The Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported the nomination of Elena Kagan to be Solicitor General by a vote of 13-3. Three Republicans voted against her nomination, and three more abstained, due to Kagan's failure to answer questions about her views on various cases and legal questions, despite having written previously that nominees should be more forthcoming than they have been in the past. The Washington Post's Robert Barnes reports:
She once wrote that nominees should answer questions from senators.
And in no uncertain terms, either. Reviewing Stephen Carter's book "The Confirmation Mess" for the University of Chicago Law Review in 1995, Kagan opined that "when the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce."
She thought that executive branch nominees, "for whom 'independence' is no virtue," really deserved to be grilled.
Those statements apparently are no longer operative. . . .
Kagan, the dean of the Harvard Law School, told the lawmakers she had endeavored to answer their questions but acknowledged: "I am . . . less convinced than I was in 1995 that substantive discussions of legal issues and views, in the context of nomination hearings, provide the great public benefits I suggested." . . .
"I do not think it comports with the responsibilities and role of the solicitor general for me to say whether I view particular decisions as wrongly decided or whether I agree with criticisms of those decisions," she repeatedly said.
For what it's worth, I think Kagan is more correct now than she had been in 1995. While I believe she should have been more forthcoming in responding to the Committee's questions -- some prior SG nominees certainly gave more complete answers to equivalent questions -- I also think it's long past time to retire the idea that the problem with confirmation hearings is that nominees are not forced to give more detailed answers about their personal legal and political views. Insofar as Kagan's reticence was prompted by concerns about how her answers could play out should she be nominated to the bench, it is further reason to abandon the Senate's ideological inquests. In my view, judicial confirmation hearings should focus on qualifications and temperament, rather than judicial ideology. I suspect Kagan has more sympathy for that view now than she might have in the past.
first, its an inferior office-so it would be constitutional to forgo the confirmation
second relatedly-the officer essentially does whatever he/she is told to do by the AG/prez..so there is no real point in a confirmation either.
I see the utility in your argument--but it cuts both ways. On the one hand, we have Senate confirmation for seemingly every subcabinet level position that has the word "deputy" in it. Many of those positions seem to be ones that shouldn't require a confirmation vote, after all they are being supervised by the confirmed cabinet secretary and carrying out administration policy.
On the other hand, no one on the White House staff is subject to Senate confirmation--and the White House Chief of Staff position has evolved into a de facto premiership, with that person often the second-most powerful person in the federal government.
Though the SG works for the Attorney General, the SG has a specialized role in advocating the government's position, and interpretation, of constitutional provisions to the Supreme Court. That in itself makes it a position that should call for "advise and consent."
She didn't actually advocate that nominees answer more questions. Rather, she advocated that Senators ask more questions and demand answers before confirming a nominee. She evidently gave enough answers to satisfy most of the Senate committee ... although they apparently didn't take her advice and demand yet more answers.
About Senate confirmation for sub-cabinet appointees ...
A corporate CEO appoints and removes the company's senior managers. But any Board worth its keep interviews key appointees before electing them as corporate officers; and subsequently stays in direct contact with them. On one hand, it's needed for succession planning. On the other, senior managers have enormous discretion and the Board wants to know who's exercising it. The same is true of the government.
About the scope of Senate questioning ...
Both the President and the Senate have constitutional roles in appointing judges and executive-branch officers. Why is any question that's appropriate for the President (or his minions) somehow inappropriate for the Senate?
it would be a different story if she had written that article a few months ago...
Since Kagan is on record as favoring the same kind of disclosure, her current view of the process is hard to rationalize.
i dont think those deputy's should need confirmation either.
nor do i think white house staff should-since they work closely with the prez
Senate confirmation is required for far lesser officers of the United States. For example, all promotions of officers from field grade (Major/Lieutenant Commander) and above are confirmed (although in lower grades, by approval of a promotion list). The occasional promotion of a flag or general officer has been nixed by the Senate
yeah-but those 99.9% of the time come through unanimously without a hearing..so de facto they dont require anything but an appointment
She was probably referring to Conservatives.
I'm not sure why a nominee should have to travel all the way to Canada just to answer questions by the Conservatives in their senate.
I'm not sure why a nominee should have to travel all the way to Canada just to answer questions by the Conservatives in their senate.
While she's up there she could look into why Canada hasn't had any bank failures and report back. US policy makers might learn something.
Sen, Specter's written questions HERE
Moreover, the fact that the nominee has reevaluated her prior opinion, probably as a result of seeing the situation from the other side, is hardly a bad thing. And the intervening 14 years of nominations may have helped change her mind.
If differing from a position that you held 14 years ago is a sin that disqualifies you from office, the only people who would be qualified for office are psychotic. Everyone else changes positions on some issues, adjusts according to circumstances, and often holds contradictory opinions at the same time. If you don't think you do, you're fooling yourself. It's part of being a human being.
You're declaiming the "lapdog media" for "deafening silence" but most of the post you just read was excerpted from a story in the Washington Post.
And politics has no place in Senate confirmation of policy makers! It is really unfortunate that people holding high office must pay a political price for any views they hold. Really, the Founding Fathers intended that the Senate should just make sure a candidate doesn't drool and can enunciate "no comment," as all politicians worth their salt can do.
Consenting is their duty!
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.