Kagan Skirts Claims That She's A Progressive (VIDEO)

The Kabuki theater of the Supreme Court confirmation process began on Tuesday, with nominee Elena Kagan steadfastly refusing to characterize herself as a "progressive" or "legal progressive" even though two prominent lawyers with ties to the Obama administration have done just that.

In his opening questioning, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Al.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, read comments made about Kagan by former White House counsel Greg Craig and Vice President Biden's Chief of Staff Ron Klain, each of whom insisted that Kagan was cut from a progressive political mold. (White House aides, for what it's worth, aren't entirely pleased that either of these characterizations were made in the first place).

"I'm not quite sure how I would characterize my politics," she replied. "But one thing I do know is that my politics would be, must be, have to be, completely separate from my judgment."

"It is absolutely the case that I have served in two Democratic administrations," Kagan went on. At which point Sessions interrupted to ask, specifically, about the notion that she was a "legal" progressive as opposed to having merely served under progressive officials.

"Senator Sessions, I honestly don't know what that label means. I've worked in two Democratic administrations... you can tell something about me and my political views from that... I love my good friend Ron Klain. But I guess I think people should be allowed to label themselves."

It was a fair response, if not a bit guarded. Kagan's political views, are no more or less relevant to her confirmation process than those of John Roberts, who served in the Attorney General's office during the Reagan Administration. And it's hard to recall Sessions probing all that deeply during the confirmation hearings for the current Chief Justice. Indeed, while Kagan insisted that she has detached her politics from her jurisprudence, the senator remained unconvinced.

"I guess I would have to classify you as someone in the theme of legal progressive," he said.

Here's video of the exchange:

Comments

[Uncle Bill]

01:13 PM on 06/30/2010

"I would have to classify you as a person in the theme of legal progressive." Translation: "This is a term I just pulled out of the end of my GI tract that is totally undefined but contains a code word "progressive" which my political allies have perverted from its actual definition into a negative label. I will then I will imply you accepted this label and will go on to define the label as approving of kicking the crutches out from under cripples, cheating at cards, corrupt government and Erectile Dysfunction."

[Uncle Bill]

12:42 PM on 06/30/2010

The competing ideologies among Supreme Court Justices and federal judges as a whole do not match the ideological divisions of the political parties. They more closely match the competing schools of jurisprudential thought. The various schools grow from several philosophical divisions- Legal Positivism vs Natural Law, Legal Formalism v Legal Realism, Analytical Jurisprudence vs Normative Jurisprudence. Justice Scalia is a Formalist first and foremost though he champions many Natural Law theories.

[separatingwheatfromchaff]

10:18 AM on 06/30/2010

Senator Sessions repeatedly ties progressives and the word subvert in his statement/question.Then tries to tie our current administration into this bundle and then labels her in the end as a"legal progressive".What kind of snakes do we elect to serve our country?

[ReedYoung]

10:28 AM on 06/30/2010

Don't blame the country. Alabama elected that clown, to represent themselves to the rest of the country. They have no shame, or they have no brains. Maybe both.

[Nonpartay]

06:29 PM on 06/30/2010

The last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to be a liberal, a progressive, or a Democrat. Seems to me Republicans have manipulated the language to make all these terms somehow something to fear and sneer at. People don't even realize how they've been played and used to think this way. It's really a shame.

[Animal Compassion]

10:09 AM on 06/30/2010

To Sessions: Will you leave your religion out of politics?

What an irritating question and answer session. Absolutely no point to any of it. There should be general check list that does not include politics and religion.

[SvrWx]

06:56 AM on 06/30/2010

It's not that she refused to call herself a progressive...she made it sound like she had no idea what a progressive is. What a dodge. Her dodging of the questions reminds me of Rand Pauls dodging of the creationism question.

[AinOK]

04:00 PM on 07/01/2010

I think the issue was the made-up term, "Legal Progressive". Just a meaningless label to convey hatred.

[MyOwnPerson172]

05:34 AM on 06/30/2010

The Republicans have no judgement. To them it's all politics.

[agxphoto]

03:20 AM on 06/30/2010

Well, this is totally normal. For a lot of us, our politics are totally separate from our judgment.

[Ampoliros]

03:40 AM on 06/30/2010

Heck, most of the people just omit the judgment part. Truthiness is the nectar of today.

[Cthulhu On Call]

02:12 AM on 06/30/2010

The supreme court has become a rubber stamp for the corporations. The only thing I care about is getting enough people on it who will put a stop to that.

They've become the number one threat to our democracy. Hopefully, she'll turn out to be one of the good ones.

[tehixe]

02:25 AM on 06/30/2010

I think Congress takes that title, actually. Congress has a LOT more power than the Court. And nine times out of ten, when the Court makes a bad decision, Congress can change the law to get around it.

