Kagan on ACOG memo: Did I do that?

posted at 1:36 pm on June 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

If  the intent of Elena Kagan’s testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee is to build confidence in her competence, her answer to Orrin Hatch about a controversial memo has to be a huge step in the wrong direction.  Despite the issue having been in the news for the last 24 hours and the centrality of it to the Clinton-era efforts to stop a ban on partial-birth abortion, Kagan initially claimed ignorance of the issue.  Only when pressed did Kagan recall her intentions, as Byron York and LifeNews‘ Steven Ertelt both report this afternoon:

“Did you write that memo?” Hatch asked.

“Senator, with respect,” Kagan began, “I don’t think that that’s what happened — ”

“Did you write that memo?”

“I’m sorry — the memo which is?”

“The memo that caused them to go back to the language of ‘medically necessary,’ which was the big issue to begin with — ”

“Yes, well, I’ve seen the document — ”

“But did you write it?”

“The document is certainly in my handwriting.”

But after finally admitting that she wrote it, she then dismissed it:

Hatch continued to press Kagan about the document, and she ultimately told Hatch she didn’t think she had the power to alter ACOG’s statement: “there was no way I could have or would have intervened” in ACOG drawing up its own opinion.

Kagan said she wrote the memo to present the “most accurate understanding” of what ACOG thought about partial birth abortion and said ACOG’s original statement didn’t represent the totality of what it thought about partial-birth abortion as originally expressed to the Clinton administration. …

“They could think of circumstances in which it was the best or most appropriate procedure and that it was the procedure with the least risk” for women’s health. “We informed President Clinton of that fact and there did come a time when we saw a draft statement and I had some discussion with ACOG about that draft.”

“I recall generally talking to ACOG about that statement and about whether that statement was consistent with the views we knew they had,” [she] said to explain away the criticism.

“The document is certainly in my handwriting” is a way to say, “I’m not going to explicitly admit writing it.”  Otherwise, why not just say, “Yes, I wrote it”?  Note also the “I recall generally talking to ACOG” rather than “this is what I wrote and why I wrote it.”  It’s deceptive and only somewhat responsive to what Hatch asked and why he asked it.

In other words, it’s more or less an Urkel defense of saying, “Did I do that?”  Kagan seemed ill prepared to discuss the memo, despite the debate that has erupted since yesterday over its meaning.  When she did discuss it, she did so in an evasive manner.  I doubt seriously that this alone will derail her confirmation, but this evasiveness plus her utter lack of judicial experience should have Senators questioning the wisdom of this choice, and questioning Kagan with more enthusiasm on her track record as a political activist within the Clinton administration.

Update: Shannen Coffin, who published the memo and its edits, responds at National Review:

First, the ACOG task force — formed specifically and solely for the purpose of studying the medical efficacy of the procedure — met for two full days in October 1996, and the result of their collective work was a statement concluding only that it could identify no particular circumstances where the partial-birth method might be the only method to save the health or life of the mother, but that the committee thought it important to leave that judgment to the individual doctors — that is, a policy statement that Congress should stay out of it. After they deliberated in October 1996, the task force forwarded its draft statement to the ACOG board. It was only then that Kagan stepped in to suggest changes.

Therefore, any suggestion that her work was merely the synthesis of the task force’s deliberations doesn’t account for that time line — she had no interaction with the task force itself, only the executive board of ACOG.

Second and more significant, the White House had already met with ACOG’s former president and current chief lobbyist (to whom Kagan’s revisions were addressed) in June 1996, before the special task force was even formed. At that meeting (which apparently Kagan did not attend but recounted in a memo to her bosses, dated June 22, 1996), Kagan wrote that the White House staffers were basically told that ACOG couldn’t identify any particular circumstances where the procedure was medically necessary.

Coffin quotes from the relevant memo that makes this even more clear.  Perhaps another Republican on the panel will pick this up where Hatch left off.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Perhaps another Republican on the panel will pick this up where Hatch left off.

Yeah, right. These are the Republicans we’re talking about.

Babino on June 30, 2010 at 1:39 PM

I thought this was about a mounted scope. Mea culpa.

