Specter Gets Frustrated With Kagan: These Hearings Haven't Been Substantive (VIDEO)

The third day of Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings may have demonstrated that there are limits to her charm offensive, as Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) went to notable lengths to chastise the Supreme Court nominee for, as he put it, avoiding "substantive discussion."

The Pennsylvania Democrat, in what seems likely to be the last Supreme Court confirmation hearing of his Senate career, reached a point of clear frustration on Wednesday with Kagan's unwillingness to engage in detailed legal conversation.

"Well, Solicitor General Kagan, I think the commentaries in the media are accurate. We started off with a standard that you articulated at the University of Chicago Law School about substantive discussions," Specter said. "And they say we haven't had them here, and I'm inclined to agree with them. The question is where we go from here. You have followed the pattern, which has been in vogue since [Robert] Bork. And you quoted me in your law review article that someday the Senate would stand up on its hind legs. it would be my hope that we could find some place between voting no and having some sort of substantive answers. But I don't know that it would be useful to pursue these questions any further. But I think we are searching for a way how senators can succeed in getting substantive answers, as you advocated in the Chicago Law Review short of voting no."

WATCH:

Specter, who voted against the confirmation of Kagan to her current post of Solicitor General in part because she was not forthcoming in those hearings either, was not the only senator on the Judiciary Committee to complain that she was ducking questions. But he certainly complained louder than others.

Kagan, as he noted, had written at some length about the need to add meaningful exchanges to usually vapid Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Now that she is the one being grilled, her position has changed either out of expedience or because, as she claims, there are risks to having a potential justice weigh in on cases she may hear on the court.

Specter, as he himself noted, is partially to blame for this phenomenon. His vote against Bork helped derail that nomination. And ever since then Supreme Court nominees have studiously avoided offering unvarnished viewpoints during the hearings -- and they have yet to be punished for it.

Comments

[ReedYoung]

08:06 PM on 07/06/2010

Jesus Christ, Arlen, way to pick the low-hanging knuckle-dragging conservatards' fruit and totally chicken out of asking any important, ahem, SUBSTANTIVE questions about corporate personhood, the 14th Amendment, and whether human rights belong only to "natural persons" or "real persons," or my favorite, which I just learned recently, "mortal persons." One would think he's running for re-election, not primary loser. What a schmuck.

[Marty YeahWhatever]

02:53 PM on 07/03/2010

The way it ought to work perhaps is not only the Senate gets to grill them, but the house as well and then and only then if they do confirm them they then should have to face the electorate in a special vote of the citizenry if they're going to be on the SP for another 40-50 years and decide the law of the land for years to come.

[sulalives]

01:28 PM on 07/03/2010

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) just will not go with grace...the people are not foolish enough to beleive that Specter would forget the ways of the party of NO...Kagan is the best for the seat as far as I am concerned and the best for a nation striving toward perfection...Specter if he Specter would give a no vote for Kagan will be labled a man the revengeful and selfish and no concern for the nation of and for which he Specter stated care much about...history will not view this man's last days as a perfect and graceful and humble exit...

[dscottv]

01:17 PM on 07/03/2010

This is such a joke...we learn almost nothing from these ridiculous confirmation hearings and have to put up with all this bloated rhetorical grandstanding by these faithless dithering fools. Term limits...we need them.

[userw014]

12:57 PM on 07/03/2010

Poor lame duck turncoat got his tail in a knot.

[Marty YeahWhatever]

12:46 PM on 07/03/2010

Is it now a crime for a nominee to admit to being a progressive person? Is it now law that ONLY conservative, rubber stamping nominees get confirmed? You would certainly think that was the case if you didn't know better and the sad thing is most people don't know better.

[Marty YeahWhatever]

12:40 PM on 07/03/2010

It's nice to know Supreme Court nominees can tell jokes and get laughs, but the bottom line is these people anymore are merely rubber stamped by congress and presidents have the rare ability to place anyone they want in one of the cushious jobs of all time anywhere for life and never answer for it when that "judge" turns our way of life upside down with ridiculous rulings that a school boy wouldn't dare do. The 'judges' are there far after the presidents are gone and have the ability to play kings in a nation where the idea of a monarchy used to be reviled in the worse possible way. Now we allow a president to 'appoint" kings and queens.

[ScottNY]

12:15 PM on 07/03/2010

I'm sure she regrets saying what she said. It's easy to have an opinion on something when it's not your feet in the fire.

It's pretty sad that nominees have to pretend they have absolutely no opinions on anything. What has happened after the Bork nomination has been an over-reaction. Bork came across sounding a bit like Rand Paul does today. We deserve to know if we're placing someone on the court for a life time term with radical views like that.

[patches12]

10:20 AM on 07/03/2010

HE IS CORRECT.. 100%...

[jerryfromcalifornia]

09:54 AM on 07/03/2010

Spector, I saw you at the Thomas hearing......Where was your conscience then?
I'm glad that you'll be gone forever.

[Chuck Hannington]

04:20 AM on 07/02/2010

Supreme court confirmation hearings will remain spectacles in this lifetime and the next. It's like talking for hours without getting anywhere. When the hearings ended, i did not know Ms. Kagan any more than i Knew her before the hearings began.

[quadexpresso]

04:05 AM on 07/02/2010

so right wing nominees duck and dodge and wingnuts applaud...progressive nominees (kagan is mildly left leaning unlike alito and roberts who is bork-clones) dodge and wingnuts howl...what a country!

[SvrWx]

02:54 AM on 07/02/2010

Well, he is right. These hearings have been meaningless and nothing has been accomplished besides how well she can stonewall and what kind of meaningless questions our paid representatives can ask. Sickening.

[coldcanuckinwhite]

09:01 AM on 07/03/2010

Can you say theater?

[lodger16x]

01:31 AM on 07/02/2010

How often do senators give substantive answers? Specter couldn't even decide which party he's in , now he's yesterday's news.

[Sam Sedaei]

11:05 PM on 07/01/2010

No I think he is right. But I don't know what else he expected. She is a Harvard lawyer who has made it this close to success, and she isn't going to walk into the obvious traps that Senators try to put before her. Her answers have not been substantive because whenever nominees given substantive answers throughout history, they have paid the price.