[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 93 (Monday, June 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Page S5171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF ELENA KAGAN

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on the nomination 
of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, this vacancy is 
being left by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.
  The President has the constitutional prerogative to nominate 
whosoever he chooses, but it is important to recognize the Constitution 
does not stop there. It also provides a second constitutional 
obligation or responsibility, in this case upon the Senate, when it 
comes to the duty of advice and consent.
  We know there are only nine Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court and 
that each has that job for life. It goes without saying--or it should, 
I would add--that the process in the Senate must be fair and dignified. 
I wish I could tell you it has always been that way, but I believe the 
confirmation process of Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court was 
conducted in that way, and I certainly believe so will this 
confirmation process as well. But in addition to being fair and 
dignified, it must also be careful, thorough, and comprehensive.
  Our job is particularly difficult because of the fact that Solicitor 
General Kagan has never been a judge. She is a blank slate in that 
regard. We do not have any prior opinions to study. While that is not 
unprecedented, it is somewhat unusual for someone to come to the U.S. 
Supreme Court without ever having served as a judge. In addition, we 
know General Kagan has practiced law only very briefly. She was an 
entry level lawyer in a Washington law firm for about 2 years and then, 
of course, last year she was chosen by the President to be Solicitor 
General at the Justice Department. But that brief experience tells us 
virtually nothing about how she would approach cases as a member of the 
U.S. Supreme Court.

  What we do know about Elena Kagan begins, and largely ends, with her 
resume. We know the jobs she has held. We know the positions she has 
occupied and the employers she has chosen to work for. A review of her 
resume shows us two things. First, Ms. Kagan is very smart. Her 
academic records are impressive. Second, we know Ms. Kagan has been a 
political strategist for a quarter of a century, but she has never been 
a judge. We know she has served extensively and repeatedly as a 
political operative, adviser, and a policymaker--quite a different job 
than that she would assume should she be confirmed.
  We know General Kagan's political causes date back to at least 
college, when she volunteered to help a Senate candidate in her native 
State of New York.
  We know that after law school, she worked for two of the most 
activist Federal judges in the 20th century, Abner Mikva and Thurgood 
Marshall. Justice Marshall often described his judicial philosophy as 
``do what you think is right.'' I wish he had mentioned something about 
applying the law, but he said to do whatever you think is right. Elena 
Kagan has called Justice Marshall her judicial hero.
  We know that Solicitor General Kagan volunteered for a time in the 
Michael Dukakis campaign for President in 1988, where she did 
opposition research.
  We know that a few years later, Ms. Kagan advised then-Senator Joe 
Biden during the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
  We know General Kagan gave up her teaching job to work at the Clinton 
White House where she was a leading policy adviser on many of the hot 
button issues of the day. She was a deputy assistant to the President 
on domestic policy. She was a deputy director of the Domestic Policy 
Council. During that time, she was a leading policy adviser on a number 
of controversial issues regarding abortion, gun rights, and affirmative 
action.
  After she left the Clinton White House, Ms. Kagan's political skills 
helped her become dean of the Harvard Law School and, by all accounts, 
she was successful in that job as an administrator and as a fundraiser. 
The one clear legal position she took as dean was her position against 
military recruiters that the Supreme Court rejected 9 to 0.
  Solicitor General Kagan returned to government a year ago when she 
became Solicitor General following the election of her friend Barack 
Obama.
  Ms. Kagan's resume shows that she is very comfortable in the world of 
politics and political campaigns. She has worked hard as a policy and 
political strategist in some very intense political environments. As a 
policy and political adviser, her record indicates she has been 
successful.
  The question raised by this nomination, though, is whether Elena 
Kagan can step outside of her past role as political adviser and policy 
strategist in order to become a Federal judge. I have had the honor of 
being a State court judge and I know firsthand that being a judge is 
much different from being a political strategist. The job of a 
political strategist is to help enact policies. The job of a judge is 
to apply the law wherever it takes them.
  The goal of a political adviser is to try to win for your team. On 
the other hand, a good judge doesn't root for or fight for a team but, 
rather, is impartial or, as sometimes stated, is disinterested in 
results, in winners and in losers.
  The important question is whether Solicitor General Kagan can and 
will set aside her considerable skills as a political adviser to take 
on a very different job as a neutral judge. Will she apply the law 
fairly, regardless of the politics involved? Will Solicitor General 
Kagan appreciate the traditionally narrow role of a judge who must 
apply the law rather than the activist role of a judge who thinks it is 
proper to make up the law? Can she make the transition from political 
strategist to judge?
  The hearings on Ms. Kagan's nomination are 1 week from today. I hope 
the hearings will be a substantive and meaningful opportunity for Elena 
Kagan to explain how she plans to make that shift from political 
strategist to judge. Because she has never been a judge, the hearings 
will be a chance to learn about what she expects her judicial 
philosophy and approach will be.
  Every candidate for the Supreme Court has the burden of proof to show 
they are qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Most nominees have a 
much longer record, including a record of judicial service, which could 
help satisfy that burden of proof, but not so in Ms. Kagan's case. 
Given Ms. Kagan's sparse record, however, the hearings themselves must 
be particularly substantive.
  In 1995, then-Professor Kagan gave advice in a Law Review article to 
the U.S. Senate on how to scrutinize a Supreme Court nominee. She wrote 
that the ``critical inquiry'' must be ``the perspective [the nominee] 
would add'' and ``the direction in which she would move the 
institution.''
  I agree. Given Solicitor General Kagan's sparse record and her lack 
of judicial experience, it is important that the hearings be an 
opportunity to fill in the blank slate that is Elena Kagan.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________