With less than five days remaining before the U.S. Senate adjourns for a six-week recess, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., signaled that the floor debate will begin as early as Tuesday morning on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Freedom Watch – a judicial watchdog group – filed a complaint with the. Supreme Court last week against Kagan, asking it to disbar the nominee in light of her alleged role in influencing medical groups to redefine the term “partial-birth abortion.” The Court later relied upon the new definition to strike down the ban.
The complaint said,
“Elena Kagan, a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, has defrauded the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, her membership to practice before the Court should be revoked and the matter referred to the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. How, then can Ms. Kagan be confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a seat on the high court, when in reality she should not even be allowed to practice in front of it?
“The rules of legal ethics require her disbarment; and I intend to pursue it, to set an example that prospective and sitting judges, or anyone in the legal profession or otherwise, are not above the law.”
VOTE COUNT
According to The Washington Post’s nominee tracker, 58 Democrats and 5 Republicans will vote for Kagan, while 34 Republican and 1 Democrat will oppose.
Five Republicans have voiced their support for Kagan: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.
Two Republicans – Sen. Scott Brown from Massachusetts and Sen. George Voinovich from Ohio – are still undecided.
Voinovich – who voted for now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor – did not vote for Kagan to be solicitor general with the Department of Justice.
Former Republican Arlen Specter, D-Pa., who also voted against Kagan as solicitor general, will now vote in favor of Kagan’s nomination to the Court.
“Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan did little to undo the impression that nominating hearings are little more than a charade in which cautious non-answers take the place of substantive exchanges,” said Specter. “She did just enough to win my vote.”
Sen. Ben Nelson – a Democrat from conservative-leaning Nebraska – signaled Friday that he will oppose Kagan. He is the first Democrat to break with the Party rank-and-file on a judicial nominee.
Nelson said in a statement, “Her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded.”
“I have heard concerns from Nebraskans regarding Ms. Kagan,” he said. “Therefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan’s nomination.”
Contrary to The Washington Post, the National Journal’s whip count finds only 55 of the Senate’s 100 members have firmly stated their positions:
‘YES’ VOTES: 30
Democrats
Sens. Michael Bennet (report), Roland Burris (statement), Ben Cardin (statement), Chris Dodd (statement), Byron Dorgan (statement), Dick Durbin (floor speech, 7/12), Russ Feingold (statement), Dianne Feinstein (statement, Al Franken (interview), Kirsten Gillibrand (statement), Tim Johnson (report), Ted Kaufman (statement), Amy Klobuchar (interview), Frank Lautenberg (statement), Patrick Leahy (statement), Dick Lugar (statement), Claire McCaskill (report), Jeff Merkley (report), Patty Murray (statement), Jack Reed (statement), Chuck Schumer (announced at committee hearing, 7/20), Jeanne Shaheen (report), Arlen Specter (op-ed), Debbie Stabenow (statement), Mark Udall (statement), Sheldon Whitehouse (interview).
Republicans
Susan Collins (statement), Lindsey Graham (announced at committee hearing, 7/20), Judd Gregg (statement), Olympia Snowe (statement),
‘NO’ VOTES: 25
Republicans
Sens. Lamar Alexander (statement), Bob Bennett (statement), Jim Bunning (statement), Richard Burr (statement), Saxby Chambliss (statement), Tom Coburn (op-ed), Bob Corker (statement), John Cornyn (statement), Jim DeMint (op-ed), John Ensign (statement), Chuck Grassley (statement), Orrin Hatch (statement), Kay Bailey Hutchison (statement), Jim Inhofe (statement), Johnny Isakson (statement), Mike Johanns (statement), Jon Kyl (announced at committee hearing, 7/20), John McCain (op-ed), Mitch McConnell (statement), Lisa Murkowski (statement), Jeff Sessions (op-ed), Richard Shelby (statement), John Thune (statement), David Vitter (statement), Roger Wicker (report).
Democrats
Ben Nelson (statement)
The Senate Republican Study Committee today released its closing arguments against Kagan, based on the Senate’s “advice and consent” role on nominations:
“Ms. Kagan has been a committed partisan political lawyer, and there is nothing wrong with that. But, now she has been nominated to perform a very different role: neutral arbiter of the law. She has never been a judge and has little experience in the courtroom. There is nothing in her background to show she can set aside her ideology and apply the Constitution and law as written to the cases and controversies that would come before her on the Supreme Court. When asked by Senators about times in her career when she appears to have chosen her political beliefs over objective readings of law and science, Ms. Kagan sought to excuse, minimize, or deny her actions. Such answers give the Senate little comfort.
“Some defenders of the Kagan nomination cite her impressive academic record as evidence that she is qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court. There is no doubt that Ms. Kagan is intelligent; but, the Senate must not rubber-stamp a nominee simply because she possesses a sterling Ivy League resume. When the Senate inquires as to whether a nominee is qualified for the Court, it is asking a very specific question: Does the nominee understand, and is she prepared to assume, the role of an impartial judge in our Constitutional system?
“President Obama has stated that the judges he would appoint would have a much different view of the job of a judge, and in introducing Ms. Kagan he indicated that she shared his view. As the Senate has reviewed her background, it has learned that there is much that is impressive about her resume, but her record is replete with evidence that she does not possess the most basic qualification to sit on our highest court: a commitment to put political preferences aside and apply the law without fear or favor to all who would come before her. Without sufficient evidence that Ms. Kagan is prepared to make the transition from political lawyer to Supreme Court justice, the Senate has ample reason to reject this nomination.”
TAKE ACTION
From her controversial positions on abortion and gender issues, to her lack of commitment to defend the Constitution, Americans must contact their senators TODAY and encourage them to vote “No” on Kagan.
Please ask your senators to vote “No” on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
The National Journal’s whip count.
The Washington Post’s whip count.
YOUTUBE: Kagan Responds to Sen. Coburn during hearing. “Kagan Won’t Rubber Stamp the Declaration of Independence.”
Read the Washington Times editorial, “Kagan’s Abortive Ethics: Senate needs more time to investigate Obama Court nominee.”
Read Heritage Foundation’s blog post, “The Limitless Power of the Obama-Kagan Congress.”
Read, “The Case Against Kagan” by the Senate Republican Study Committee.
Read Freedom Watch’s Complaint against Kagan.
Print
