The U.S. Senate recently approved Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan 63-37.
President Barack Obama selected Kagan to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, and she became the fourth female justice in the court's history.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 in favor of Kagan’s approval.
The Senate and its judiciary Committee vote fell along party lines with some exceptions, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Graham repeatedly through the years has expressed his fear of the "politicizing” of the courts. He said that Kagan would not have been his choice but that she is well qualified to serve.
Yes, there was posturing and political backbiting during the Senate debate, but Kagan still got approved.
When she was first nominated, conservative bloggers tabbed her as “gay,” (not true) and others attacked her decision to keep military recruiters off Harvard University’s campus when she served as president of the Ivy League school.
Some have focused on her lack of judicial experience because she has never served as a judge.
However, among the 111 men and women to serve on the court since 1789, 40 never served as a judge. That list includes these justices, some of them considered the most influential: John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren and William O. Douglas.
Opposition to her nomination never gained much traction, and fairly early on Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Republicans would not filibuster her nomination.
Kagan’s success in smoothing the way to approval really rests with Kagan.
- She made a point to visit key Republicans as soon as she was nominated, and they all seemed to leave those meetings satisfied that she would rule with an open mind.
- She displayed a keen legal mind in her writings and during hearings, court pundits observed.
- She refused to be baited by critics during those confirmation hearings, and thus, she avoided getting “Borked.”
I wonder if the process for selecting justices has become so “politicized” and candidates so carefully “handled” that getting “Borked” just cannot happen anymore.
I am interested in your thoughts on that.
Resources:
- http://www.c-span.org/Topics/Supreme-Court-Judiciary.aspx
- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story/...
- http://innovation.cq.com/multimedia/23/slideshow
- http://www.billlucey.com/2009/07/historic-facts/...
- http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/guides/supreme_court_/...
- http://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+U.S./...
Thanks for the post, and I apologize for taking so long to respond. I do not think there is any getting around measuring political positions when assessing Supreme Court Candidates. But I think electing judges only endorses that bias, and I think it would pose more problems with regard to the independence of the courts. I do not think a completely political-bias free judge exists. Mac
A Supreme Court Justice is chosen based on their political ideologies. I think her confirmation was a sure bet, because she was used as a bargaining chip. Democratic Senator "A" votes with Republican Senator "B" if Republican Senator "A" votes to confim Kagan. Its all a horse trade. I would argue that justices should be an elected position, but elections are a facade anymore.
Post new comment