McConnell said Kagan was “far from forthcoming in discussing her own views on basic principles of American constitutional law” during this week’s confirmation hearings.
“I do not have confidence that if she were confirmed to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court she would suddenly constrain the ardent political advocacy that has marked much of her adult life,” McConnell said. “The American people expect a justice who will impartially apply the law, not one who will be a rubberstamp for the Obama administration or any other administration. For these reasons, I will oppose Ms. Kagan’s confirmation.”
In announcing her opposition, Murkowski bemoaned the lack of geographic diversity and the small number of law schools represented on the court.
“Ms. Kagan, like this administration’s last nominee, Justice Sotomayor, is a native of New York City. Although she spent a portion of her career in Chicago, most of her career has been spent ‘inside the beltway’ of Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, Massachusetts on the campus of Harvard University,” Murkowski said. “If confirmed, six of the nine Supreme Court Justices will be from the Northeast United States, and only three law schools of the 199 law schools accredited by the American Bar Association will be represented on the high court-Harvard, Yale and Columbia law schools.”
Niiiiiice job by Murkowski playing the “urban east-coast elitist egghead” card. Her authenticity is now beyond reproach. Here’s Hatch, who voted for Kagan when she was up for solicitor general — before Utah Republicans torpedoed Bob Bennett in the primary, of course:
“Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy. The law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law,” Hatch said. “I have concluded that, based on evidence rather than blind faith, General Kagan regrettably does not meet this standard and that, therefore, I cannot support her appointment.”
“Over nearly 25 years, General Kagan has endorsed, and praised those who endorse, an activist judicial philosophy. I was surprised when she encouraged us at the hearing simply to discard or ignore certain parts of her record. I am unable to do that. I also cannot ignore disturbing situations in which it appears that her personal or political views drove her legal views,” Hatch added.
DeMint and Inhofe are also no’s, although Grahamnesty is likely to continue his war with tea partiers by voting yes. The big question: What about Olympia Snowe? No doubt she wants to vote yes (she gave thumbs up to Sotomayor), but she’s up for re-election in 2012 and the Maine tea party is already guaranteeing a primary opponent for her. Prediction: She votes no. Can’t wait to hear the excuse!