Hatch Will Vote Against Kagan
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) will vote against Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, he announced today.
"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.
Hatch is a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a former chairman of the panel. He voted in favor of Kagan's nomination to be Solicitor General, one of just 7 GOPers to do so.
Hatch is the third GOPer to say he will not vote for Obama's SCOTUS nominee. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said he would do so in an op-ed this week, while Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) said in May he wouldn't vote for her.
Inhofe's opposition is no surprise. He declined to even meet with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor after announcing his opposition. But Hatch has voted against only one Supreme Court nominee in his career, joining the majority of his GOP colleagues in opposing Sotomayor's nomination.
Hatch is so old and out of touch. I think he opposes her because she is Jewish and thinks gay people should be treated as human beings.
Thankyou for standing for what is right Senator Hatch. I hope more have the courage to do so.
Well that didn't take long Jakob. Your intolerance of older people is fairly disgusting. I read and listened to the hearings. Kagen is clearly an activist judge. She couldn't even tell the panel if she thought it would be ok if the federal government passed a law that required it's citizens eat certain food is Constitutional. I don't care if she's gay or Jewish, just as I don't care if Hatch is older.
She does not respect the Constitution.
Jakob - how dense are you? Do you know how old most of the Dem leadership is? Are they all out of touch? You "think" Hatch is against Jews and gays - and you arrived at this how? You don't oppose Hatch only because he is old do you? Age-ist! I notice you deliberately refuse to address the merits of his argument . Your opinion is garbage.
"Hatch is so old and out of touch. I think he opposes her because she is Jewish and thinks gay people should be treated as human beings."
Maybe he opposes her for the reasons he stated. They are good reasons.
It is well past time to oppose Supreme Court Justices who find phantom right in the U.S. Constitution while ignoring rights that are in it.
She's a proven NAZI lover. The real german NAZI, not just a metaphor.
Kagan's Princeton Thesis Cited German Socialist Who Endorsed Nazis
She is an admirer of an architect of German national socialism, Nazism, to sit in one of the most powerful judicial chairs in the world? The Obama freak show continues and we are his victims. Kagan cannot, must not, will not be confirmed. Is there no benchmark? Kagan's love of socialism of the nazi variety is seen in her doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake
I thought that Hatch was the Senator who asked Kagan whether or not she had written a memo that purposely misrepresented the ACOG's position on Partial Birth Abortion and had presented that memo at a Supreme Court Hearing. You should recall that during the hearings Kagan couldn't find a way to excuse her fraudulant behavior (though the MSM did its best not to report it). All Ms. Kagan could do was ... well, look like she had been caught!!
Like him or not Senator Hatch caught her Red Handed and his vote reflects that. She cannot be trusted.
No one should be supporting Kagan. This is one of the most (if not THE most) important positions in the US, and she not only does not deserve it, but she, like Obama, would destroy any respect and integrity such a seat holds.
What a disgrace Kagan is, following in the King of Disgrace's footsteps.
Sick.
Jakob, you are truly a dolt.
If one is to render judgment on issues that will affect the entire country, those decisions should be based on a SOLID FOUNDATION OF LEGAL THOUGHT AND EXPERIENCE. It should have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with personal beliefs. Now, interpretation of the law varies, true. However, your supposition that he opposes her because "Hatch is so old and out of touch. I think he opposes her because she is Jewish and thinks gay people should be treated as human beings" truly is mind-boggling in its stupidity.
I would say that her actions in forging the phony arguments in the partial birth abortion case are enough to justify a no vote. She lied about the position of the medical experts in order to get the verdict that she wanted. This by itself is enough to discredit her for any legal position.
A google search of "Kagen partial birth abortion" finds a number of blogs who point out that she changed the report of a ‘select panel’ of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)” from
To the exact opposite
This lie was presented to the Supreme Court as medical evidence.
Hatch? Anti-Semitic?
You only reveal your ignorance. Hatch is well know to be very friendly with Jews. He even wrote a song for Hanukkah. (Don't bother listening to it, my comment on the song is that Senator Hatch should not quit his day job- but the sentiment was nice).
