Stonewalling the Kagan Hearings
[Guest post by DRJ]
The hearing on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court started today so it’s too early to talk about ending it, although if you watched any I’m sure you feel it can’t end too soon. Nevertheless, Doug Ross provides a reason to hope the hearing never ends:
“An Open Letter to Republican Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Pursuant to the Elena Kagan confirmation process, I would like to call your attention to a little-known fact related to the role of the minority party on the committee. That is, Rule IV of the Judiciary Committee states that “at least one member of the minority party must vote to end debate in committee.”
For Elena Kagan to move to a vote in the Senate, at least one Republican on your committee must accede to end debate. I suggest you hold firm and refuse to end debate.”
I don’t know the Senate rules but assuming this is correct, Ross provides several cogent reasons in support of this tactic. It also gives Democrats another example of GOP stonewalling, although at this point stonewalling Obama, Pelosi and Reid may be a feature instead of a bug.
But here’s the reason I support stonewalling — Kagan’s statement regarding Judge Bork’s confirmation hearing:
“From speech at Case Western Reserve, 1997: “I loved what happened in the Bork hearings. I wrote a review of Stephen Carter’s book recently where I said, ‘no, he has it all wrong. The Bork hearings were great, the Bork hearings were educational. The Bork hearings were the best thing that ever happened to Constitutional Democracy.'”
I’m sure Ms. Kagan would not appreciate a similar lesson directed at her nomination, but wouldn’t it be Karma?
— DRJ
UPDATE: Senator Coburn mentioned Kagan’s Bork comment in his opening statement on Day 1.
In honor of the late great Senator Filibuster, I suggest one of the Senators in the committee get up there and read the 2010 unabridged dictionary and the porkulus act and the obamaoCare act.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 6/28/2010 @ 9:48 pmKarma supposed to return three times … how long were the Bork hearings?
htom (412a17) — 6/28/2010 @ 9:51 pmBork taught his successors not to say too much.
Arizona Bob (e8af2b) — 6/28/2010 @ 10:12 pmwonder what videos she’s rented?
BradnSA (24ba37) — 6/29/2010 @ 5:45 amA Wise Latina would never have treated Kagan in this manner.
Dmac (ab1849) — 6/29/2010 @ 6:58 amThe Bork hearings were in fact very educational. An excellent survey course in Con Law in only 5 days.
It wasn’t so much what happened IN the hearings — Bork was quite able to hold his own against everything thrown at him — but rather the lies, distortions and libels that appeared in print ads, print stories and network news. Those Bork was never able to refute, since he never got the chance.
The People for the American Way, in particular, posted one Big Lie after another, and the news media of the day reported it as truth. Borking requires not only lies, but a media conspiracy and a refusal to allow rebuttal.
The hearings were great. The media circus was atrocious.
Kevin Murphy (5ae73e) — 6/29/2010 @ 9:19 amToo bad we don’t have an Incredible Bloviating Kennedy to toss her way.
Frank Drebbin (8096f2) — 6/29/2010 @ 9:30 amLindsey Graham is on the committee, so there’s no chance of this happening.
Callawyn (bab74a) — 6/29/2010 @ 12:54 pmLindsey Graham is a poofter.
JD (959071) — 6/29/2010 @ 1:08 pmStonewalling. Patriotic when Democrats do it. Otherwise, it’s not.
kansas (7b4374) — 6/29/2010 @ 1:53 pm