Republicans to walk out of Kagan hearing?

[Ragnar]

Hmm...
GOP may boycott Kagan hearings - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, on Monday evening warned that Republicans may boycott the start of Elena Kagan's Supreme Court hearings if senators do not get to review scores of documents from the solicitor general's past.

"I don't feel like we're prepared yet," Sessions told POLITICO. "It's becoming more clear that this is not an easy thing to get ready this quick."

Sessions said there appeared to be 1,600 withheld documents, which cover Kagan’s time as a senior White House aide under President Bill Clinton but were not released because of confidentiality concerns. And he called for the Obama administration to at least provide key senators and staff with a chance to privately review the confidential documents so they could weigh in on the validity of the decision to withhold the documents.

Via Hot Air...
Hot Air Republicans to boycott Kagan hearing?; Update: Video added

If the Republicans walk out, though, it will bring the proceedings to a temporary halt. The Judiciary Committee cannot proceed without at least one Republican in attendance; without that, no quorum exists. With a recess coming up in a few weeks, any stoppage might put off final confirmation until close to the time when the Supreme Court returns. More likely, however, would be a symbolic hiatus of a day or two in order to force the media to cover the lack of transparency in this unusual nomination of a political operative with no judicial experience whatsoever.

Yeah I gotta agree. It would be political theatre but maybe that's just what the Kagan hearing needs. The media (mainstream) has dropped the ball on coverage. We need as much information as possible since she has no record at all as a judge. Too much theatre can be a bad thing though. For example, I'm not sure if even Kagan deserves the Bork treatment... even if she does:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWibqh0De50]YouTube - Kagan on Bork[/ame]

Final Countdown to Kagan Hearings Begins … With More Bork The Washington Independent

Though Kagan herself was tight-lipped in her confirmation hearing for Solicitor General last year, ABC News’ Ariane de Vogue reports that Kagan had given even more effusive praise for the way the Bork hearings were conducted in a law review article published two years before the speech.

Kagan Praises Bork. Bork, Won't Return the Favor - Political Punch

In the article, Kagan wrote that Bork’s hearing should be a “model” for all others, because even though it ended in the candidate's rejection, the hearings presented an opportunity for the Senate and the nominee to engage on controversial issues and educate the public.

"Not since Bork," she said, "has any nominee candidly discussed, or felt a need to discuss, his or her views and philosophy."

"The debate focused not on trivialities," she wrote, but on essentials: "the understanding of the Constitution that the nominee would carry with him to the Court."

Ted Kennedy style slander and lie's make one heck of a model.

Not sure if the Republicans will "walk out" of the hearing or not but I'm positive there will be no "Borking" of Kagan. No one deserves that.

 

[uscitizen]

I hope the rebutlickens do boycott.

 

[Ragnar]

I hope the rebutlickens do boycott.

If the Republicans walk out, though, it will bring the proceedings to a temporary halt. The Judiciary Committee cannot proceed without at least one Republican in attendance; without that, no quorum exists.

It would just be a kabuki dance for the cameras. Can't say if it would make the Dims any more forthcoming. Likely not. But at least it would give both sides a chance to throw a little red meat to the base. (always fun)

 

[Ragnar]

Update:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeFyM2eGShs]YouTube - Sessions Reprimands White House for Misleading Statements on Kagan's Harvard Controversy[/ame]

In which we learn that Larry Summers (past pres. of Harvard), now Obama's chief economic advisor, approved of military recruiters on campus over the objection of Kagan. Heh!

“So we need a fair and honest evaluation. I, for one, have frankly been disappointed in this administration’s obfuscation, deliberately attempting to hide the nature of what happened at Harvard, because it was, in fact, inexcusable.”

 

[ConHog]

Fucking stupid, she appears to be qualified and fair minded. I'm sick of the partisan fights

 

[Modbert]

She's a likely Conservative, definitely not a Liberal, definitely qualified and intelligent as well. And the Republicans are still not happy. Go figure.

The court is going to swing more to the right if she's put in anyway.

 

[xotoxi]

I hate both conservatives and liberals, democrats and republicans politicians who pull bullshit grandstanding like this.

FUCK THEM ALL!

 

[ConHog]

She's a likely Conservative, definitely not a Liberal, definitely qualified and intelligent as well. And the Republicans are still not happy. Go figure.

The court is going to swing more to the right if she's put in anyway.

I really don't think that is true. I believe she is truly able to look at an issue and you know judge it on its merits not on is it left or right. I applaud Obama for this nomination, and condemn the Republicans for holding it up, Just nominate her and get on with the business of fixing this country.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Fucking stupid, she appears to be qualified and fair minded. I'm sick of the partisan fights

Appearances can be deceiving. Wouldn't you want the person that is going to be appointed a lifetime position to be completely vetted? I bet you believe everything Obama says!