MadisonConservative on June 30, 2010 at 1:39 PM

The incompetence of the ignorant and lying SOS is unexpected.

upinak on June 30, 2010 at 1:40 PM

“The Urkel Defense” coming from a nominee of “The Urkel President” doesn’t surprise me.

teke184 on June 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Wow, she’s just looking better and better every damn day, isn’t she?

Aitch748 on June 30, 2010 at 1:42 PM

A clear reminder of how ugly the Clinton years were.

Hening on June 30, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Few Americans favor partial-birth abortions–few. And she lied about her role in misrepresenting information provided to a federal court.

No GOP Senator will be faulted for filibustering her.

Remember Bork. And the GOP has never gone there.

OT: Earlier today, Megyn Kelly interviewed Monica Crowley.

Talk about conservative hotness. Steam was rising on the set.

BuckeyeSam on June 30, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Kagan is worse than Hillary under oath. Kagan demonstrates her “Harvard mind” is as weak, over-rated and doubtful as Zero’s.

viking01 on June 30, 2010 at 1:46 PM

She’s gonna get confirmed no matter what. Sad…

joejm65 on June 30, 2010 at 1:47 PM

in the words of Bill Engvall, “There’s your sign.”

ConservativePartyNow on June 30, 2010 at 1:48 PM

A clear reminder of how ugly the Clinton years were.

Hening on June 30, 2010 at 1:42 PM

So true! Most people have not a clue how divisive and destructive he was to this country. He was the start of the mess we now have.

xler8bmw on June 30, 2010 at 1:48 PM

“The document is certainly in my handwriting.”

She wrote it while under hypnosis, so clearly she’s absolved of any responsibility for what she wrote.

BuckeyeSam on June 30, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Attorneys on HotAir; What are the rules on introducing evidence you know to be false?

She should be disbarred.

barnone on June 30, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Obama promised to bring science to its rightful place, Elena Kagan promises that place is in the fiction file.

fourdeucer on June 30, 2010 at 1:50 PM

A clear reminder of how ugly the Clinton years were.

Hening on June 30, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Yes, but at least back then I was blissfully unaware. I thought all Supreme Court Justices were smart and apolitical, Senators respected their oath to protect and defend our Constitution, and everyone voted only once.

*sigh*

LASue on June 30, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Hatch’s questions are small bore sniping. Small taters, small pen!s limpy stuff. Not until she cries are they getting anywhere close. Tell her she has the blood of unborn children on her hands and ask her how she can sleep at night with her bad self…. start there.

ted c on June 30, 2010 at 1:51 PM

People don’t normally lie about having done good.

Akzed on June 30, 2010 at 1:52 PM

From USAToday, so I certainly can’t verify accuracy:

Your tax dollars at work:

At her Senate confirmation hearing today, Elena Kagan was asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, whether she was Team Edward or Team Jacob, since the new Twilight Saga: Eclipse movie just opened and Klobuchar’s daughter Abigail had seen it at a midnight showing.

The senator jokingly asked Kagan’s thoughts on “the vampire versus the werewolf.”

Kagan said she hadn’t seen the film and wished the senator wouldn’t pose the question, jokingly noting that she couldn’t comment on future cases if she chose sides.

atlgal on June 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Kagan wouldn’t even make a credible witness at a trial and yet she appears to be well on her way to being a Supreme Court Justice.

Tav on June 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Her lying by itself would be enough for me to vote “no”.

forest on June 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Kagan said she wrote the memo to present the “most accurate understanding” of what ACOG thought about partial birth abortion and said ACOG’s original statement didn’t represent the totality of what it thought about partial-birth abortion as originally expressed to the Clinton administration. …

So is she the head of ACOG? Head of the ACOG taskforce? A member of ACOG? Heck, is she even a ob-gyn? Otherwise, how the hell does she know what ACOG was thinking, or what its views were.

One can certainly take a group’s statement and spin it however you want in order to bolster your argument, that is fair game. But to rewrite that statement and pass that rewrite off as what the group said is misrepresentation, an attempt at deception. And to do that for a court of law, especially when you are later up to be a member of the highest court in the land, is unacceptable. It is defrauding the court.

