Kagan Grilled On Blocking Military Recruiters & DADT

Republican Senators Bring Up Kagan's Record On Blocking Military Recruiters


Senate Republicans and Solicitor General Elena Kagan are facing off over whether her objection to the military's ban on openly gay soldiers and her decision to restrict recruiters at Harvard Law School disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court.

Just minutes into Kagan's confirmation hearing Monday, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions charged she had "kicked the military out of the recruiting office" at Harvard, "in violation of federal law."

"Her actions punished the military and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting two wars overseas," Sessions said. "I can't take this issue lightly."

The recruitment matter is one of the few points on her resume that Republicans have been able to use against her. Her policies and writings on the issue call up broader themes of patriotism and equal rights, both emotional topics at a time when the nation is at war and both parties are gearing up for the midterm elections. In some measure, the November balloting will be a referendum on her patron, President Barack Obama.

At the very heart of Kagan's decision at Harvard is an even more sensitive topic — her opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on openly gay soldiers.

Republicans contend that Harvard was the wrong venue for Kagan's "personal political grievance" and that briefly restricting the recruiters on campus broke the law. They conclude with questions about whether Kagan is anti-military and unfit to make impartial decisions on the high court.

Republicans have a tough case to make.


Sources: CNN, Yahoo News, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Won't Rule Out SCOTUS Nominee Filibuster

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans Cautious On U.S. Supreme Court Filibuster But Won't Rule It Out


With no SCOTUS nominee to scrutinize, Republicans were on the defensive Sunday over the possible use of a filibuster against President Barack Obama’s upcoming Supreme Court pick – saying they wouldn’t go nuclear unless they really, really had to.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, didn't rule out using the filibuster during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press," saying he would require Democrats to muster 60 votes only if the White House tapped someone like Goodwin Liu, a liberal nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Will there be "a big fight?" host David Gregory asked?

"The answer to that is in the president's hands," said Sessions. "If we have a nominee that evidences a philosophy of judges know best... then we are going to have a big fight about that because the American people don't want that."

Sessions added that "every power should be utilized to protect the Constitution" if Obama chose a nominee "outside the mainstream."

Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), who laid down a marker on Friday for a quick nomination and confirmation, kept his foot on the accelerator, telling Gregory he wanted "a nomination very soon so we can wrap it up this summer."

Other Republicans kept open the possibility of a filibuster, but played down the likelihood the White House would actually nominate anyone so objectionable to conservatives.

Obama’s aides have narrowed their short list down to about ten names. None of the names known to be under consideration appear to be as controversial as Liu – and an administration official told POLITICO on Friday that the goal was to tap someone who was “confirmable.”

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a key conservative on the committee, said the four most mentioned potential Obama seemed acceptable on the surface and wouldn't likely be filibustered.

Jake Tapper, host of ABC’s "This Week," asked Kyl what he thought of potential nominees Elena Kagan, Diane Wood, Merrick Garland and Janet Napolitano, who have all been listed in press accounts as potential successors to Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his retirement on Friday.

"They are all nominally qualified," said Kyl, who voted against Sonia Sotomayor for the high court last year.





"The question, I think, to present is, 'Do candidates like this approach judging on the basis of each case presenting its unique facts of law... rather than with a judge coming to the bench with an ideological position?' ‘’

"It is unlikely that there will be a filibuster unless it’s an extraordinary circumstance," Kyl said, adding that "President Obama himself attempted to filibuster Justice [Samuel] Alito."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), appearing with Kyl, said he was sure Obama would pick someone in the "mainstream" – dismissing the likelihood of a filibuster as “tiny” -- but emphasized the need to counterbalance an increasingly conservative high court.

Schumer, who opposed the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, suggested Roberts misled senators by claiming he would respect existing precedent.

"In my view at least, Justice Roberts has tried to move the court very far to the right, much farther than we envisioned," said Schumer, adding that Stevens, who dissented bitterly in several recent cases, agreed.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, speaking earlier on CNN, predicted that Obama would pick a "liberal" and suggested a nomination fight could energize the party’s conservative base.

A few minutes into a discussion about the court pick, "Meet the Press" host Gregory made a startling admission.

Garland, a federal judge reportedly being considered by Obama, performed the wedding ceremony for Gregory and wife Beth Wilkinson, a prominent corporate lawyer who once worked as a prosecutor under Garland’s supervision.

Wilkinson, Gregory said during his questioning of Sessions, "worked for [Garland] at the Justice Department. He also performed our wedding ceremony."

