Three more United States Senators came out against the radical nominee for the United States Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, yesterday: Senators Saxby Chambliss, R-GA; John Cornyn, R-TX, and Roger Wicker, R-MS. They argue that Elena Kagan will not show judicial restraint if she becomes a Supreme Court justice.
———-
Chambliss Statement on Elena Kagan
“Any judge who sits on the nation’s highest court must understand that the correct venue for making policy is the legislative branch. After reviewing Solicitor General Kagan’s record, I remain unconvinced that she will show this requisite judicial restraint.
“Ms. Kagan once criticized the Supreme Court confirmation process as lacking ‘seriousness and substance,’ but when faced with the opportunity to clarify many of her more troubling positions during days of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she was evasive and unhelpful.
“Her inadequate answers leave me with significant concerns on several issues, including discriminatory actions against military recruiters – in clear violation of federal law – while she was dean of Harvard Law School in protest of the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy; her hostility toward the Second Amendment while employed by the judicial and executive branches; and her support for the egregious practice of partial-birth abortion.
“Ms. Kagan is clearly outside of mainstream America. Therefore, I will vote against her nomination to the Supreme Court.”
Cornyn to Oppose Nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court
WASHINGTON-U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement announcing he will oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan to be Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court:
“Solicitor General Kagan’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee did not assure me that she agrees with the traditional understanding of the proper role of a judge. Judges should strictly interpret the written Constitution, which means both enforcing written limitations on the scope of government power, such as the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause, as well as not inventing new rights or imposing their own policy views on the American people.
“Ms. Kagan’s testimony about her judicial philosophy was vague and open to multiple interpretations. She was unable to articulate limits on the federal Commerce Clause power. She did not rule out overturning the Supreme Court’s recent decisions recognizing the importance of the Second Amendment. She backed away from her previous conviction that judicial nominees should be forthright about the direction they would move the courts.
“Also, Solicitor General Kagan lacks experience that could give us more insight into her judicial philosophy. As a lawyer, she has never tried a case to verdict. She only joined the Supreme Court bar in 2009, and she has never served as a judge.
“For these reasons, I will oppose her nomination.”
Senator Wicker joins 13 other Republican Senators in opposing Elena Kagan
“After thoroughly reviewing her record and testimony, and meeting with her to discuss various concerns, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support Ms. Kagan’s nomination.
“Supreme Court Justices must adhere to the Constitution and apply the law impartially without respect to their social, moral, or political views. Although Ms. Kagan certainly has an impressive resume, I remain deeply concerned that her extensive career as an academic and political advisor demonstrates a troubling tendency to insert her personal beliefs when making decisions and recommendations, even in open defiance of federal law or the Constitution. I believe this raises serious questions about how she would interpret the Constitution from the bench.”
“In our meeting today, Ms. Kagan and I discussed her record as Dean of Harvard Law School. I find it alarming that a nominee to the Supreme Court would change school policy and defy federal law by banning military recruiters from campus during a time when our country was at war.
“I am also troubled by her history on abortion and the Second Amendment. Ms. Kagan indicated in memos that she believed partial birth abortion – a reprehensible act – is constitutionally protected. Her record also appears to demonstrate a personal aversion to the right to bear arms. These actions call into question whether she will interpret the law as written or as she would like it to be.
“I believe the Founding Fathers intended the Supreme Court to serve as a check and balance on Congress, rather than a rubber stamp on the policies and laws passed by the legislative body. Unfortunately, Ms. Kagan did not satisfy my concerns that she would uphold this fundamental standard. Instead, it appears the nominee believes that there is little limit to the federal government’s power over the individual rights of Americans.
“For these reasons I have outlined, I will vote against the nomination of Ms. Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
