« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Today in Washington – July 1, 2010

Republicans have thrown the towel in on the nomination of Elena Kagan to be Supreme Court justice.  Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) referred to her as “soon-to-be-justice Kagan.”  Kagan’s answers to questions were vague and non-responsive, yet many Republicans have given up.  Sadly, Senators seem to be prepared to add a justice to the Court who will fight for the next 40 years for progressive/liberal judicial activism.

The House will vote on an extension of unemployment and the War Supplemental.  The Senate is out of session until July 12th.  The Senate Judiciary Committee will wrap up work on the Kagan hearings with panels of witnesses testifying for and against the nomination.

One emerging controversy in the Kagan confirmation process is Kagan’s actions in dealing with an attempt by Congress to pass a ban on partial birth abortion during the Clinton Administration. 

The Associated Press reports:

On one controversial matter, Kagan defended her efforts as a domestic policy aide to Clinton to scale back a GOP-proposed ban on a procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion — something she called “an incredibly difficult issue.”  The former president, she said, “thought that this procedure should be banned in all cases except where the procedure was necessary to save the life or to prevent serious health consequences to the woman.”  Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, pressed Kagan about a note she wrote saying it would be “a disaster” if the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying there was no case in which the procedure was necessary, and about her intervention to prevent the group from doing so.  She responded that the disaster would have been if the organization’s statement didn’t reflect its full view that in some instances, the procedure was “medically best.”

National Review Online published a piece by Shannen W. Coffin discussed memos indicating that Kagan redrafted a document produced by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to provide a favorable finding for the proponents of abortion.  ACOG drafted a statement that Kagan did not think was helpful to the cause.

Upon receiving the task force’s draft statement, Kagan noted in another internal memorandum [PDF] that the draft ACOG formulation “would be a disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.” Any expression of doubt by a leading medical body about the efficacy of the procedure would severely undermine the case against the ban.

Kagan redrafted the statement and sent it back to the ACOG.  ACOG released the edited piece by Kaganand it became a centerpiece of the case against a ban on partial birth abortions.  This controversy will be brought up in Senate debate on Kagan’s nomination later this month.

COMMENTS

  • spepper

    remember Cornyn’s despotic attitude when he is up for election the next time–the Clinton operative Kagan is certainly “anti- 2nd Amendment” and “anti- everything” when it comes to individual liberty– how dare we slaves suggest that we have the RIGHT for self-protection? Oh no, we must all submit to the GOVERNMENT for that– which is just insane, of course– that’s why the “Framers” decided to organize and defend the populace against the very kind of goverment that Kagan fully supports (draconian, enslaving, FOREIGN)!

  • WarEagle01

    the day she was nominated. With so many Senate GOPers having a testicular deficit, there was no way they were going to stand up to our first female president. Some guys are just afraid of women.

  • mustango

    I may get heat for saying this, but…

    Suppose we do what is necessary to defeat the Kagan nomination. Then what?

    Do we really imagine that Obama will then put up someone remotely acceptable?

    How many nominations are we prepared to fight?

    Are we prepared to drag this out all the way until 2013 if necessary?

    And if we do, and let’s say we win the White House and a solid majority in Congress in 2013, how can we possibly expect any of our nominees to fare any better against a Democrat minority who if nothing else will have a massive appetite for payback?

    I know being an activist comes with it a natural disdain for such things as “practical considerations”, but someone please tell me, how do we ultimately win this fight?

    • soljerblue

      Assuming we could defeat the Kagan nomination — which, honestly, I doubt could happen with the number of Senate votes we have — the Senate would likely adjourn for the summer recess, Obama would have to think of another commie — er, candidate — sorry — that would give us a breather for the summer, at least. With the SCOTUS out of session until October, and the Congress facing an imminent midterm election in September, it might possibly delay the whole hearing/confirmation process well into the Court’s next term. As I see it, any delay in seating an Obama nominee would be a plus.

      Two points — (1) any gain in Senate numbers this fall gives us even more votes to slow or defeat an Obama nominee. And, (2), Democrats with a massive appetite for payback don’t really need any incentive to ‘go nuclear’ — so I don’t see as we have anything to lose.

  • gfwarhol

    is selling their soul far too cheaply, if the rumor is true!

  • http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

    Be it “the gang of fourteen” or plain laziness, this goes to show why a McConnell minority will remain a minority as long as the Kentucky senator remains at the helm, with John Kyl doing his gosh darn damnest as an able lieutenant.

    It’s like rewritting the Braveheart scene when the British finally attack those seeking liberty, except the leadership here mumbles “Hold… hold… HOLD!!, uh, never mind boys.”

    Ironic no. Alas on Independence Day weekend, another brick in the wall of the Gulf Spill within the GOP national party between conservatives and constitutionalists versus go-along elitists.

  • Pingback: BREAKING NEWS FROM GOOGLE !

  • Pingback: kizi