Wilkinson became an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 1991, serving under Garland as part of the team that prosecuted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. She later served as Fannie Mae's executive vice president and is now a white collar criminal defense attorney in the Washington office of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.


Sources: Politico, Meet The Press, MSNBC

Repealing The Health Care Insurance Anti-Trust Exemption...Hooray!

(Senator Patrick Leahy wants to repeal the Health Care Insurance Anti-Trust Exemption. Thank God!)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Pushing for the Public Option)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Think Progress, Wikipedia, Google Maps

Sen. Leahy Tells G.O.P. "Stop The Racial Politics"!

Huffington Post----

The two top officials on the Senate Judiciary Committee left niceties at the door when they held a joint appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday.

Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) accused the Republican Party of playing "Racial Politics" with the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, even declaring that the leaders of the GOP had called her a "bigot" and the "head of the KKK."

"I have no idea how many [Republican votes] she'll get in committee or on the floor," said Leahy. "But she will have Republican votes... She deserves it. Now, I understand [Sen.] Mitch McConnell and I've worked with Sen. McConnell on different things. But like the other leaders of the Republican Party, he came out very, very early against her and he doesn't want to change his mind.

You had one leader of the Republican Party call her the equivalent of the head of the Ku Klux Klan. Another leader of the Republican Party called her a bigot. To Sen. McConnell's credit, he has not used those things, but the leadership of the Republican Party came out against her long before we ever had the hearing, long before they had a chance to look at her record. I think that's unfair."

"I hope we don't go back to the day when we used to put African Americans up for confirmation and say yes, but you belong to the NAACP so we're really suspicious of you," Leahy added later, refering to Republican concerns about Sotomayor's involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. "Come on, stop the racial politics," he said.

Leahy later explained that he was referring to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich when he accused the GOP of labeling Sotomayor a bigot.

It was a fiery segment, during which Leahy talked over the protests of his colleague Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the committee's ranking Republican member. When the Alabama Republican finally got the chance to speak, he pleaded that Leahy had greatly distorted the tone and tenor of the hearings.

"Pat, I want to correct something," Sessions said. "No Republican leader said she was a bigot. You've overstated that. There's nothing wrong with us asking about her personal views about positions, legal positions that she took as a member of any organization. That's a normal thing to do. And I don't think that was unfair. She said that she thought she was fairly treated.

Other commentators, objective leaders, civil rights leaders have said that. We gave our absolute best to make sure this was a fair hearing, but it had to be vigorous. We had to ask about things that people cared about, her speeches, her prior pleadings that she did and some of her decisions, which are troubling. But Pat, you gave us a fair hearing. I appreciate that. A lot of people felt we were pretty tight on time, but you -- when the hearing came up, we had an opportunity. And I appreciate that."

Sources: Huffington Post, MSNBC, Reuters

Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearings To Begin In July....Early Start Angers G.O.P.

Politico----

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy’s move to set a July 13 start date for Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination hearings has infuriated Republicans, who are threatening to slow walk every step of the confirmation so they can have more time to dig through her judicial and personal history.

The aggressive scheduling move — carried out without informing Republicans on the Judiciary Committee — threatens to harm the decent rapport the panel has had since Sotomayor’s nomination last month. Some Republicans, like Tom Coburn of Oklahoma have already threatened to boycott the confirmation hearings.

"I don't think it’s a good way to begin the proceedings,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who added that he was “surprised” by Leahy’s move. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) both took to the Senate floor to criticize the hearing schedule.

But on Tuesday, Leahy indicated he was tired of Republican attacks on Sotomayor, arguing that it took John Roberts only 72 days to be confirmed from the time he was nominated and that Sotomayor’s confirmation is on a similar timeline.

“There is no reason to unduly delay consideration of this well-qualified nominee,” Leahy said. “Indeed, given the attacks on her character, there are compelling reasons to proceed even ahead of this schedule. She deserves the earliest opportunity to respond to those attacks.”

Leahy told POLITICO he had a “long talk with the president” — who, Leahy said, is supportive of the hearing schedule.

“I want to be fair to the nominee and allow her the earliest possible opportunity to respond to the attacks made about her character,” Leahy explained. “It is not fair for her critics to be calling her racist without allowing her the opportunity to respond.”

Several Republicans said they were upset with Leahy for scheduling the hearing without much GOP input and indicated they may use delay tactics in committee and on the floor to give themselves more time.