And then to later on, during your nominating process, to attempt to deny what you did, is further proof of your willingness to commit deception. Before this I was resigned to her being put on the Court. Dear Liar won, he gets his preference. But this episode tells me Elena Kagan is not fit to be on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Elena Kagan is a liar.

rbj on June 30, 2010 at 1:54 PM

Here’s how this would play out in my world:
Kagan: You want answers?

Hatch: I think I’m entitled.
Kagan: *You want answers?*
Hatch:*I want the truth!*
Kagan: *You can’t handle the truth!*

ExUrbanKevin on June 30, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Is it possible that due to the sheer numbers of Democrats that the Left felt is was unnecessary for Ms. Kagan to spend much time on preparation? It probably won’t stop her getting on SCOTUS but it will be another example of their arrogance and lack of ethics.

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Can a supreme court justice be impeached?

ConservativePartyNow on June 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Attorneys on HotAir; What are the rules on introducing evidence you know to be false?

She should be disbarred.

barnone on June 30, 2010 at 1:49 PM

–How did she introduce evidence known to be false? This wasn’t the subject of any lawsuit at that time. And she wasn’t the one who subsequently introduced it nor did she later make any claims about this statement (as far as we can tell).

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Tell her she has the blood of unborn children on her hands and ask her how she can sleep at night with her bad self…. start there.

[ted c on June 30, 2010 at 1:51 PM]

Then ask her if Obama picked her because she inspired him as state Senator to approve of throwing unwanted babies in hospital closets to die.

Dusty on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

The first male nominee of the first female President…

PatriotRider on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

So is she the head of ACOG? Head of the ACOG taskforce? A member of ACOG? Heck, is she even a ob-gyn? Otherwise, how the hell does she know what ACOG was thinking, or what its views were.

One can certainly take a group’s statement and spin it however you want in order to bolster your argument, that is fair game. But to rewrite that statement and pass that rewrite off as what the group said is misrepresentation, an attempt at deception. …..

rbj on June 30, 2010 at 1:54 PM

The executive board of the AOCG did approve the statement when it finalized its policy, right?

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

“But did you write it?”
“The document is certainly in my handwriting.”

Or as Flip Wilson used to say, “the devil made me do it”.

Steve Z on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Can a supreme court justice be impeached?

ConservativePartyNow on June 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Yes, though it hasn’t been done before.

The closest they’ve gotten was LBJ’s crony Abe Fortas being threatened with it when a bunch of nasty corruption-related stuff came out when he was nominated to go from USSC Justice to Chief Justice. He ended up resigning soon afterward IIRC.

teke184 on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

As my lawyer reminded me during my several oil and gas trials in federal court, “Lying SOS” is a legal term.

Jocundus on June 30, 2010 at 2:00 PM

The senator jokingly asked Kagan’s thoughts on “the vampire versus the werewolf.”
Kagan said she hadn’t seen the film and wished the senator wouldn’t pose the question, jokingly noting that she couldn’t comment on future cases if she chose sides.

atlgal on June 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Giving a verbal BJ to Obama in 2005, she has already chosen a side. Vampire.

Electrongod on June 30, 2010 at 2:00 PM

He asked if she wrot it. That called for a yes or no.

She slithered like a snake around that one and should have had that pointed out to her.

seven on June 30, 2010 at 2:02 PM

She’s a typical lefty liar and should not be on the SC. Period. Of course, she’ll still be confirmed. Being a liar is now a qualification for high office in this country.

AUINSC on June 30, 2010 at 2:03 PM

This attitude, as if trying to say, I didn’t write it, but I did, should be a disqualifier no matter what political affiliation the person has.

We do NOT need these types of people on the bench, and it needs to end NOW!!!

capejasmine on June 30, 2010 at 2:03 PM

“Honest, senator, I don’t know what all this fuss is about. I was only following orders.”

viking01 on June 30, 2010 at 2:06 PM

O

r as Flip Wilson used to say, “the devil made me do it”.

Steve Z on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Or, as we say in 2010, “My chakras made me do it.”

ExUrbanKevin on June 30, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Coffin quotes from the relevant memo that makes this even more clear. Perhaps another Republican on the panel will pick this up where Hatch left off.

