In the brief period following President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the upcoming opening on the Supreme Court we have learned relatively little about her. Apparently there is not much to know. And anyway, everything you need to know about the candidate for the highest court in the land has already been gathered by ONN, (that’s the Obama News Network) and posted on the Internet so nobody needs to ask any more questions.
Wait, WHAAAAAT? That’s it? We get 3:22 of Ms. Kagan telling us what she wants to tell us? And who is the interviewer? Even the matrimonially-distracted Larry King could do a better job with this interview. Where are the “journalists” from every single network standing up and screaming about this obvious manipulation of their primary obligation to the public? Where are the truth seekers? Aside from a mild form of protest lodged online by CBS, we hear almost nothing about the troubling control of the message by the White House.
Many in the MSM and Kool-Aid drinking supporters of the administration have simply responded with the statement, “Elections Have Consequences.” That’s the axiom often used to shut down any discussion from someone who opposes things like a 2,000+ page unpopular law, the fundamental transformation of America or even a Supreme Court nominee. However, that axiom did not provide the same free pass back in 2005, when President Bush had an opportunity to put his stamp on the highest court in the land and nominated Harriet Miers, to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor. We all know how that ended. After a couple of weeks filled with pushback from both sides, Ms. Miers withdrew her name from consideration.
The reason for the disqualification of Miers cited by many opponents began with her total lack of judicial experience. Sound familiar? President Obama’s nominee has the same amount of experience behind the bench as Harriet Miers, but we are told by the all-knowing pundits of the MSM that Ms. Kagan should expect a fairly smooth and civil process and her confirmation is all but guaranteed.
Guaranteed? Really? Sez who? Some say that precedent says that we rarely hear details from Supreme Court nominees prior to their confirmation hearings. But what does the candidate want? On the topic of confirmation hearings, I believe we should consider Ms. Kagan’s thoughts on this process. In 1995, while reviewing the Robert Bork Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing, she wrote the following:
Subsequent hearings (post-Bork) have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis. Such hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government. Neither can such hearings contribute toward an evaluation of the Court and a determination whether the nominee would make it a better or worse institution. A process so empty may seem ever so tidy-muted, polite, and restrained-but all that good order comes at great cost.
Based Ms. Kagan’s words, I say – drop the kid gloves and let’s have at it! Hell, let’s get Judge Judy elected to the Senate somewhere and turn her loose on the nominee. Kagan genuinely seems to crave the encounter, again, her words from 1995:
The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the Court, and the views of the nominee; that discussion at once educated the public and allowed it to determine whether the nominee would move the Court in the proper direction.
Wouldn’t it be great to know the views of the nominee? I would love to hear more details on her views regarding the meaning of the Constitution and the role of the Court – and it would be great if this could happen BEFORE any vote in the Senate. Additionally, let’s find out what the nominee perceives as moving the Court in the proper direction.
Contrary to Speaker Pelosi’s advice to pass the healthcare bill in order to find out what’s in it, I support Ms. Kagan’s apparent interest in “releasing the hounds” in the upcoming confirmation hearing, and I believe most Americans would appreciate knowing more about their lifetime appointees’ opinions before that appointee gets the opportunity to sit in judgment of our Constitution for the rest of her life.