Saxby To Vote Against Kagan

For those who want a break from Georgia politics, I offer you the following press release about some national politics:

Chambliss: I am left with far too many doubts to simply presume that the president’s nominee should be confirmed

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today spoke on the Senate floor regarding the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Below are excerpts from his speech:

…Several weeks ago, Ms. Kagan was granted an opportunity to sit before the Judiciary Committee, respond to her critics and clarify her seemingly controversial positions.

Years before she herself would face the requisite questioning of a confirmation hearing, Ms. Kagan criticized the confirmation process as lacking “seriousness and substance.” This is a criticism based on the notion that recent court nominees believe the surest path to confirmation is by providing milquetoast, evasive answers to any question involving a controversial topic.

In this instance, Ms. Kagan chose to emulate those she had once criticized.

Through many hours of questioning regarding her past statements, positions and actions, her answers proved evasive and unhelpful. And with many portions of her record having not been adequately addressed, I am left with far too many doubts to simply presume that the president’s nominee should be confirmed…

While there are numerous issues I find troublesome in her record, there are a few I would most like to focus on today.

I am especially concerned about her discriminatory actions against military recruiters – in clear violation of federal law, and which was ruled against unanimously by the Supreme Court – while she was dean of Harvard Law School. This was an act of defiance designed to protest of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. It has been argued that this was simply a misunderstanding or that Ms. Kagan made a good-faith attempt to apply the law as she saw fit. I believe that her actions show a dangerous hostility toward the military and a troubling disregard for duly enacted statutes with which she disagrees.

Another issue where I remain concerned is on the topic of abortion. While I never anticipated that this president would nominate someone who shares my pro-life views, I could not imagine him nominating someone with the extreme views that Ms. Kagan’s record indicates. This is not just a pro-life versus pro-choice dilemma for me. There is substantial evidence from her time clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall and from her time in the Clinton White House that demonstrates an alarming agenda on abortion…

With no prior judicial record to review, senators are left with little guidance as to how a nominee will act once they become a judge. This is where we would hope that the nominee could fill in the gaps.

Instead, in Ms. Kagan’s case, we are left to look to the past and at her records, and we are forced to make an overwhelmingly important decision with significant questions unanswered.

I remain concerned that Ms. Kagan will carry the political agenda that is evident in her past to the Supreme Court. Many of her views are clearly outside those of mainstream America. Therefore, I will vote against her nomination to the Supreme Court.


    • ACCmoderate says:

      Saxby isn’t going to the softball game. He claims that he’s got an old football injury.

      Not the first time I’ve heard that excuse.

  1. BoogDoc7 says:

    We though Harriet Myers was a bad idea. Kagan is even worse.

    I’m not completely opposed to non-judges sitting on the Supreme Court, but the challenge there is finding someone who hasn’t completely promoted a political agenda their entire career as an attorney.

    Particularly someone who removes Con Law as a requirement. Is there EVER a good reason for any US attorney to NOT take Con Law?

    • polisavvy says:

      Good post. You also raise a valid concern about Con Law. It should ALWAYS be a requirement PERIOD!

    • Doug Deal says:

      What difference does it make, no matter what empty shell the left places on the bench, they will monolithically vote the same way anyway.

      A differnent puppet with the same strings will do the same tricks.

      • ACCmoderate says:

        The same statement could be said of the string of conservative justices offered up by the right.

        I think its deplorable how utterly partisan the judicial branch has become. George Washington is rolling over in his grave.

        • ACCmoderate says:

          However, I will hold on that the majority of enlightened and reasoned discussion on the issues takes place in the judicial branch. The SC has shown more willingness to work together than the Congress had.

          There are some positives to the Supreme Court, but I feel like the trend of nominees has focused on individuals who are more entrenched in their personal political beliefs.

          • Doug Deal says:

            The large number of binding 5-4 decisions scare me. Any binding precedent of the court should require 6-3 or greater or the world will get turned on its head every time a a seat on the court switches ideologies.

        • Doug Deal says:

          I would argue that there is less unanimity on the right side of the court, but still too much. (An example would be how Thomas and Scalia dissented in UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK ET AL.)

          No two people who actually consider the issues as contentious and difficult as the Supreme Court can agree such a high percentage of the time.

  2. NoTeabagging says:

    Yawn. We never hear anything from Saxby. Out of the Blue he comes up with a not so surprising statement straight from the Republican Daily Agenda: vote against anything the “other side” presents.

  3. NoTeabagging says:

    The confirmation process is repetitive. The same questions are asked of every nominee. Several national commentators have pointed out that Kagan’s responses are very similar to conservative nominees answers from past confirmation hearings. The R’s will always hassle the D’s nominees and vice versa.

  4. Quaker says:

    Saxby and most other Repubs would vote against Charance Thomas’ twin if Obama noninated him. There is not a sole on the planet they would vote to confirm as an Obama appointment.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      I’d just like to start with someone who has been a judge. Myers was a bad idea and so was Kagan.

Comments are closed.