Indeed… and start the question with “If you’re lying you’re going to get filibustered”

ninjapirate on June 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Our political discourse now hinges on rigid parsing of grammar and usage, made famous by Bill Clinton’s wondering at the meaning of “is”. All communications are now tightly worded to give the writer an escape hatch. There’s a lot good with being accurate and precise with one’s words, but this is being done for the purpose of deception.

Ironically, one doesn’t need to be a lawyer to sense this. It just takes a moral compass and a bit of discernment to know that the corruptocrats running our government are liars. But the larger question is whether people even care any more, or whether they’re good with the system as long as they’re on the Take side of the equation, or as long as their American-Idol/football-game/name-your-distractive-poison isn’t interrupted.

paul1149 on June 30, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Video please, this needs to be papered over the net far and wide.

tarpon on June 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM

–How did she introduce evidence known to be false? This wasn’t the subject of any lawsuit at that time. And she wasn’t the one who subsequently introduced it nor did she later make any claims about this statement (as far as we can tell).

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM

She’s trying to mislead the entire U.S. Senate, Dimbo3.

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Wow, she’s just looking better and better every damn day, isn’t she?

Aitch748 on June 30, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Or more like a dude.

rollthedice on June 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM

She doesn’t have the confidence in her convictions to admit it. If she did it, she should say so and explain herself, if she had the courage. She doesn’t.

This is the example we were looking for: she will always side with her feelings and never follow the law unless it bends to the left.

I’m sure there have been Republican/conservative SCOTUS nominees who have done the same, but this clearly demonstrates that the woman has no judicial integrity whatsoever.

badtemper on June 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM

The executive board of the AOCG did approve the statement when it finalized its policy, right?

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

I would assume so, but given the recent case of the falsified expert report in the offshore drilling moratorium case, other scenarios certainly are possible.

LASue on June 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM

This demonstrates her willingness to carry water for a political cause rather than stand up for the truth. She is not worthy of an appointment to any bench in this country, let alone the supreme court.
 
Of course the left isn’t interested in the truth — ideology above truth! Thank you liberals for helping make the US a place where the truth is whatever you desire it to be (/sarc). Once the state becomes the creator of truth, your version of the truth will no longer matter and, in all likelihood, you will experience the pain firsthand.

ClanDerson on June 30, 2010 at 2:12 PM

“I recall generally talking to ACOG about that statement and about whether that statement was consistent with the views we knew they had better have had,” [she] said to explain away the criticism.

FIFH.

cs89 on June 30, 2010 at 2:12 PM

The executive board of the AOCG did approve the statement when it finalized its policy, right?

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Ah, so it’s ok then. Wow, any integrity there at all?

WitchDoctor on June 30, 2010 at 2:13 PM

ConservativePartyNow on June 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM

My husband is asking the same thing about Sotomayor since she voted against the recent 2nd Amendment case after she said during her hearings the it is an individual right.

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2010 at 2:14 PM

I’m still waiting for some doctor, any doctor, to come forward and give an example where omitting the step during which the brain of the fetus is destroyed will risk the life or health of the woman.

The ACOG basically said they can’t think of any reason, but they’d like to leave it up to the doctor. By that logic, even though they can’t think of a reason why raping a patient would be necessary for her health or life, shouldn’t they leave that to the doctor’s discretion? That’s clearly absurd.

remywokeup on June 30, 2010 at 2:14 PM

A filthy liar would fit quite nicely within this administration, but the other Supremes may find her blatant unremorseful dishonesty a little off-putting, to be generous.

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Can a supreme court justice be impeached?

ConservativePartyNow on June 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Yes, though it hasn’t been done before.

The closest they’ve gotten was LBJ’s crony Abe Fortas being threatened with it when a bunch of nasty corruption-related stuff came out when he was nominated to go from USSC Justice to Chief Justice. He ended up resigning soon afterward IIRC.

teke184 on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Actually there was one that was impeached Justice Samuel Chase, has ever been served with an impeachment. In 1805, Chase was found not guilty, and continued to serve on the court until his death in 1811.

xler8bmw on June 30, 2010 at 2:15 PM

How did she introduce evidence known to be false? This wasn’t the subject of any lawsuit at that time. And she wasn’t the one who subsequently introduced it nor did she later make any claims about this statement (as far as we can tell).

