Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan did little to undo the impression that nominating hearings are little more than a charade in which cautious non-answers take the place of substantive exchanges. In this, she was following the practice of high court nominees since Judge Robert Bork. But her non-answers were all the more frustrating, given her past writings that the hearings were vacuous and lacked substance. She accused Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer of stonewalling, but then she did the same, leaving senators to search for clues on her judicial philosophy. Her hearings showed an impressive legal mind, a ready humor and a collegial temperament suitable to the court. But they shed no light on how she feels about the court's contemptuous dismissal of Congress' 'fact-finding' role, its overturning of precedent in allowing corporate political advertising, and the expansion of executive authority at the expense of congressional power.
On the recordJuly 15, 2010
Editor's note · Context
Senator Specter discusses his views on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings.
Share
More from Arlen Specter
Dec 5, 2011
I think Senator Sessions has it right when he says they consider it their domain. Well, it is not.
Nov 18, 2010
I have sought recognition to speak in favor of my amendment No. 4693 to the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act S.510 to permit emergency scheduling of designer anabolic steroids. Anabolic steroids--masquerading as body building dietary…
Dec 22, 2010
last year I introduced the Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009, H.R. 1504. As I explained in my accompanying floor statement, my objective was to restore the pleading standard that had governed federal civil practice if not since the…





