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.