 

[ConHog]

Fucking stupid, she appears to be qualified and fair minded. I'm sick of the partisan fights

Appearances can be deceiving. Wouldn't you want the person that is going to be appointed a lifetime position to be completely vetted? I bet you believe everything Obama says!

You obviously know that isn't true, and I dismiss you as being as stupid on the right as Sangha is on the left. Of course we've already been over t his so it should come as no surprise to you.

 

[Ragnar]

She's a likely Conservative, definitely not a Liberal, definitely qualified and intelligent as well. And the Republicans are still not happy. Go figure.

The court is going to swing more to the right if she's put in anyway.

I really don't think that is true. I believe she is truly able to look at an issue and you know judge it on its merits not on is it left or right. I applaud Obama for this nomination, and condemn the Republicans for holding it up, Just nominate her and get on with the business of fixing this country.

Based on what? Borking? Being anti-military? Her work with the Clinton admin. that is being withheld from scrutiny? Her softball skill? And fwiw, the Republicans are not holding anything up. Yet.

It's fine, and maybe a good idea even to nominate someone who has not been a judge. But it also demands a higher level of scrutiny given the lack of track record to judge from. She is young and a Washington insider and a blank slate. There is nothing wrong with asking questions.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Fucking stupid, she appears to be qualified and fair minded. I'm sick of the partisan fights

Appearances can be deceiving. Wouldn't you want the person that is going to be appointed a lifetime position to be completely vetted? I bet you believe everything Obama says!

You obviously know that isn't true, and I dismiss you as being as stupid on the right as Sangha is on the left. Of course we've already been over t his so it should come as no surprise to you.

No I don't know that isn't true. You have no problem with her being anti-military? And her claim that it may be ok for the government to ban certain publications doesn't bother you? She has zero judicial experience and only a few years of real-world legal experience. I guess it would be fair to dismiss you as an ignorant fool.

 

[Care4all]

ahhhh, i see the chess move....

if kagan is knocked out with this type of politicking then obama's next appointment will be REALLY liberal and the repubs will have to live with it! they used up their crying wolf on kagan, the replacement will get smooth sailing due to the obstructionism that will be called and played on them....

 

[ConHog]

Appearances can be deceiving. Wouldn't you want the person that is going to be appointed a lifetime position to be completely vetted? I bet you believe everything Obama says!

You obviously know that isn't true, and I dismiss you as being as stupid on the right as Sangha is on the left. Of course we've already been over t his so it should come as no surprise to you.

No I don't know that isn't true. You have no problem with her being anti-military? And her claim that it may be ok for the government to ban certain publications doesn't bother you? She has zero judicial experience and only a few years of real-world legal experience. I guess it would be fair to dismiss you as an ignorant fool.

If you really don't know that I don't just believe everything Obama says then you might be even dumber than I thought.

Anti military? I've never heard her say that, or I assure you I would cry foul.


As for law experience, sorry man she has plenty of experience and knowledge of the law.

As for her lack of experience as a judge

A) There is no constitutional requirement for such experience
B) Maybe that's exactly what we need on the court

 

[Luissa]

The thing I don't get about these appointment, is either side gets pissed when they choose someone who seems liberal or conservative. Just appoint her, it is going to happen anyways.. They need to quit wasting our time and tax dollars.
I for one didn't expect Bush to select a liberal judge, and I didn't expect Obama to either.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You obviously know that isn't true, and I dismiss you as being as stupid on the right as Sangha is on the left. Of course we've already been over t his so it should come as no surprise to you.

No I don't know that isn't true. You have no problem with her being anti-military? And her claim that it may be ok for the government to ban certain publications doesn't bother you? She has zero judicial experience and only a few years of real-world legal experience. I guess it would be fair to dismiss you as an ignorant fool.

If you really don't know that I don't just believe everything Obama says then you might be even dumber than I thought.

Anti military? I've never heard her say that, or I assure you I would cry foul.


As for law experience, sorry man she has plenty of experience and knowledge of the law.

As for her lack of experience as a judge

A) There is no constitutional requirement for such experience
B) Maybe that's exactly what we need on the court

If not knowing what another person believes makes that person a dummy, then you will have to admit that you are a dummy. Because you have no idea what I or anyone else thinks.

You haven't heard about her banning recruiters from Harvard? Then you are fucking ignorant.

And no bench experience is a pretty big deal in my opinion.

 

[Ragnar]

The thing I don't get about these appointment, is either side gets pissed when they choose someone who seems liberal or conservative. Just appoint her, it is going to happen anyways.. They need to quit wasting our time and tax dollars.
I for one didn't expect Bush to select a liberal judge, and I didn't expect Obama to either.

Anyone would have to be vetted by Congress, it's their duty. But, the longer they spend on this debate, the less time they have to "waste our tax dollars", or God forbid, come after more.

