Re: Kagan’s Day

The White House sends over excerpts of her opening statement. Anticipating the standard Republican inquisition over “judicial activism” and “legislating from the bench,” Kagan’s remarks come off as a paean to rule of law, impartiality and proper deference to the legislative branch. From her prepared remarks (emphasis mine):

“Mr. Chairman, the law school I had the good fortune to lead has a kind of motto, spoken each year at graduation. We tell the new graduates that they are ready to enter a profession devoted to “those wise restraints that make us free.” That phrase has always captured for me the way law, and the rule of law, matters. What the rule of law does is nothing less than to secure for each of us what our Constitution calls “the blessings of liberty” – those rights and freedoms, that promise of equality, that have defined this nation since its founding. And what the Supreme Court does is to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint.

“The idea is engraved on the very face of the Supreme Court building: Equal Justice Under Law. It means that everyone who comes before the Court – regardless of wealth or power or station – receives the same process and the same protections. What this commands of judges is even-handedness and impartiality. What it promises is nothing less than a fair shake for every American.

“[T]he Supreme Court is a wondrous institution. But the time I spent in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one – properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives. What I most took away from those experiences was simple admiration for the democratic process. That process is often messy and frustrating, but the people of this country have great wisdom, and their representatives work hard to protect their interests. The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.”

“I’ve led a school whose faculty and students examine and discuss and debate every aspect of our law and legal system. And what I’ve learned most is that no one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom. I’ve learned that we make progress by listening to each other, across every apparent political or ideological divide. I’ve learned that we come closest to getting things right when we approach every person and every issue with an open mind. And I’ve learned the value of a habit that Justice Stevens wrote about more than fifty years ago – of ‘understanding before disagreeing.’

I will make no pledges this week other than this one – that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons. I will listen hard, to every party before the Court and to each of my colleagues. I will work hard. And I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle, and in accordance with law.”

Bears no resemblance to a “vapid and hollow charade,” right? Opening statements will be starting shortly are happening now on C-SPAN 3.

Related Topics: Republican Party, Senate, Supreme Court
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • 53_3

    Quite a beautiful, impassioned statement about what the Court is really about…

  • nflfoghorn

    …and PONers will still vote ‘no’ ’cause they don’t like her.

  • 53_3

    She isn’t ‘perky’…

  • newfreedomblog

    Though Kagan is more than likely a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I do not see where she will be stopped from gaining the votes necessary to become the 4th woman on the Supreme Court.
    .
    Perhaps she will become the Justice Souter for the Democrats. One can wish, anyways.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Did you say perky?
    .
    “We are a rule of laws, not a rule of presidential fiats that I think President Obama would rather have sometimes, it seems”
    .
    http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2010/06/stupid_palin_th_5.html

  • kevin

    Kagan deserves respect simply for not breaking out in laughter at the opening comments of Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions the Third (R-18th c.)

  • grape_crush

    Bears no resemblance to a “vapid and hollow charade,” right?

    Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

  • 53_3

    Well heck. She’s smart, intelligent, and good looking!
    .
    Ooops. My inner Rusty got loose…

  • 53_3

    Control?
    .
    Over.
    .
    Green and yellow stippled pigs flying WSW at 11,000 feet. Copy?
    .
    Roger that 419. Will intercept.

  • sevenoaks07

    The Senate Judiciary Committee has blended self-esteem, petulance and hypocrisy into a heady mix: for the self-important among the committee. Gasbags in action: giving off gas. The Specter did not disappont. I am always reminded that he was a prosecutor. I wonder whether Leahy will remind us of that during the next round.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Nice of Durbin to bring up Citizens United as an example of a “activist” court.
    .
    Pointing out that Roberts swore he would never engage in judicial activism.

  • nflfoghorn

    “That’s not true,” he mouthed.

  • kevin

    Don’t you get it? Roberts explained to us all that a justice simply has to act like an umpire calling strikes and balls, and as we all know, the Constitution clearly states that a multinational corporation has all the rights of a pitch thrown over the plate and between the CEO’s chest and knees.
    .
    It’s really simple to grasp, which is why simpletons seem to have embraced it so readily.

  • Paul-no not that one

    I’m only listening to catch the junior Senator from Minnesota.
    .

  • nflfoghorn

    I think the neocon justices have all the credibility of a WWE ref. Or a FIFA ref for that matter.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Franken didn’t disappoint.

  • artraveler

    Sessions is still mad that he didn’t get on the Court.

blog comments powered by Disqus