Here's Senator "send your money to me" Al Franken, expressing my exact sentiments about the first day of Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings:
I feel ya, Senator Al. I was nodding off too.
I do give Kagan credit for listening to the Senators bloviate and politicize the hearings all day long without falling asleep herself. It shows she has endurance. For those of you who actually have a life and missed Day One, I'll give you the rundown...
Republicans think Kagan is too inexperienced to be on the Supreme Court, having never been a judge and never trying a case as a lawyer until about a year ago.
Democrats think Kagan's inexperience makes her uniquely qualified, a brilliant outside the box choice.
It's kind of like electing a President with no executive or management experience. It might work, but you also might get......"What ? There's an oil spill in the Gulf Of Mexico ? Somebody write me some talking points. Can we blame it on Bush ? Hey ! Maybe we can use it to demonize the energy industry and tax the hell out of them. Fore !"
For the rest of you insomniacs out there, I offer Kagan's entire opening statement:
Selected quote - Kagan promised to serve with a "commitment to evenhandedness, principle, and restraint"........after which she will side with the liberal wing of the Court, always.
Can't wait for Day Two. Goodbye for now (yawn). I think I'll take a short nap.
UPDATE - Here's a more interesting video clip, in which Kagan, representing the government, puts forth a specious argument in the Citizens United case. Kagan actually argues that it would be alright for the government to write a campaign finance restriction statute so broad that it would include banning books, because...you're gonna love this....the FEC would probably never enforce it. She gets slapped down by Justices Scalia, Alito, and Roberts:
As the Supreme Court justices correctly point out, our First Amendment rights cannot be suspended by the government, as they were in the McCain-Feingold legislation. If the First Amendment can be legislated away, then freedom of speech doesn't really exist as a right. Kagan's argument is completely bogus. Granted, she was soliciting for the government in the Citizens United v. FEC case, and all she had were lousy arguments, anti-free speech arguments. That doesn't mean she really believes what she was arguing here. There is a difference between being a lawyer advocate and a judge, but the Senate should interrogate her on her free speech views. If she really believes the government can pass anti-free speech laws (as John McCain and lots of Democrats do), then she is not fit for the bench.
About This Blog