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM
She’s trying to mislead the entire U.S. Senate, Dimbo3.

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM

–Maybe she doesn’t remember. It was well over ten years ago.

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 2:16 PM

The executive board of the AOCG did approve the statement when it finalized its policy, right?

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

If they ultimately did, then why did she attempt to weasel out of “writing” the memo? Why did she just not take responsibility for writing it and not gone through the convulated meaning of what the word “is” is? This does not pass the smell test and you know it. She is still hiding something from that whole episode.

Johnnyreb on June 30, 2010 at 2:17 PM

“Yes, well, I’ve seen the document — ”
“But did you write it?”
“The document is certainly in my handwriting.”

Give me a break. We need this crap on the SC?

Eren on June 30, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Oops that was supposed to be a quote.

THIS is supposed to be a strike:
Elena Kagan

Eren on June 30, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 2:16 PM

I think you seriously misunderestimate the preparation process. Her handlers and assistants either missed that one, she wasn’t prepared, or simply cannot defend herself.

Even if she doesn’t remember, I think she pretty much knows what her policies were back then.

badtemper on June 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM

–Maybe she doesn’t remember. It was well over ten years ago.

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Non-responsive, Your Honor.

Is that all you’ve got?

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Don’t know if it will do any good, but I just called Senator McConnell’s office to express my views on Elena Kagan.

Time for a filibuster. The Republicans have a sympathetic populace, IMO.

Man up, GOP.

Grace_is_sufficient on June 30, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 2:16 PM

If she doesn’t remember, and her prep team didn’t remind her after this burst onto the internet landscape, the whole group is incompetent.

(Oh yeah… they apparently are.)

cs89 on June 30, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

She represented the White house, right? You ignore their “suggestions” at your peril.

gitarfan on June 30, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Well, just when you think incompetence can’t get any more incompetent, along comes Kagan.

ORconservative on June 30, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Johnnyreb on June 30, 2010 at 2:17 PM

badtemper on June 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM

–We’ll just have to disagree. (The policies are irrelevant to the question at hand). I think this attack on her is the GOP’s attempt at borking her, and IMHO it’s a political hack job.

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 2:23 PM

I doubt seriously that this alone will derail her confirmation

/sarc on

I have to agree. Why would fraudulently changing the words attached to a person’s or organization’s name be enough to derail an appointment to the highest position in the legal profession?

/sarc off

We’ve seen it in the AG office, now on the verge of the Supreme Court. Seriously, wtf is up with the legal profession, basically promoting outright fraud.

MNHawk on June 30, 2010 at 2:24 PM

She doesn’t remember…. um, because it’s every day that one misrepresents the findings of a medical association to the President of the United States?

Now I understand. My bad.

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Who am I? Where am I? Do I know you people?

Chair: “Time to vote!”

GarandFan on June 30, 2010 at 2:24 PM

A filthy liar would fit quite nicely within this administration, but the other Supremes may find her blatant unremorseful dishonesty a little off-putting, to be generous.

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Alito:
Uh..yeah, we’re gonna need to move your desk downstairs into Storage B.

Kagan:
No…I…I…

Alito:
Uh..yeah, we have some new people coming in and we need all the space we can
get.

Kagan:
No…no…no…no…but…but…but…I, I, I -

Alito:
And if you could could go ahead and get a can of pesticide and take care of the roach problem we’ve been having that would be great.

Kagan:
I can’t…Excuse me. I believe you have my stapler?

Electrongod on June 30, 2010 at 2:24 PM

and IMHO it’s a political hack job.

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 2:23 PM

I guess my question was answered. I’m shocked, SHOCKED, jimbo is a member of a profession that promotes fraud.

MNHawk on June 30, 2010 at 2:25 PM

We’ll just have to disagree. (The policies are irrelevant to the question at hand). I think this attack on her is the GOP’s attempt at borking her, and IMHO it’s a political hack job.

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 2:23 PM

You do realize all of the questions they’re presenting are dealing with constitutional issues right??? Then how are they irrelevant if she has to make decisions that are inline with constitutional intent?????

xler8bmw on June 30, 2010 at 2:26 PM

No matter how qualified, her moral turpitude exhibited here makes her unfit for the position.