“I’m not sure we’ll be ready,” said Coburn, who sits on the Judiciary Committee. “If I’m ready to attend, I will attend. If I’m not, I won’t.”

Asked if he’d skip the hearing if he felt rushed, Coburn said: “I’m certainly not going to ask questions if I’m not prepared.”

“This seems like a unilateral and political decision by Leahy and Senate Democrats,” said one Republican Senate aide, adding: “[Leahy] knows that the longer this nomination sits, the public support for her will begin to dwindle.”

Republicans argue that they would need to read 76 cases a day to get prepared for the hearings.

“She has 10 times as many decisions as Roberts did,” said Kyl, who is also on the Judiciary Committee.” “It takes a long time to go through that material. We’ll simply have to wait and see how that review goes. I’ve checked, and it’s not going really fast. It’s hard to do.”

But Leahy pushed aside concerns about workload, saying that members have staffs for a good reason.

“If we can’t get that done, shame on us,” he retorted.

And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that if Sotomayor’s nomination is stalled until after the August recess, it would be the longest period of time a Supreme Court nominee would have to wait for hearings to start.

“There’s no reason this can’t be done,” Reid told reporters. “If [Republicans] want to take more time than has ever been taken in the history of this country, then something is wrong.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, upped the Democratic offensive, saying Sotomayor shouldn’t be treated any differently than Roberts or Samuel Alito in terms of scheduling.

“Unlike the case for Justice Roberts or Justice Alito, her entire record is already publicly available and is hardly inscrutable. There is no need to insist that her confirmation process take any longer than theirs did,” Schumer said.

At the very least, Leahy’s decision irked Sessions, who complained that Leahy did not talk to him about the scheduling before announcing the July 13 date. The two men met to discuss timing last week.

“I’m really a bit surprised,” Sessions said. “I don’t think our side has the time to do this right. ... That’s a rushed time frame, and I don’t think that’s necessary. I have serious doubts about [the time frame], but we’re going to be working on it.”

Whatever the case, Leahy appears unwilling to budge on the July 13 date.

Asked if the date was set in stone, Leahy responded: “Yes.”

Meanwhile, Sotomayor continued to make the rounds in the Senate, and on Tuesday, Florida Republican Mel Martinez stopped just short of pledging his support after a closed-door meeting with her, but he made little secret that he was leaning in that direction.

“I am going to withhold any judgment about her nomination until after the Judiciary Committee hearings,” Martinez told reporters today, then added: “I am very, very impressed with her — not only her personal qualities but also her qualities as a judge.”

Sources: Politico, Flickr, Wikipedia

Sotomayor Explains "Wise Latina" Remarks, Gains Support From Leahy and Sessions

Politico--

Senate Democrats turned the usually staid meet and greet for President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee into a full blown PR offensive Tuesday, defending Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record while offering her first public defense of her controversial comments about race.


Democrats are also pushing an accelerated timetable for her confirmation, and are trying to lay the groundwork for a vote before the long August recess, despite Republican complaints that such a schedule wouldn’t give them enough time to scour Sotomayor’s judicial record. Democrats may lay out a hearing schedule before the end of the week, Senate sources said.

The Democratic push – coming as Sotomayor had a whirlwind day of visits with 10 senators – is aimed at building momentum for her nomination, while pressuring Republicans not to slow or block her path to the Supreme Court.


Sotomayor told several Democratic senators, in private meetings in the Capitol, that her comment that a “wise Latina woman” could render a better judgment than a white male judge was part of a much broader speech and that ultimately she was committed to following the rule of law above anything else.


In defusing the controversy over the “wise Latina” comment, Democrats sought to put the spotlight back on Sotomayor’s extensive legal career, assure the public she was committed to following the law and is not an activist judge.


Typically senators are largely mum about their private conversations with high-profile nominees. But Democratic senators, after watching Sotomayor get ripped for the past week by conservative commentators, chose to reveal much more of their conversations from Tuesday’s closed door meetings.

“What she said was of course one’s life experience shapes who you are,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who Sotomayor cleared to give her first public response on the controversy. “But ultimately and completely … as a judge you follow the law.”


But Sotomayor did not concede that she used a “poor” choice of words, as Obama himself suggested Friday even as he said that her statements had been taken out of context.


Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, said she didn’t acknowledge using a poor choice of words but put in a context for him to understand better. She told him: “’basically it means that’s part of my life experience that I bring to my judgment.’ She said, ‘Maybe it means with this background I’m a better listener, I listen for better things. But ultimately, it’s not going to decide any case for me.’”

