Kagan Changes Her Mind on Hearings

Back when Elena Kagan was first nominated for the Supreme Court, I mentioned her 1995 critique of confirmation hearings– she said they had become “a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis.”  I was optimistic that Kagan would adhere to that viewpoint and approach her own hearing with more candor, but it doesn’t appear that that will be the case.

In fact, during Kagan’s confirmation for Solicitor General last year, she took a step towards disavowing her earlier analysis: ““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.”

And sure enough, as her SC confirmation hearings began yesterday, she explained that it wouldn’t be appropriate to answer questions about a) pending cases, b) cases that may come before the court in the future, or c) past cases, which could come up again.  Oh, and it also wouldn’t be appropriate to answer any “veiled” attempts to get her to address such issues.  So what will she answer?  Not much, it would seem, though we have the next few days of questioning to find out for sure.

Interestingly, in her 1995 comments, Kagan seemed to place the blame for the lack of “seriousness and substance” on the Senate rather than the nominees themselves:

When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.

Any questions you wish the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would ask Kagan?

Related posts:

1. Lindsey Graham’s Mavericky Vote for Kagan
2. Lead-up to Kagan’s Confirmation Vote
3. First Thoughts on the Kagan Nom