July 1, 2010, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
Nick in Virginia | Jul 1, 2010 12:27:46 PM posted: “considering how inept and corrupt 0bama’s administration is, opposing everyone 0bama proposes would be the sensible thing to do.”
Inept? When Obama took office the economy had been shrinking at an annual rate of 6.4% and employment had already stalled after two GW Bush terms of outsourcing and the worst job growth on record – a pathetic 3 Million new jobs in 8 years. Since the recession started in 2007, 15 Million became unemployed.
Obama’s first focus was to recapitalize banks and return the economy to growth. Most economists agree that the distasteful Wall Street bailouts and deficit-enlarging stimulus actually staved off global depression and brought about a stock market recovery.
Last week the Treasury said that taxpayers would realize a $24 billion profit on TARP money lent to banks. And, according to the financial firm Deloitte, the mix of the direct assistance to automakers + other incentives to spur demand in the market was a lifeline to US industry survival, keeping millions employed.
I agree corruption is in our government. But Obama’s administration is no different than decades of corporate manipulation. We need Lobby reform, but unfortunately, the Republicans in Congress think it’s “sensible to oppose everything”, so reform will be an uphill battle.
Posted by: green.goddess | July 1, 2010, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm
It’s obvious to anyone with an open mind that Kagen is lying through her teeth. She has to, if she were honest about her radical, statist views even some of the leftist Dems would have to vote against her.
Coburn is one of the few Senators with any guts in DC and I strongly encourage them to filibuster Kagen. The Dems blocked dozens of Bush nominees including hispanics and african-americans. And they wanted filibuster Bush’s Supreme Court nominee but the “gang of 14″ intervened.
Kagen should be filibustered just for lying under oath before Congress. (Yes, lib trolls, that’s a crime) Also, Obama has not provided the documents that have been requested and neither has the Clinton library. What are they hiding?
Filibuster temporarily until you get the documents that have been sought. And in the mean time, enough info will come out that will make it obvious that she has disdain for the very Constitution and is too radical for the Supreme Court. Not to mention that she is totally unqualified…..
Posted by: David Webb | July 1, 2010, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
“Did you write the memo?
Ahhh, Senator, ahhhh, it is in my hand writing…”
Posted by: David Webb | July 1, 2010, 2:14 pm 2:14 pm
Stop Kagan. She’s a liar and tries to get by with her jokes. Her answer on the commerce clause is enough to pack her bags now. Commies are always commies and Obama and her are together commies.
Secondly, the economy hasn’t picked up! The ‘TARP’ money has actually worked against the economy. Given the Obamaites a false hope just like his campaign slogan.
Housing? Down big-time after welfare gimmie 8K.
Auto industry? Down big-time after all the CORPORATE welfare giveaway money.
Mortgages? Do you mean Fannie and Freddie? Yeah, that’s it. Corporate greed giveaways!
ALL economic numbers are retreating. Jobs outlook.. sucks
National Debt that is equal to the GDP? 13 TRILLION!
Yup, I blame Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama for wreckless spending.
Posted by: lew | July 1, 2010, 2:45 pm 2:45 pm
She is either a fool or a liar, and there is room for neither on the nation’s highest court. The job of a justice is to enforce the Constitution, and serve as check and balance to the other powers to ensure they do not abuse their authority. Congress abused their authority. It is the duty of the court to reverse unconstitutional laws such as those that mortgage the future of our children and put them on the hook for over a million dollars apiece in taxes- before they can ever earn anything.
Posted by: eternalgreenknight | July 1, 2010, 4:59 pm 4:59 pm
It is obvious to anyone with an open mind that the people calling Ms. Kagan a “liar” are far right wing ideologues who know absolutely nothing about the US Constitution, the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court, or anything else other than what Rush Limbaugh tells them.
Posted by: anthony | July 1, 2010, 6:21 pm 6:21 pm