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Witness the consequences of the Democrats’ assault on Judge
Bork. They exploited the hearings on Bork’s nomination, launching a smear campaign against the good judge and abandoning the precedent of permitting a President’s nominees a fair hearing. Formerly, confirmation was denied only where the nominee was clearly unfit, even to members of the President’s party. The Democrats chose to impose a political litmus test. The result is that now the nominees willfully conceal their opinions, and the hearings are a farces.

No nominee will ever be forthcoming on their views again. Nominees like Kagan and Sotomayor instead will evade the questions and even commit perjury to hide their agendas.

Kagan and Sotomayor reassured Obama of their liberal activist agendas or they wouldn’t have been nominated. Sotomayor lied about it, and Kagan is lying about it.

The only good thing about this travesty is that Obama wouldn’t know a competent jurist from a kumquat. While these two liars will be reliable liberal votes, neither is likely to produce any important opinions, such as Thomas’ concurring opinion in McDonald.

novaculus on June 30, 2010 at 2:29 PM

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2010 at 2:27 PM

That is exactly correct. This is not political. It is purely ethical.

ORconservative on June 30, 2010 at 2:32 PM

The executive board of the AOCG did approve the statement when it finalized its policy, right?

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

I do not know. Quite frankly, I’m not giving Kagan or ACOG the benefit of the doubt on this one.

But the larger question remains, why did someone with no affiliation with ACOG have to rewrite ACOG’s memorandum in order

to present the “most accurate understanding” of what ACOG thought about partial birth abortion and said ACOG’s original statement didn’t represent the totality of what it thought about partial-birth abortion

ACOG doesn’t know what its views were before a Clinton administration person told them what to think? I’ve got no problem with her using & spinning ACOG’s memo, I do with substituting her views for theirs and then claiming that it is their view. Even if the board later approved the change I still view it as a fraud, as they had already stated their view in their own words, not Kagan’s.

Aren’t you at least troubled by her dissembling on this issue?

rbj on June 30, 2010 at 2:35 PM

–We’ll just have to disagree. (The policies are irrelevant to the question at hand). I think this attack on her is the GOP’s attempt at borking her, and IMHO it’s a political hack job.

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 2:23 PM

That’s a childish comparison. The two situations aren’t even close.

Let us know when Lindsay Graham starts screaming about Elena Kagan’s America.

Sorry, you demonstrated your stupidity with that crack.

BuckeyeSam on June 30, 2010 at 2:37 PM

I just appreciate the HA legal team for taking time out from their busy legal practice to clear up these complicated issues surrounding Kagan’s unethical behavior…/

d1carter on June 30, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Someone on this commitee needs to follow up on the question asked by Coburn yesterday. What they need to ask her is:

‘Would the commerce clause cover a new law that required sterilization of women at the time their first child was born as the state cannot be expected to bear the costs of future children?’

A non-answer is simply not possible.

Freddy on June 30, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Kagan is now outted . . . as a baby-killing liar.

WannabeAnglican on June 30, 2010 at 2:43 PM

IMHO it’s a political hack job.

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Hack job?!?!
The woman not only alters a memo to push partial birth abortion, which is an abomination, and now we find out thanks to this memo, that it’s not even medically necessary as a procedure, but she’s a gun-grabber, anti-military, pro-same sex marriage and pro-censorship of books!

Did you know that she removed Constitutional Law as a required 1-L course at Harvard Law and replaced it with “International Law?”
I’ve never heard of a law school where they don’t take Con Law, have you?

Jenfidel on June 30, 2010 at 2:44 PM

The executive board of the AOCG did approve the statement when it finalized its policy, right?

Jimbo3 on June 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Have you not seen the memo where she alters the ACOG’s findings and makes them say what they didn’t say?

Jenfidel on June 30, 2010 at 2:46 PM

There’s no way to get around this that doesn’t look bad for both Kagan AND the ACOG.

It proves that ACOG was in bed with the Clinton admin and fabricated (or allowed their report to be fabricated) their report for the political benefit of the Dems. They can never be trusted again.

