WASHINGTON – After seven weeks of partisan buildup, former Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan yesterday delivered a vigorous opening argument for her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice, seeking to rebut Republican attacks that she would be a judicial activist and stressing that the court must respect laws made by Congress.
Kagan’s appearance in the packed hearing room, televised nationally by cable channels, capped a daylong hearing in which members of the Senate Judiciary Committee outlined the case for and against her nomination. That set the stage for today’s session, in which Kagan, the US solicitor general, will be questioned under oath by members of both parties.
“The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals,’’ Kagan said, reading a short statement. “But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.’’
Throughout yesterday’s hearing, Republicans and Democrats dug in for a weeklong philosophical fight over the role of judges in American life. They addressed their remarks to Kagan, but the wider audience was the American people who will decide in November which party will control Congress. “They’re all talking to the people back home,’’ said Caren Dubnoff, a professor at the College of the Holy Cross and a specialist in judicial law.
Kagan, who was born and raised in New York but has spent much of her career in Massachusetts, was introduced to the panel by the Bay State’s senators. Democrat John F. Kerry and Republican Scott Brown praised her effusively, but Brown did not say whether he would vote to confirm her.
“I am very proud that our nation’s first female solicitor general has such deep roots in Massachusetts,’’ Brown said. “I look forward to Ms. Kagan’s responses to the committee’s questions . . . Our constitutional duty of ‘advice and consent’ is imperative and should not be taken lightly.’’
Kerry, meanwhile, sought to win over Republicans by citing Kagan’s service as an adviser in the Clinton White House, saying, “She was tough and stubborn when necessary, but she also knew when it was necessary to strike a compromise.’’
Although Kagan is widely expected to be confirmed, a number of Republicans have expressed serious doubts about her qualifications. Republican members of the Judiciary Committee used their allotted time yesterday to lay the groundwork for what could be contentious clashes over Kagan’s experience, her writings, and even her judicial role models, in an attempt to portray her as a liberal activist who will invent new laws from the bench.
“Will the Constitution control her?’’ asked Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah. “Or will she try to control the Constitution?’’
President Obama in May chose Kagan, the federal government’s top lawyer, to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring at age 90. Although Kagan is not expected to change the court’s ideological balance, she is 50 years old and could extend Obama’s influence on the court for decades. In addition to her academic career and work in the Clinton administration, Kagan briefly practiced at a private law firm.
Throughout yesterday’s hearing, Republicans and Democrats dug in for a weeklong philosophical fight over the role of judges in American life. They addressed their remarks to Kagan, but the wider audience was the American people who will decide in November which party will control Congress. “They’re all talking to the people back home,’’ said Caren Dubnoff, a professor at the College of the Holy Cross and a specialist in judicial law.
Republicans said they would grill Kagan on her role at Harvard Law School in restricting military recruiters on campus. Kagan denied recruiters access to students through official school channels because the military’s ban on openly gay service members violated the school’s policy on nondiscrimination. Kagan’s supporters have said recruiters were allowed to meet students on campus through a student veterans group.
Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the committee’s ranking Republican, said Kagan’s actions “punished the military and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting two wars overseas.’’
One Democrat joined Republicans in noting that Kagan’s judicial philosophy is hard to predict because she has never been a judge and lacks a record of written opinions. “Your judicial philosophy is almost invisible to us,’’ said Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin.
Democrats spent most of the hearing’s opening day shifting the focus to the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, a nominee of President George W. Bush. They accused the court of participating in right-wing activism and of favoring the interests of big corporations over the rights of the individual.
“We need a justice who can create a moderate majority on the court,’’ said Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York. “The rightward shift under Chief Justice Roberts is palpable.’’
Kagan opened her day yesterday with a visit to the Oval Office, where Obama encouraged her and wished her good luck. She entered the hearing room around 12:30 p.m. to a flurry of camera clicks, wearing a blue jacket and pearls, escorted by Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, of Vermont, and Sessions.
The hearings began, as is customary, with speeches from each member of the committee. Kagan sat at attention, hands folded on the table, and rarely moved.
Related Posts
