Political Quotes

“Elena Kagan is intelligent, well spoken, personable, and schooled in the law. She is skilled in the art of argument, perhaps to a fault. Ignoring her own advice in the now famous University of Chicago Law Review article, she did not testify meaningfully before the Judiciary Committee, concealing and disguising her views and playing the same game of ``hide the ball'' as some who went before her, albeit with more skill. Probably because she criticized the practice so directly, many expected her to set a different standard. Others have asked whether Judiciary Committee hearings have been rendered largely free of substance and what, if anything, can be done about it. The former Judiciary Committee chairman, Arlen Specter, who lamented that Ms. Kagan, during her testimony, had not ``answered much of anything,'' went on to say this: It would be my hope that we could find some place between voting no and having some sort of substantive answers. But I think we are searching for a way how Senators can succeed in getting substantive answers, as you advocated in the Chicago Law Review, short of voting no. I confess that, similar to Senator Specter, I don't know how we can force nominees to be forthcoming except through our votes. To be clear, my threshold for supporting a nominee does not require answering how one would vote on issues sure to come before the Court, nor necessarily expressing agreement or disagreement with decisions or Court opinions.”