Patterico's Pontifications

6/30/2010

Kagan’s “Urkel” Defense of the ACOG Memo

Filed under: Judiciary — DRJ @ 2:32 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

I posted yesterday on Elena Kagan’s role in releasing an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) memo on partial birth abortion. Senator Orrin Hatch asked Kagan about the memo today, and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air calls Kagan’s response her Urkel defense:

“If the intent of Elena Kagan’s testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee is to build confidence in her competence, her answer to Orrin Hatch about a controversial memo has to be a huge step in the wrong direction. Despite the issue having been in the news for the last 24 hours and the centrality of it to the Clinton-era efforts to stop a ban on partial-birth abortion, Kagan initially claimed ignorance of the issue. Only when pressed did Kagan recall her intentions, as Byron York and LifeNews‘ Steven Ertelt both report this afternoon:

“Did you write that memo?” Hatch asked.

“Senator, with respect,” Kagan began, “I don’t think that that’s what happened — ”

“Did you write that memo?”

“I’m sorry — the memo which is?”

“The memo that caused them to go back to the language of ‘medically necessary,’ which was the big issue to begin with — ”

“Yes, well, I’ve seen the document — ”

“But did you write it?”

“The document is certainly in my handwriting.”

***
In other words, it’s more or less an Urkel defense of saying, “Did I do that?”

There’s more, so read the whole thing.

– DRJ

20 Responses to “Kagan’s “Urkel” Defense of the ACOG Memo”

  1. It depends on what the meaning of is, is!

    We are truly in the best of hands.

    AD - RtR/OS! (209868)

  2. It is pretty close to the Bart Simpson “I didn’t do that” defense, too.

    Bad Science (3bf674)

  3. BTW, in my circle, ACOG stands for Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight!
    YMMV!

    AD - RtR/OS! (209868)

  4. This is what the ABA calls “well qualified”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  5. This all smells like people trying to act more clever than they are. I’m sure that Kagan was instructed to answer the question that way.

    I think that someone should ask her to define, specifically, what things that the Federal Government should not do.

    But good luck with that. Though I think someone standing up and speaking their minds honestly would get public support—even if there were areas of disagreement. This mealymouthed stuff just contributes to our increasing distrust of government.

    Eric Blair (02a138)

  6. The ethics issues brought up by this means she is supremely unqualified for the Supreme Court.

    It even trumps her anti-Constitutional views. How could anybody vote for this person to be on the court?

    bill-tb (541ea9)

  7. This mealy mouth crap is a direct result of what happened to Bork. And, of course, Kagan was delighted by that.

    I don’t know what’s worse. The hatred Thomas and Estrada get for obvious reasons, or the hatred Bork gets for being honest. Either way, we’re getting the Supreme Court justice we deserve in Kagan. A Supreme Court justice with no judicial experience and a refusal to explain her background work is simply exactly what the country ordered when it elected a President Obama with no executive experience.

    Color me glass half empty.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  8. respond to question
    with surprise and confusion
    known as “to kagan”

    ColonelHaiku (9cf017)

  9. This stuff annoys me, but mainly because the GOP will go “Isn’t it just so horrible?!” in their donation letters to us, without even asking “impolite” questions on the Hill.

    William (176a55)

  10. Kagan obviously rehearsed with the Clintons prior to the confirmation hearings.

    Testilying as Ace fittingly called it.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  11. spqr at 4 – She is a liberal with all of the accepted liberal mindsets, so according to the ABA panel she is certainly well qualified.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  12. boycott the anti_American propaganda machines: Disney, Warner Bros, Time-Warner, Time-Life, and GE

    They own&control ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC.

    Stop Them!

    boycott products advertised on their broadcasts!

    Sage Elder (3ac19f)

  13. She’s seen the document that is in her handwriting?

    Gotta give The Big O props on this one. He succeeded in picking someone that is just as big of an asshole as he is, himself.

    Icy Texan (c47747)

  14. How’s this for personal responsibility – I penned it by hand and then signed it, but I will not ever admit that I wrote it. Who does she do dictatation for and will that person follow her to her new berth?

    She said that she would not have been able to influence ACOG. Oh, is that why she sent the letter? I love the way she answers the wrong question. The question is not whether it can be proven that she was able to influence them. The question is whether she tried.

    What has happened to this once great republic?

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  15. This is all Kabuki theater. Move along. There is nothing to see.

    Horatio (e2e328)

  16. From the AP analysis of her confirmation hearing:

    Kagan’s comportment was in keeping with past nominees, whether liberal or conservative, who stuck to truisms about the impartial judiciary no matter how hard senators tried to smoke them out on how they would lean on matters before the court.

    But she demanded a higher standard in a 1995 book review when she wrote, “When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.”

    She says now, “It just feels a lot different from here than it felt from back there.” By back there, she meant where she once sat as a Judiciary Committee staffer witnessing the confirmation hearing for Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    – Congratulations, Ms. Kagan. You’ve officially become one of them.

    Icy Texan (180a90)

  17. It just feels a lot different from here than it felt from back there

    Her values are as maleable as her constitution will be.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  18. Having maleable values is required of any good progressive. Just ask Kagan’s supporter, Diane “experience not necessary, unless you’re a Bush appointee” Feinstein.

    Icy Texan (180a90)

  19. Sen. Californio: Prof. Kagan – do you think lying is bad?

    Kagan: “well,.. um”

    Sen. Californio: “Because lying is bad – therefore anyone who could not come out and say so is likely a weasel. We shouldn’t have lying weasels on the Supreme Court, now should we professor?”

    Kagan: “Diversity on the Court is a good thing..”

    CAlifornio (200559)

  20. More Kagan exposure at the American Thinker, Kagan: Unfit for the Supreme Court.

    jeff (591e0d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2459 secs.