Some Questions For Elena Kagan

Confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan will take place before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. There is little doubt she will be confirmed, and even less doubt that she is intellectually capable to serve as a Justice on the United States Supreme Court. The real question is, I suppose, why we are having confirmation hearings at all. They are, as Kagan said in a book review written fifteen years ago, a farce.

The federal Constitution says says that the President can nominate a candidate for the Court, but that the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate. This is what lawyers call black letter law. The rule is written in terms so clear and unambiguous that no two lawyers of ordinary skill and training can disagree about its meaning. Call this part of the cookbook Constitution.

But most of the cases finding their way to the Supreme Court involve matters of interpretation. The recipes for these cases consist of conflicting legal doctrines and social policies often requiring that difficult choices be made. This murky application of doctrine and policy choice requires judges to make judgments. Only in the playscape of current confirmation hearings do we pretend otherwise. The Constitution lives, whether we feed it with honest commitment to principles plainly stated or hide our prejudices with less than honest sleights of hand.

Here are some questions and principles I'd like to see explored with Elena Kagan. I doubt any Senator has the stomach for these questions for the simple reason that they require more intellectual honesty than is typical among members of posturing political class.

1.   What case that you have handled as a member of the bar has most challenged you intellectually and morally? The follow up to this question should be intense. I want to know about what she thinks a lawyer's role is in our society. More to the point, I want to know what she thinks the role of the rule of law is in our society.

2.   Tell us about a case you refused to handle or from which you withdrew because it conflicted either with your personal or professional commitments. If she cannot identify one, ask her how that is possible. Has she taken only cases she agrees with? If so, does she view the law as a means of advancing her own or her clients' interests? If she has refused to handle a case on a matter of principle, what will she do if called upon decide a case involving the very principle should could not support?

3.   What weight are we to give the intentions of the those who crafted the Constitution? If any weight, why do their opinions matter at all given the passage of centuries since the founding?

4.   Respond to the following proposition:  The Federalist Society is merely a social reaction of the intellectual losers in the debates that yielded the New Deal and Great Society. Its doctrinal reach extends not to the founding era, but reaches no further than the 1920s and the 1930s.

5.   What role do you think candor should play in the confirmation of a judge?

6.   Because you value candor, please respond candidly to the following questions. If you cannot, or will not answer these questions, then shouldn't we regard you as lacking in candor?
      a.   Was Roe v. Wade correctly decided? Why?
      b.   Was Citizens United correctly decided?  Why?
      c.   Should our Supreme Court pay deference to emerging canons of international law? Why?
      d.   What role do you believe the Ninth Amendment should play in Supreme Court jurisprudence? Why?

7.   There are no trial lawyers on the Supreme Court. Do you think a trial lawyer on the court would strengthen or weaken the court's role?

Frankly, I do not support her nomination to the Court. I suspect Kagan's answers to these questions would be as vapid as the banter at a Harvard Law School tea party. Perhaps the questions are themselves vapid. Kagan lacks the qualities I admire in a lawyer: Courage in the face of adversity; creativity when called upon to serve in difficult situations; and the humility that comes of living in the shadows casts by the law's great institutions. She may profess humble social origins, but her career has had a simple trajectory: She was to the manor born.

This nominee lacks courtroom experience; her defining characteristic seems to be lifelong sublimation of every impulse toward the master passion to advance to the Court. It is for this very reason that she is something of a cipher. She's played it safe for a lifetime, hoping for the chance tomorrow gives to sing for a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court.

I would much prefer a candidate with a heart broken by a client's sorrow. The current Court is packed with powerful men and women who have lived apart from the mainstream of suffering humanity for so long that their jurisprudence is antiseptic and cold. Elena Kagan seems the coldest of the pack.

Throw this fish back, I say. Let's have a confirmation hearing where the Senate insists that honest questions are honestly answered. Go ahead, ask this nominee about issues that are likely to arise before the Court. If she pretends to be unable to answer now, ask her how she'll be able to answer later. If she claims it would not be appropriate to answer a question she may be called upon to decide, refuse to confirm her. I have very little idea what this mannequin is stuffed with. Take the gloves off and engage in honest probing.

Or will it simply be politics as usual?

Comments: (4)

  • I watched AliEna read/recite her scripted, 13-minu...
    I watched AliEna read/recite her scripted, 13-minute opening statement today. All smiles, in her Royal blue suit, hand-picked by her professional handlers. Haven't we seen this movie before? Can U Say Justice SootyMayor? I believe Sonia wore fire-engine red at her confirmation hearings.
    I note the passing of Robert Byrd, a true American and great legislator. (A Byrd in the hand is worth two in the G.W. Bush. Ha!) He proved all the elitist naysayers wrong. Not all of the brilliant minds in government have attended the (Poison) Ivy League Schools, like Elena, or plugged by well-heeled librals like Robert Morgenthau, Charles Schumer and Slick Willy.
    I also note the introductory speech made by Sen. Kerry, that wooden piece of cow dung. And to think that I actually voted for this flip-flopper who has trouble keeping his boat afloat. Mr. Kerry, when are you going to get back to me, as promised? I'm waiting, and waiting, and waiting...for over two years! And you call yourself a senator? Say hi to Teasera!
    I will be avidly watching the senators giving Elena the soft shoe tomorrow on her way toward that inevitable Supreme Court job she has so cherished since childhood. Is this really the best we can do? Where is Robert Bork when we need him?
    Go get her Jeff; give her one of your grueling Sessions! Love ya, Jeff!
    If AliEna had any chutzpah, she would simpley resign upon confirmation. Not only would that be the honorable thing to do, it would be one courageous act the FemiNazis could truly celebrate. She should take a page from Sarah Palin,... but most assuredly will not, if past is prologue.
    Posted on June 28, 2010 at 1:47 pm by William Doriss
  • The only adversity Clarence has known is that of ...
    The only adversity Clarence has known is that of pesty Anita Hill. He was educated in Catholic schools, which was a godsend for him. Otherwise, with a public education, he would be functionally illiterate. And as far as I can tell, he has had a rather privileged and easy professional life, unduly enhanced because of his so-called ideology. It was a politically smart, if uncharacteristic maneuver on his part--and disingenuous. The man is a turncoat and an Oreo cookie.
    As far as I'm concerned, his 'ideology' is anathema, or non-ideology at best. What are the first words you think of when Clarence 'My-Lips-Are-Sealed' Thomas's name is mentioned?
    "High-Tech LYNCHING!" What could he possibly have been thinking?!? This man is an a$$, and I have no kind words for ScAlitoes, his partners in Supreme Court crimes of the highest order.
    I can think of several black men with far superior intellects.
    Posted on June 28, 2010 at 1:06 am by William Doriss
  • Clarence Thomas is a justice that knows adversity....
    Clarence Thomas is a justice that knows adversity. He is just about the only justice that can relate to people outside of the ivy tower. Yet, because people disagree with his ideology, he is always mocked. Clarence Thomas is the man.
    Posted on June 27, 2010 at 3:13 pm by Anonymous
  • It will, of course, be politics as usual, in large...
    It will, of course, be politics as usual, in large part because the players are all the usual politicians.
    Posted on June 27, 2010 at 6:00 am by Jeff Gamso

Add a Comment

Display with comment:
Won't show with comment:
What is 3 X 3?
*Comment must be approved and then will show on page.
© Norm Pattis is represented by Elite Lawyer Management, managing agents for Exceptional American Lawyers
Media & Speaker booking [hidden email]