[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 19, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3981-S3982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF ELENA KAGAN
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier today I announced that the Senate
Judiciary Committee will hold its confirmation hearing on the
nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be Associate Justice on
the U.S. Supreme Court beginning June 28.
I have reached out to Senator Sessions, the committee's ranking
Republican, to discuss the scheduling of this hearing, and we were
finally able to meet yesterday. We worked cooperatively to send a
bipartisan questionnaire to the nominee last week. We joined together
to send a letter yesterday to the Clinton Library asking for files from
Solicitor General Kagan's work in the White House during the Clinton
administration. I will continue to consult with Senator Sessions to
ensure that we hold a fair hearing.
This is a reasonable schedule that is in line with past practice. The
hearing on the nomination of Justice Kennedy was held just 33 days
after his designation. The hearing on the nomination of Justice
Ginsburg was held 36 days after her nomination. And the hearing on the
nomination of Justice Rehnquist to be Chief Justice was held 42 days
after his nomination. When John Roberts was first nominated to succeed
Justice O'Connor, I agreed with the Republican Chairman to proceed 49
days after his designation even though he had not yet even received his
answer to the committee's questionnaire. After Hurricane Katrina, the
death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and the withdrawal of that initial
nomination and his nomination, instead, to be Chief Justice, the
committee proceeded just days after his nomination and only 55 days
from his earlier designation. Of course, last year we proceeded with
the hearing on the nomination of Justice Sotomayor 48 days after she
was designated. Senate Republicans said that hearing was fair and was
conducted fairly. This year, I am scheduling the hearing to start 49
days after Elena Kagan's nomination.
There is no reason to unduly delay consideration of this year's
nomination. Justice Stevens announced on April 9 that he would be
leaving the Court. He wrote that he would resign effective the day
after the Supreme
[[Page S3982]]
Court concludes its summer session at the end of June. He noted that
``it would be in the best interests of the Court to have [his]
successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement
of the Court's next Term,'' and I wholeheartedly agree with Justice
Stevens. That is in the best interests of the Court and the country.
Since Justice Stevens' announcement in early April, there has been a
good deal of work done in preparation. The President announced his
choice a month later, on May 10. During that month, much was written
and said about the eventual nominee who was identified from the outset
as a leading candidate for nomination. When the President made it
official, Senate Republicans were quick to react. Indeed, one Senate
Republican announced on the very day that the President announced his
selection that the Senator opposed Solicitor General Kagan's nomination
and would be voting against confirmation. Extreme rightwing interest
groups and commentators have been savaging her since before the
nomination was announced, and that has not subsided. The misstatements
and harsh characterizations make proceeding sooner rather than later
all the more important. Solicitor General Kagan deserves the earliest
opportunity to respond to these attacks and to set the record straight.
The American people deserve a process that is fair and thorough but not
needlessly prolonged. In selecting this hearing date, I am trying to be
fair to all concerned.
I also want to conclude the process without unnecessary delay so that
Solicitor General Kagan might participate fully in the deliberations of
the Supreme Court in selecting cases and preparing for its new term. I
want to complete Senate consideration, as Justice Stevens suggested, so
that the new Justice is confirmed well in advance of the commencement
of the Supreme Court's next term, so that she may organize her
chambers, select her clerks, and fully participate in the work of the
Court.
This schedule is also in keeping with the time line Senator McConnell
recommended in 2005, when President Bush made his first nomination to
the Supreme Court and Senator McConnell, then the Republican whip and
now the Senate Republican leader, said that the Senate should consider
and confirm the President's Supreme Court nomination within 60 to 70
days. We worked hard to achieve that. The final Senate vote on Chief
Justice Roberts' nomination was 72 days after he was designated.
Justice Sotomayor was likewise confirmed 72 days after she was named.
Seventy-two days after the nomination of Elena Kagan will be July 21.
