Senior Republican Wins Weeklong Delay on Kagan

newsmax.com ^ | July 13, 2010

[bjorn14]

The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed scheduled action Tuesday to send Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate for confirmation, setting a panel vote for next week.

Republicans insisted on the delay, saying they needed more time to review Kagan's written answers to questions they posed to her after her confirmation hearings, and to inquire still further into how she would behave as a justice.

There's little doubt that the Judiciary panel, where Democrats have a lopsided majority, will approve President Barack Obama's nominee to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, and that she'll win Senate confirmation within weeks. Democrats have more than enough votes to elevate her, and a handful of Republicans is likely to join them.

But most GOP senators are expected to vote "no," and Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, strongly suggested he'll be one of them.

[lodi90]

Anything but a filibuster is a “yes” vote.

[jagusafr]

I dunno, sounds a little like they’re waiting for some info.

[SloopJohnB]

[donna]

Or, negotiating to sell their votes.

[Venturer]

She isnt qualified to visit the Supreme Court as a tourist, much less a Judge.

[dandiegirl]

Perhaps it’s a little payback for the recess appointment that everyone finds so disgusting.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Anything but a filibuster is a “yes” vote.

Ordinarily I don't always subscribe to this kind of thinking, but I'm with you on this. This is a necessary time for party discipline to preserve the Constitution of the United States and its correct interpretation.

[hoosiermama]

What’s going on? Is there something in the air that we haven’t heard yet?

[maggief]

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=30118

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the panel, said the move is a protest against her record on military recruiting while serving as Harvard law school dean, her lack of judicial experience and her work on a partial-birth-abortion memo as a mid-level aide at the Clinton White House.

“There are concerns about the nomination in a host of different areas,” Sessions said. “The nominee lacks the experience and intellectual rigor of practicing law and serving as a judge … and I think it showed in her testimony. She also lacked the clarity and strict intellectual honesty that I think we should look for in a nomination to the Supreme Court.”

Senate Judiciary Committee rules allow any senator to delay action on a bill or nomination until the next meeting or for one week, whichever is later.

“At the request of any member, or by action of the Chairman, a bill, matter, or nomination on the agenda of the Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later,” the committee rules state.

[Happy Rain]

That goes for every Obama crap that passes the senate.
If you didn’t vote for the filibuster you voted FOR it even if you vote against final passage.

No excuses allowed come November.

[luvie]

While I think this is just putting off the inevitable, given
the arm-twisting that will be going on, I credit Sen. Sessions
with balls to even try.I would love to see Kagan rejected, but
that would require more than one brave soul!

[woweeitsme]

Isn’t this woman even less qualified than Harriet Myers? Where is the outrage about a non-jurist being nominated?

[ishabibble]

Absolutely!

[onyx]

maggief comes through for us!

Is a week enough time for just one to grow a spine to mount a filibuster that all will back?

[hoosiermama]

Is a week enough time to find a “smoking gun”?

[onyx]

Absolutely. She’s a communist, red diaper baby. Isn’t *that* enough?

[Irish Eyes]

At the request of any member, or by action of the Chairman, a bill, matter, or nomination on the agenda of the Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later,” the committee rules state.

How many members do we have on committee?

[Flint]

Well then lets hold over her nomination one week at a time until November!

[maggief]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38048

Senate Judiciary GOPers Want Kagan Answers on Obamacare Recusal
by Connie Hair
07/13/2010

(snip)

Dear Solicitor General Kagan:

Thank you for the answers you provided in response to the written questions submitted following your confirmation hearing. Although your answers have been helpful, there are some responses that need clarification in order for the Committee to have the information it needs to thoroughly review your record. Notably, we are concerned about the standard you would use to decide whether to recuse yourself from litigation you participated in as Solicitor General. In particular, we are concerned about litigation that was clearly anticipated, but had not yet to reached the point where your approval was sought for filings or pleadings.

In response to Senator Sessions’ Question 1(b)(i), you stated: “I would recuse myself from any case in which I approved or denied a recommendation for action in the lower courts. This category would include cases in which I authorized an appeal, intervention, or the filing of an amicus brief. It would also include cases in which I denied leave to intervene or file an amicus brief.” You also stated: “I would also recuse myself from any cases in which I did not take such official action but participated in formulating the government’s litigating position or reviewed a draft pleading. In all other circumstances, I would consider recusal on a case-by-case basis.”

In response to a question from Senator Coburn at your hearing, you indicated that you had not been asked to express an opinion on the “merits” of the health care bill (Pub. L. No. 111-148) in your role as Solicitor General. Numerous state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit challenging, amongst other things, the constitutionality of the health care bill. See State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010). Please answer the following:

1. Were you ever present at a meeting in which State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010) was discussed?

2. Have you ever been asked your opinion regarding the merits of or the underlying legal issues in State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010)?

3. Have you ever been asked your opinion regarding any other legal issues that may arise from Pub. L. No. 111-148?

4. Have you ever offered any views or comments regarding either the merits of State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010) or the strategy that the United States government should employ in defending Pub. L. No. 111-148?

5. Have you read, seen or reviewed any of the papers filed by the United States in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010), and, if so, before or after filing? Have you read, seen or reviewed any internal documents or memoranda discussing the case?

6. Were any documents filed in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010) while you were performing as Solicitor General?

7. Have you ever approved any document (either for filing with the court or for internal Administration use or distribution) with respect to Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010)?

8. Have you ever been asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?

9. Have you ever offered any views or comments regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?

10. If your answer is “yes” to any of questions (1) to (9) or you were otherwise consulted regarding Pub. L. No. 111-148, will you recuse yourself from any related case, should you be confirmed?

11. If you answered “yes” to any of questions (1) to (9), and yet will not recuse yourself from any case related to Pub. L. No. 111-148, please explain why you refuse to, in the words of Justice Marshall, “quell any appearance of impropriety” that may result from your participation in such a case.

12. What date did you cease performing responsibilities of the Solicitor General?

13. What duties are you now performing as Solicitor General?

We very much appreciated your prompt response to our initial questions for the record and look forward to your answers to the foregoing questions. Your answers to our questions are essential to the Committee’s process of thoroughly reviewing your record prior to making our recommendation to the full Senate on your nomination.

Sincerely,

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member
Sen. Orrin Hatch
Sen. Chuck Grassley
Sen. Jon Kyl
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Sen. John Cornyn
Sen. Tom Coburn