More Kagan's Confirmation Conversions -

Conversion #3 - KAGAN ON SCOTUS HEARINGS -- Kagan Previously Denounced Senators For “Limits On Inquiry” During SCOTUS Hearings But Now She Contends Even Discussing “Past Cases” “Wouldn’t Be Appropriate”
ELENA KAGAN: “It Wouldn’t Be Appropriate For Me To Talk About What I Think About Past Cases, You Know, To Grade Cases Because Those Cases Themselves Might Again Come Before The Court.” (Elena Kagan, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/29/10)

FLASHBACKELENA KAGAN: “The Problem Is Not That Senators Engage In Substantive Discussion With Supreme Court Nominees; The Problem Is That They Do Not. Senators Effectively Have Accepted The Limits On Inquiry. … The Challenge Now Is To Over-Throw Them.” “The problem is not that the Bork hearings have set a pattern for all others; the problem is that they have not. And the problem is not that senators engage in substantive discussion with Supreme Court nominees; the problem is that they do not. Senators effectively have accepted the limits on inquiry Carter proposes; the challenge now is to over-throw them.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.942)

KAGAN: “I Suspect That Both [Ginsburg And Breyer] Appreciated That, For Them (As For Most), The Safest And Surest Route To The Prize Lay In Alternating Platitudinous Statement And Judicious Silence. Who Would Have Done Anything Different, In The Absence Of Pressure From Members Of Congress? And Of Such Pressure, There Was Little Evidence.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.928)

ELENA KAGAN: “The Recent Hearings On Supreme Court Nominees” Have Taken “On An Air Of Vacuity And Farce.” “The recent hearings on Supreme Court nominees, though, suggest another question: might we now have a distinct and more troubling confirmation mess? If recent hearings lacked acrimony, they also lacked seriousness and substance. … 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.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.920)

KAGAN: “Subsequent Hearings 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.” (Elena Kagan, “Review: Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.62, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), P.941)

Conversion #4 - “Good Legal Advice” -- Today Elena Kagan Dismisses Her Views During The Clinton Administration As Providing “Good Legal Advice” But Previously She Said Her Primary Role Was A “Policy Adviser”

ELENA KAGAN: “I Tried My Hardest When I Was In The - When I Worked In The Clinton Administration, Including As A Lawyer, To Provide Good Legal Advice To The President.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 6/29/10)

“Most Of The Time I Spent In The WH, I Did Not Serve As An Attorney”ELENA KAGAN: “During Most Of The Time I Spent In The White House, I Did Not Serve As An Attorney; I Was Instead A Policy Adviser....It Was Part Of My Job Not To Give Legal Advice, But To Choose When And How To Ask For It.” (Elena Kagan, Remarks At West Point, 10/17/07)

Kagan’s Advice Included Noting What Policy Would Advantage Dems In ElectionsOn Campaign Finance Proposals: “Soft $ Ban – Affects Repubs, Not Dems!” (Elena Kagan, Notes, DPC – Box 006 – Folder 006, KCL – 0003690, Clinton Presidential Library, 2/3/97)

Conversion #5 - CONFIRMATION CONVERSION:KAGAN ON BARAK
Previously She Said Barak Was A “Great, Great Judge” But Now She Says She Admires Him Personally, “Not For His Particular Judicial Philosophy”

ELENA KAGAN: “[Aharon Barak Is] A Great, Great Judge.” (CSPAN, 11/11/02)

TODAY: “I Admire Justice Barack, Not For His Particular Judicial Philosophy, Not For Any Of His Particular Decisions”
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “Will You Look To Judge Barak's Judicial Method As A Model For Deciding Cases?” ELENA KAGAN: “I Will Not, Senator Grassley. I do admire Justice Barak, who is, of course -- was for many years the chief justice of the state of Israel. I do admire him. He is very often called the John Marshall of the state of Israel because he was central in creating an independent judiciary for Israel and in ensuring that Israel, a young nation, a nation threatened from its very beginning in existential ways and a nation without a written constitution, he was central in ensuring that Israel, with all those kinds of liabilities, would become a very strong rule of law nation.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/29/10)

ELENA KAGAN:“And That's Why I Admire Justice Barak, Not For His Particular Judicial Philosophy, Not For Any Of His Particular Decisions.” (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 6/29/10)

---

Tags: SCOTUS, nominee, Elena Kagan, US Senate, confirmation conversions, SCOTUS Hearings, Good Legal Advice, Aharon Barak To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!