You see, the Court is not allowed to take bribes. They have to disclose every gift they get. Nobody is allowed to "lobby" the Court. But Congress? Bribes aren't just legal, they're the name of the game. The lobbying system is legalized bribery, and it's at the very center of the institution. Without meaningful election reform, there can be no democracy, at least not a democracy that stands up for the actual voters.

[Cthulhu On Call]

02:27 AM on 06/30/2010

It's the other way around, the supreme court's rulings are final. That's why congress can't go and pass anti-abortion laws even if they wanted to.

[Cthulhu On Call]

01:56 AM on 06/30/2010

My advice to her would be to say that the Republicans are going to fight you no matter what Kagan, so you can give them whatever answers you feel like giving them.

Tell him it's your intention to rule that the constitution is unconstitutional.

[Ampoliros]

03:37 AM on 06/30/2010

Why? Bush V Gore did that.

[Cthulhu On Call]

10:50 AM on 06/30/2010

I was just being a sm@rt @ss.... :-)

[Nonpartay]

01:51 AM on 06/30/2010

Doesn't Senator Sessions realize how bad he's making himself look with all this stuff?

[Kaetn]

05:42 AM on 06/30/2010

Come on now...

Republicans never make themselves look bad! It's the liberal media who does, or the progressive media, or anyone with a brain who understands what they are saying and puts it in context with actual reality. You know, those people that remember what Sessions has stood for over the years.

That's right... WE make him look bad, he couldn't possibly being doing it himself. Nope.

[Nonpartay]

12:01 PM on 06/30/2010

[snicker] Fanned and faved! :)

[ReedYoung]

09:57 AM on 06/30/2010

He's looked that way for decades and it hasn't cost him an election in Alabama yet.

[Nonpartay]

12:01 PM on 06/30/2010

Amazing what people will settle for.

[A Meat Beetle]

01:07 AM on 06/30/2010

I don't have any strong opinion about Kagan one way or the other, but I find it despicable that the Republicans would use these hearings as an opportunity to attack Thurgood Marshall, something they wouldn't have had the c0j0nes to do while he was alive. Leave it to the GOP to bu//y a de@d person.

[rhdsma]

08:04 AM on 06/30/2010

Republicans replaced Marshall with Thomas. They never cared about Marshall or what he stood for, or for that matter, what he accomplished for the country.

[Nonpartay]

06:12 PM on 06/30/2010

Today's hearing had Senator Franken making wonderful points about Marshall and how not activist he actually was, how very constitutional. I hope you got to see it.

[BocaMom]

12:26 AM on 06/30/2010

I love this woman and LOVE the fact that she is not another Washington political hack!

[trweste144]

11:39 PM on 06/29/2010

It's not a horrible response in some ways. I hear what she's saying, that she will not subscribe to terms generated for her by others, self-determination. Still, take your own advice, and answer with some boldness as well as candor. Say that you are not embarrassed by your personal politics and that they simply are not relevant. Maybe even point out there's a history of conservative and liberal judicial activism, some clear contradictions in stare decisis being ignored that you do not favor. Maybe offer an example of a pretty typical former case in which your politics have become superseded by your view of the law. But if you want others to label you because you presumably do that yourself, give some sort of label to yourself, even if it's "I"m a fairly moderate, mainstream Democrat, as Antonin Scalia is a proud satanic priest of some sort. You know you are what you are. Just answer the question and deflate this pompous, wheezy smurf of a senator. But take the safe route, the middle road, or your wax wings may melt.

[The-JuRK]

10:00 PM on 06/29/2010

"I'm not quite sure how I would characterize my politics," she replied. "But one thing I do know is that my politics would be, must be, have to be, completely separate from my judgment."

Well, we've discovered one thing about her: she's lying.

[Ampoliros]

11:11 PM on 06/29/2010

You mean that every judgment she will make WILL be motivated by politics?

[Nonpartay]

01:31 AM on 06/30/2010

And you know this how?

[Nonpartay]

06:12 PM on 06/30/2010

17 hours and nothing but crickets....

[jill2468]

09:40 PM on 06/29/2010

Like it or not, the term Progressive still leaves a nasty taste in most peoples mouth.

[The-JuRK]

10:01 PM on 06/29/2010

Not so much the term...it's the people who claim it.

[jill2468]

10:21 PM on 06/29/2010

You are right. I stand corrected.

[Nonpartay]

01:57 AM on 06/30/2010

Terrible thing, progress. Fortunately, that nasty taste didn't bother people like Washington and Jefferson, Lincoln, and others who advanced this nation instead of dragging it backwards.

[Ampoliros]

03:34 AM on 06/30/2010

You mean Washington and Lincoln. Jefferson has been scrubbed from the textbooks already.