 

[ConHog]

No I don't know that isn't true. You have no problem with her being anti-military? And her claim that it may be ok for the government to ban certain publications doesn't bother you? She has zero judicial experience and only a few years of real-world legal experience. I guess it would be fair to dismiss you as an ignorant fool.

If you really don't know that I don't just believe everything Obama says then you might be even dumber than I thought.

Anti military? I've never heard her say that, or I assure you I would cry foul.


As for law experience, sorry man she has plenty of experience and knowledge of the law.

As for her lack of experience as a judge

A) There is no constitutional requirement for such experience
B) Maybe that's exactly what we need on the court

If not knowing what another person believes makes that person a dummy, then you will have to admit that you are a dummy. Because you have no idea what I or anyone else thinks.

You haven't heard about her banning recruiters from Harvard? Then you are fucking ignorant.

And no bench experience is a pretty big deal in my opinion.

Not knowing another person doesn't believe everything Obama says when you have read a few thousand of their posts in which they posted on more than one occasion that Obama is liar makes you stupid.

Grow up, banning recruiters from campus =/= anti military

I welcome you to look at this list and see just how many had no prior judicial experience before joining the SCOTUS

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If you really don't know that I don't just believe everything Obama says then you might be even dumber than I thought.

Anti military? I've never heard her say that, or I assure you I would cry foul.


As for law experience, sorry man she has plenty of experience and knowledge of the law.

As for her lack of experience as a judge

A) There is no constitutional requirement for such experience
B) Maybe that's exactly what we need on the court

If not knowing what another person believes makes that person a dummy, then you will have to admit that you are a dummy. Because you have no idea what I or anyone else thinks.

You haven't heard about her banning recruiters from Harvard? Then you are fucking ignorant.

And no bench experience is a pretty big deal in my opinion.

Not knowing another person doesn't believe everything Obama says when you have read a few thousand of their posts in which they posted on more than one occasion that Obama is liar makes you stupid.

Grow up, banning recruiters from campus =/= anti military

I welcome you to look at this list and see just how many had no prior judicial experience before joining the SCOTUS

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can assure you, I have not read a few thousand of your post. And I don't recall ever reading a post where you called Obama a liar.

And yes anti-recruiters means anti-military because it damn sure ain't pro-military. And you are either for them are against them. Only an idiot would think that banning recruiters wasn't an affront to the military.

I was against those appointments too and for that reason.

 

[Political Junky]

Sessions was denied a position as a judge for making racist statements.
Jeff Sessions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Failed nomination to the district court

In 1986, Reagan nominated Sessions to be a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Sessions was actively backed by Alabama Senator Jeremiah Denton, a Republican. The nomination of Sessions was first sent to the Senate for confirmation on October 23, 1985, and was resubmitted on January 29, 1986. A substantial majority of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which rates nominees to the federal bench, rated Sessions "qualified," with a minority voting that Sessions was "not qualified." [5]

At Sessions' confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, four Department of Justice lawyers who had worked with Sessions testified that he had made several racist statements. One of those lawyers, J. Gerald Hebert, testified that Sessions had referred to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as "un-American" and "Communist-inspired" because they "forced civil rights down the throats of people."[6] Hebert said that Sessions had a tendency to "pop off" on such topics frequently and had once called a white civil rights lawyer who dealt with voting rights suits a "disgrace to his race."[7]

Thomas Figures, a black Assistant U.S. Attorney, testified that Sessions said he thought the Klan was "OK until I found out they smoked pot."[8] Figures also testified that on one occasion, when the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division sent the office instructions to investigate a case that Sessions had tried to close, Figures and Sessions "had a very spirited discussion regarding how the Hodge case should then be handled; in the course of that argument, Mr. Sessions threw the file on a table, and remarked, 'I wish I could decline on all of them,'" by which Figures said Sessions meant civil rights cases generally. After becoming Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Sessions was asked in an interview about his civil rights record as a U.S Attorney. He denied that he had not sufficiently pursued civil rights cases, saying that "when I was [a U.S. Attorney], I signed 10 pleadings attacking segregation or the remnants of segregation, where we as part of the Department of Justice, we sought desegregation remedies."[9]

Figures also said that Sessions had called him "boy." He also testified that "Mr. Sessions admonished me to 'be careful what you say to white folks.'"[10]

Sessions responded to the testimony by denying the allegations, saying his remarks were taken out of context or meant in jest, and also stating that groups could be considered un-American when "they involve themselves in un-American positions" in foreign policy. Sessions said during testimony that he considered the Klan to be "a force for hatred and bigotry." In regards to the marijuana quote, Sessions said the comment was a joke but apologized.[11]

In response to a question from Joe Biden on whether he had called the NAACP and other civil rights organizations "un-American", Sessions replied "I'm often loose with my tongue. I may have said something about the NAACP being un-American or Communist, but I meant no harm by it."[5]