Jakob, all you are doing is accusing a person you disagree with of racism simply for the shock effect without any evidence. Doing so does not harm the Senator, it merely cheapens the accusation of racism.
Forget judicial activism. Forget poltical stances. There is a simple question here. Do we give the most important job in the judicial system to a person with not one single day's experience as a judge?
That is not only disrespect of every other sitting judge, but it is a slap in the face of every future defendent who will come before this court. We don't think your quest for justice deserves the attention of a person with the experience to do a fair and complete job of judging you.
Enough of this amteur playing with the government of the USA. Can we get some grownups in charge again?
I started off thinking Kagan was an okay pick. But particularly the twisting and lying and changing her mind on her own writings indicate that she is duplicous and arbitrary. These are exactly the wrong character traits for a Supreme Court Justice!
But it is a fait accompli. We will have a straight up liar in the Supreme Court. A charming and power hungry liar. Woe is us.
Republicans unfortunately don't have the backbone to block this marxist from the court. Kagan in not only not qualified, she lied under oath, pretended not to understand questions, does not believe in the constitution. She should be rejected. If you old goats in the Senate don't stand up to the Dems, then don't cry when the Tea Party votes you out too. What a bunch of has beens and weak spined old farts.
I'm surprised that more haven't considering Kagan's lack of experience, and deceptive, shifty performance. A squatty, softball playing Sonia twin. Great...
There were some very telling points in her answers that should have had everyone raising their eyebrows.
The first point was her inability to answer the question about the government's right to tell people what they can eat. She could not answer. "Dumb" laws do not mean they are unconstitutional in her view. This question did not involve dumb laws, but instead those set up with powers beyond the limitations outlined in the Constitution.
Her failure to take ownership of a memo in her own handwriting was farsical and enough to provide significant questions of judgement and motive.
The last straw was her inability to acknowledge the existence of "natural law" as a founding principle of our charter document: the Declaration of Independence. Instead she referred to upholding written laws as opposed to the role of evaluating the Constitutionality.
Senator Hatch is right and others should follow his lead.
Jakob are you are a freaking moron? Just for the record
Kagan is Obama's Harriet Miers, except Bush at least had the good sense to say "Wait, you thought I was SERIOUS????" after about a week and pull her back.
But don't worry McCain's little buttsniffing lapdog Lindsee will vote yes so your precious little 'lana will make it to confirmation.
Hatch is a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a former chairman of the panel.I would say that her actions in forging the phony arguments in the partial birth abortion case are enough to justify a no vote.
Mr. Jensen: Several judges have been nominated and appointed to the Supreme Court. This is not a new precedent.
Does anyone discount her knowledge of law? Did she show gaping holes in the fundamentals? Whether you agree or disagree with her previous opinions, she has a strong basis in law itself.
Ms. Kagan actually has a precedent of bringing divergent legal minds together (Dean Harvard Law School- bringing though processes to conversation is essential on the USOC), has actually argued cases in front of the Supreme Court (so she will be able to facilitate and direct legal arguments appropriately in order for her to get the information she requires to make a decision)...
This woman is qualified for the position, as all o the 7 previous solicitor generals (Republican and Democratic have supported her)... it is her ideology that you fear.... Just as those who differed in opinion with Roberts and Alito feared....
To disagree with someone is completely different than saying they are not qualified.
Thank you Senator Hatch. Democrats please contact your senators and representatives and get them to reject this person who lies under oath. Her testimony is that the federal government has the right to intrude upon individual freedoms even to the point of regulating the number of vegetables they are required to eat (although she acknowledges it would be a silly law)-- the issue was not how foolish would a government become -- it was did the federal government have the authority HER ANSWER WAS YES-- YES-- YES
Please do not let this idiot be elevated to the position where her opinions become the law.
Good day,I like reading through your blog, I want to to leave just a little comment to support you and wish you an excellent continuation. Wishing you the all the best for all your blogging endeavours.