As for Kagan, it proves that she is dishonest and willing to insert herself into what is supposed to be a non-biased policy statement.

Vera on June 30, 2010 at 2:48 PM

I remember back when I was like 14 years old having a few conversations like this with my parents when I got caught being bad.

forest on June 30, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Can a supreme court justice be impeached?

ConservativePartyNow on June 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Yes, but I can’t cite any examples, it would have to be for accepting bribes, but then she would just be voted into the House, ala Alcee Hastings.

Mini-14 on June 30, 2010 at 2:51 PM

People don’t normally lie about having done good.

Akzed on June 30, 2010 at 1:52 PM

We have a winnah!

gstep58 on June 30, 2010 at 2:55 PM

She’s trying to mislead the entire U.S. Senate, Dimbo3.

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Love this, hillbillyjim!

If–I did say “if”–Dimbo3 actually graduated from *a* law school, he had to have graduated at the bottom of his class.
He says he’s a “corporate attorney” in the D/FW Metroplex, so I’m guessing he works for…Fuddruckers? Blockbuster? Pizza Hut?

Jenfidel on June 30, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Yes, but I can’t cite any examples, it would have to be for accepting bribes, but then she would just be voted into the House, ala Alcee Hastings.

Mini-14 on June 30, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Samuel Chase was impeached (warning, wikipedia, so don’t trust all the facts there.)

rbj on June 30, 2010 at 3:02 PM

says he’s a “corporate attorney” in the D/FW Metroplex, so I’m guessing he works for…Fuddruckers? Blockbuster? Pizza Hut?

Jenfidel on June 30, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Blockbuster’s in house counsel are all pretty excellent. Maybe Hooters?

LASue on June 30, 2010 at 3:02 PM

“The document is certainly in my handwriting.”

Verbally bobbing and weaving around the truth does not qualify someone to SCOTUS. Quite the contrary. She lies.

iurockhead on June 30, 2010 at 3:03 PM

…but that the committee thought it important to leave that judgment to the individual doctors — that is, a policy statement that Congress should stay out of it.

Who says the political class doesn’t understand the value of the doctor/patient relationship? So, think we can repeal that whole Obamacare thing, now?

beselfish on June 30, 2010 at 3:08 PM

News said it’s a done deal. If she finished off the proceedings by mowing down the whole crowd with an AK-47, they would still confirm her. This is the Country we live in now. We gotta change it.

sandee on June 30, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Perhaps another Republican on the panel will pick this up where Hatch left off.

has anyone else followed up yet?

cmsinaz on June 30, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Blockbuster’s in house counsel are all pretty excellent. Maybe Hooters?
LASue on June 30, 2010 at 3:02 PM

This couldn’t possibly be true, given the amount of money they’re losing…unless they spend it all on their attorneys in preparing for their end, which is coming very soon.

Jenfidel on June 30, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Can a supreme court justice be impeached?

ConservativePartyNow on June 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Justices can be impeached in the same way and for the same reasons as other officials. Generally, that would encompass high crimes and misdemeanors. Presumably, conviction of a felony would also suffice. I think it is an open question whether conduct that led to sanctions by ethics enforcement agencies of state or federal bars, if not otherwise rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, would be sufficient.

Only one effort has been made to impeach a SC Justice. Notably, it accused Justice Chase of being politically motivated in his decisions, while the impeachment itself was apparently politically motivated. He was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate.

novaculus on June 30, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Even though a Supreme Court justice is appointed to serve a lifetime term, he or she can still be impeached if they do not hold the office during “good behavior,” as Article III, Section 1of the Constitution says.

Though the Constitution does not specifically define, “good behavior,” it does specify the guidelines for invoking impeachment proceedings for a president, vice president, or other civil officer. Since justices are civil officers, these guidelines are often interpreted as one in the same.

“There is no definition of good behavior,” said Jonathan R. Siegel, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School. “I think it is generally believed that that standard is somewhat broader than otherwise stated.”

Siegel said that the broadness of the term “good behavior” allows for a judge to be removed because of something other than a crime, although to date, none have.