Unlike the late July nomination of John Roberts, this nomination by
President Obama was announced on May 10. Unlike the resignation of
Justice O'Connor, which was not announced until July, the retirement of
Justice Stevens was made official on April 9. So in this instance the
vacancy arose almost 3 months earlier than in 2005. After bipartisan
consultation, President Obama made his nomination more than 2 months
earlier than President Bush did in 2005.
One of the Republican criticisms of this nomination is that Solicitor
General Kagan has not been a judge and does not have years of opinions
to be considered. That should make Senators' preparation for the
hearing less labor intensive than that for Justice Sotomayor. In
addition, we thoroughly reviewed and considered her record just last
year when the Senate, by a bipartisan majority vote, confirmed her
nomination to serve as the Solicitor General of the United States,
often called the ``Tenth Justice.''
To delay the confirmation hearing until July, as some have suggested,
would mean extending the preparation time from 49 to 63 days. But
Republicans complain that there is less to review, nothing like the
thousands of opinions they complained about last year. Accordingly, we
could actually proceed more quickly to the hearing. This last weekend,
Republican Senators said that Solicitor General Kagan's answers at the
hearing were going to be the key. If that is true and they will
approach the hearing with open minds and listen to her answers to their
questions, we should not needlessly delay getting to those questions
and answers.
The hearing is the opportunity for all Senators on the Judiciary
Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, to ask questions, raise
concerns, and evaluate the nomination. It seems to me that Republican
Senators are ready to ask questions now. At last week's consideration
of the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit, much of the
discussion from Republican Senators seemed, instead, to be about the
Kagan nomination to the Supreme Court. The Republican Senators say that
they want to ask her about her actions as the dean of Harvard Law
School and about her judicial philosophy. It does not take 2 months to
prepare to ask those questions. They have already raised them. They
will surely be prepared to ask them by late June. This is a schedule
that I think is both fair and adequate--fair to the nominee and
adequate for us to prepare for the hearing and Senate consideration.
There is no reason to indulge in needless and unreasonable delay.
We already have received Solicitor General Kagan's response to the
committee's questionnaire. Senator Sessions and I have sent a letter to
the National Archives requesting documents related to Elena Kagan's
service in the Clinton administration and there should be no cause for
concerns that we will have these records before the committee in light
of the White House Counsel's request over the weekend for the release
of thousands of pages of records from that time. We will be prepared to
proceed to a hearing on June 28, almost 6 weeks from today.
The purpose of the hearing is to allow Senators to ask questions and
raise their concerns. It is also the time the American people can see
the nominee, consider her thoughtfulness, her temperament, and evaluate
her character. I am disappointed that some Republican Senators have
already declared that they will vote no on Solicitor General Kagan's
nomination and have made that announcement before giving the nominee a
fair chance to be heard. It is incumbent on us to allow the nominee an
opportunity to be considered fairly and allow her to respond to false
criticism of her record and her character. Those who are critical and
have doubts should support the promptest possibly hearing. That is
where questions can be asked and answered. That is why we hold
hearings.
President Obama handled the selection process with the care that the
American people expect and deserve and met with Senators from both
sides of the aisle. I suggested that he nominate someone outside the
judicial monastery, whose experiences were not limited to those in the
rarified air of the Federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court's
decisions have a fundamental impact on Americans' everyday lives. One
need look no further than the Lilly Ledbetter and Diana Levine cases to
understand how just one vote can determine the Court's decision and
impact the lives and freedoms of countless Americans. One need look no
further than the Citizens United decision to know that the decisions of
the Supreme Court can drown out the voices of individual Americans in
favor of wealthy corporate interests. I believe that Solicitor General
Kagan understands that our courthouse doors must remain open to hard-
working Americans.
President Obama is to be commended for having consulted with Senators
from both sides of the aisle. Now the Senate must fulfill its
responsibility. The nominee has returned the Judiciary Committee
questionnaire and will be completing her meetings with Senators on the
Judiciary Committee very soon. I hope that all Senators now will work
with me to move forward to consider this nomination in a fair and
timely manner.
____________________