“What Judge Sotomayor was saying was, ‘this is part of who I am. … This will be one of the things that I use to understand the people who come before – the cases that come before – but she said in the end that it’s the law that will decide.”

And another Judiciary Committee member, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who lunched with the nominee along with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), said Sotomayor pointed out that her comments in the speech where she made this remark also referenced the fact that Brown v. Board of Education was decided by nine white males, and she argued that her speech should be considered in its broader context.

In her 2001 speech, Sotomayor also explained that the experiences of white men affect how they render their law and that she has worked to overcome personal biases and assumptions to issue fair rulings.

Durbin said Sotomayor told her that her “judgment is not to be trumped by gender and race.”

While Democrats seemed willing to repeat the highlights of their conversation with Sotomayor as part of the PR offensive, Republican senators withheld judgment and offered skeptical questions over her approach to the law.


Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he was "very impressed" with her knowledge, experience and energy level. But he added that questions remain about her approach she would take to the law – even as she told him she “ultimately and completely” would follow the law.

“Some of the writings she has made, some of the speeches that she has made are troubling,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee who also met with the nominee Tuesday. “They’d be troubling to anybody who is fair.”


“I think we need to hold our fire until we examine all of these opinions and writings,” said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who sits on the Judiciary Committee. “I think what this could boil down to -- and we'll have to examine very carefully all of the evidence -- is what this judge's view of judging is. Is it the same as the president's, which I reject, or is it more in common with what past judges and justices have done in deciding the cases on the merits rather their own feelings?”

Escorted by a handful of aides, Sotomayor was armed with talking points for her Senate visits, including telling several of them that the law was “ultimately and completely” the guiding force in how she makes decisions from the bench – even if her background helps guide how she comes to a decision.

Leahy and Sessions are planning to hold a critical meeting Wednesday morning to discuss timing on considering the nominee.


Leahy said Tuesday that Sotomayor has been the subject of “vicious” attacks – including one by Tom Tancredo likening her involvement with La Raza to that of the Ku Klux Klan and Rush Limbaugh calling her a “racist” – and he wants her to come before the committee as early as July. He said it would be “irresponsible” to wait until September to hold hearings since she would not be able to respond to the attacks, but Sessions disagreed.


“I don't think it will be irresponsible,” Sessions responded. “I hope the chairman will keep an open mind on this.”

If no deal is reached, Democrats expect an announcement on the hearing schedule to be issued in the coming days, with July a likely target, sources said.

"It will not be a fair process if they do that," Hatch said, adding that "some might" vote against her if that happened.

“I know how difficult it is for somebody who is nominated, they can’t answer charges, they can’t speak out when they’re a nominee,” Leahy said.

Sources: Politico, Day Life

Senators Leahy & Sessions Reject G.O.P. Sotomayor "Reverse Racist" Claims.... Baloney!

This morning on Meet the Press David Gregory interviewed both Senator Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Sessions (R-AL), asking to give their perspective on Judge Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" remarks.

Check out how they both responded. Their statements especially Senator Sessions' comments, may in fact surprise you.

David Gregory (Meet the Press): "Calling her a Racist; Reverse Racist. Do you think that's appropriate? Do you that's fair? Do you think she's a Racist? Do you think Conservatives should stop using those words (Reverse Racist; Racist)?"

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL): "I read her speech. I'm troubled by her speech. I would not use such loaded words (Racist; Reverse Racist). They would not be words I would use. I don't think that, that's an appropriate description of her (Sotomayor). I would prefer that they (Conservatives) not. We should not demagogue race. Its an important issue in our country. We need to handle it with the respect and care it deserves."


David Gregory: "Are you troubled by her (Sotomayor's) remarks?"

Senator Leahy (D-VT): "We'll have to talk to her about her remarks and we will during the hearing. I totally reject those kind of claims made by leaders of the Republican Party like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. To call her or equate her with the head of the KKK or call her a Bigot. This is Baloney!"

"Nothing in her background would indicate that she is a bigot or equivalent to the KKK or anything else."

"This is a woman who has a compelling story."

"It is about qualifications."

"It would be ridiculous to think that someone's life experience would not affect them."


(Senator Sessions explains why he would not label Judge Sotomayor as a Reverse Racist or Racist.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Senator Leahy calls use of the word "Racist" when describing Judge Sotomayor Baloney!)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sources: Meet the Press, MSNBC, Day Life, Wikipedia