Impeachment guidelines are defined in Article II, Section 4: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Still, Supreme Court justices (and all federal judges) are different because they do not require a vote by the popular electorate. This was done purposefully, as James Madison — a founding father and the fourth president — famously argued, in order to allow justices to rule without fear of backlash at the polls. Madison’s idea was that if justices were appointed, they would rule thoughtful and accurately, as opposed to ruling in a way that would further political agendas.

As in the impeachment process of any president, vice president or other civil officer, to be impeached does not mean that a Supreme Court justice is fired — it simply means that a formal process of investigating the allegations has begun.

On Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach federal Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Louisiana. Though Porteous is not a member of the Supreme Court, his situation is a good example of what could happen to a justice were he or she to be served an impeachment.

The House approved articles of impeachment contained in a resolution, charging that Porteous received money in a case he oversaw, accepted valuable items from a bail bondsman in exchange for making official actions, made false statements about his personal bankruptcy filing, and made false statements during his confirmation hearing process.

From here, Porteous could be tried in the Senate on the four articles of impeachment. If two-thirds of the Senate votes that based off of the trial proceedings, they find these articles to be true, they will convict Porteous and remove him from office.

Impeachment trials can be very long, drawn out processes and happen rarely . Of all of the Supreme Court justices who have served, only one, Justice Samuel Chase, has ever been served with an impeachment. In 1805, Chase was found not guilty, and continued to serve on the court until his death in 1811.

Including Chase, the House has only impeached 14 judges in its history. Seven were found guilty and removed from office, 4 were found not guilty, and 3 resigned before the Senate could rule.

Siegel said that few impeachment trials have taken place because most justices behave well. “It’s a great gig, you wouldn’t want to lose it once you’ve got it.”

xler8bmw on June 30, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Ace is reporting that she also lobbied the AMA to support slamming sissors into the back of babies’ skulls and sucking out their brains.

http://minx.cc/?post=303165

Vera on June 30, 2010 at 3:35 PM

A little more outrage would be nice, people. Think “Harriet Miers Part Deux” — remember how people were ready to invade the Capitol and physically bar Miers from appearing on the Senate floor? Start getting that scorched-earth campaign ready to go. The hour grows late.

Aitch748 on June 30, 2010 at 3:37 PM

“They could think of circumstances in which it was the best or most appropriate procedure and that it was the procedure with the least risk” for women’s health.

Why didn’t one of the Senators ask her to provide an example? Just one will do. We’re all waiting to hear a description of even one circumstance in which jabbing a scapel into a viable, late-term baby’s brain is the best or most appropriate procedure and the one with the least risk for the mother’s health.

Please enlighten us all Ms. Kagan. If, as you testify, the medical experts said they could think of such circumstances, then surely you can describe one of those circumstances for us now.

AZCoyote on June 30, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Not only is she a liar, but she’s a stupid one, at that. She should be so embarrassed by her pathetic display before Congress, that she should just voluntarily withdraw and go back into obscurity. I’m sure she’s made enough money, she needs to get out of the public eye, stay away from academia, and lock herself in her bedroom. Really, she seems like an idiot. The lies she tells are so childishly stupid, everybody should be doing double-takes, whenever she opens her mouth. the Dalai Obama should be facepalming, all day. This says a lot about the Dalai Obama and the rest of the America-hating liberals of Congress, that they think this dufus is qualified to be a justice on the United States Supreme Court.

Virus-X on June 30, 2010 at 3:47 PM

xler8bmw on June 30, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Thank you, that was very enlightening. I’m an old fart, Samuel Chase is a bit before my time, but not by much :)

Mini-14 on June 30, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Enema is so used to lying and twisting truths to meet her aims (usurpation of the U.S.) that she probably cant remember the individual lies and deceptions she’s cast into public life. She is a grunting pig that eats what its fed, but can’t say specifically if its garbage or strawberry parfait.

Western_Civ on June 30, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Judge Urkel. I like it.

I don’t suppose she ever taught a class on the Commerce Clause? How about appellate case law. Hmmm …

manwithblackhat on June 30, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Liberal politician defrauds federal judiciary by altering contents of expert report:

Kagan and ACOG Report = Obama and Gulf Drilling Report

Then there’s all the climate change data that had to be altered…

These little devils are working their fingers to the bone!

GTR640 on June 30, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2