«
»

Various folks have been, and will be, live-blogging the Kagan confirmation hearings.  Among those who live-blogged today’s opening statements are SCOTUSBlog, NRO, and TPM.

Categories: Kagan Nomination    

    9 Comments

    1. RPT says:

      Did anyone say anything unexpected? The soccer games streaming live on espn.com were probably more interesting.

      June 28, 2010, 6:58 pm

    2. AlbertE. says:

      Did anyone catch the same thing I heard?

      Two Senators, Durbin [ZANU-PF] and one Republican Senator [?] both mentioned the same thing.

      Prospective judges, those nominated to the Supreme Court had previously testified UNDER OATH before the committee and swore in a manner about cases and precedent and such?

      But when on the court, did not behave and respect precedent as they had sworn they would.

      I guess they meant Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor.

      What is that all about? Possible impeachment for perjury? A way for a block of Senators from one party impeaching and removing a judge they do not like for “perjury” before the committee.

      Harry Reid did accuse Roberts of lying!!

      Anyone have a sense of any of this? I am being overly paranoid? Or maybe my “interpretation” is wrong?

      June 28, 2010, 8:19 pm

    3. 5 Reasons Why Blogging is the New Internet Marketing Tool | Big Blogging Business says:

      [...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Live-Blogging the Kagan Hearings [...]

      June 28, 2010, 8:58 pm

    5. ORID says:

      AlbertE,
      No. This was set up by some comments that were spoken on the Senate floor. Specter laid the groundwork by saying Alito and Roberts both said they respect stare decisis, and will be deferential to Congress; however with Citizens United they “over-ruled 100 years of law!”.

      Here’s Specter (on the floor of the Senate recently):

      Earlier this week, I made an extensive statement reviewing the records of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in their confirmation hearings. Although both professed to give great deference to Congress on findings of the facts of the record, when it came to making a decision–for example, in Citizens United–their judicial views were much different. Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito talked at length about how it was the legislative function to have hearings, compile the record and find the facts; that it was not a judicial function, and that when judges engaged in that, they were engaging in legislation. But when it came to the case of Citizens United, overturning a century of a prohibition on corporations engaging in paying for political advertising, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito found the 100,000-page record insufficient. Both of them talked about stare decisis and the value of precedent and the factors that led to the strengthening of stare decisis. Chief Justice Roberts spoke emphatically about not giving the legal system a “jolt.” Well, that is hardly what has happened during their tenure on the bench. So the question which we will put to Solicitor General Kagan, among others, is, How does Congress get those promises translated into actual practice? And in making the comments about Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, I do so without challenging their good faith. There is a big difference between answering questions in a Judiciary Committee hearing and deciding a case in controversy. But the question remains as to how we handle that.

      I doubt a Republican would’ve said Roberts and Alito lied.

      Here’s Kaufman (his prepared statement):

      Too often, however, today’s Supreme Court seems to disregard settled law and congressional policy choices, in order to promote business interests at the expense of the people’s interests. Whether it’s pre-empting state consumer protection laws in Medtronic, striking down punitive damages awards in Exxon, restricting access to the courts in Twombly, or overruling 96 years of pro-consumer antitrust law in Leegin, this Court gives me the impression that in business cases, the working majority is business-oriented to a fault. The Exxon case demonstrates how this pro-business orientation can affect the lives of ordinary people. In that case, four of the eight Justices who participated voted to bar all punitive damages in maritime cases against employers like Exxon for their employees’ reckless conduct.

      If Durbin spoke, his statement wasn’t up on the website yet.

      June 28, 2010, 9:24 pm

    6. Arthur Kirkland says:

      One interesting aspect of today’s events: The reports that several Republicans expressly hammered Thurgood Marshall (whose “activism” on behalf of shamefully oppressed Americans apparently is far more offensive to conservatives than, say, the “activism” that disturbs jurors’ judgments concerning punitive damages awards against well-heeled wrongdoers), one senator reported to have said he wasn’t sure Marshall should have been confirmed.

      Party on, dudes.

      June 28, 2010, 11:29 pm

    7. ORID says:

      We’ll see. I’m going to save the hearings as a podcast collection and upload them to the Internet during the weekend.

      June 28, 2010, 11:48 pm

    8. wolfefan says:

      I’m hoping that Orin’s not the one that gave Cornyn that cruise ship analogy.

      June 29, 2010, 8:03 am

    9. ORID says:

      Does anyone think that Kagan wouldn’t have simply ignored Heller as precedent when deciding McDonald? I want to hope that she would’ve put her own opinion out. I really enjoyed that Thomas came out with his own distinct jurisprudence. For instance in some of the campaign speech issues he’s clearly got his own line of thought on what is permissible under the Constitution.

      June 29, 2010, 1:13 pm