Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senior Republican Wins Weeklong Delay on Kagan
newsmax.com ^ | July 13, 2010

Posted on 07/13/2010 1:17:33 PM PDT by bjorn14

The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed scheduled action Tuesday to send Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate for confirmation, setting a panel vote for next week.

Republicans insisted on the delay, saying they needed more time to review Kagan's written answers to questions they posed to her after her confirmation hearings, and to inquire still further into how she would behave as a justice.

There's little doubt that the Judiciary panel, where Democrats have a lopsided majority, will approve President Barack Obama's nominee to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, and that she'll win Senate confirmation within weeks. Democrats have more than enough votes to elevate her, and a handful of Republicans is likely to join them.

But most GOP senators are expected to vote "no," and Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, strongly suggested he'll be one of them.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: alabama; elenakagan; kagan

1 posted on 07/13/2010 1:17:38 PM PDT by bjorn14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bjorn14

Anything but a filibuster is a “yes” vote.


2 posted on 07/13/2010 1:20:48 PM PDT by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14

I dunno, sounds a little like they’re waiting for some info.


3 posted on 07/13/2010 1:21:25 PM PDT by jagusafr ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14


4 posted on 07/13/2010 1:23:40 PM PDT by SloopJohnB (OBAMA: President-for-Life of the Peoples Republic of Himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

Or, negotiating to sell their votes.


5 posted on 07/13/2010 1:25:41 PM PDT by donna (The fruits of Feminism: Angry fathers, bitter mothers, fat kids and political correctness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14

She isnt qualified to visit the Supreme Court as a tourist, much less a Judge.


6 posted on 07/13/2010 1:39:43 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donna

Perhaps it’s a little payback for the recess appointment that everyone finds so disgusting.


7 posted on 07/13/2010 1:47:55 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lodi90
Anything but a filibuster is a “yes” vote.

Ordinarily I don't always subscribe to this kind of thinking, but I'm with you on this. This is a necessary time for party discipline to preserve the Constitution of the United States and its correct interpretation.

8 posted on 07/13/2010 1:49:13 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (No apologies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14; STARWISE; Liz; maggief; onyx; SE Mom; nutmeg; kristinn

What’s going on? Is there something in the air that we haven’t heard yet?


9 posted on 07/13/2010 1:50:37 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=30118

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the panel, said the move is a protest against her record on military recruiting while serving as Harvard law school dean, her lack of judicial experience and her work on a partial-birth-abortion memo as a mid-level aide at the Clinton White House.

“There are concerns about the nomination in a host of different areas,” Sessions said. “The nominee lacks the experience and intellectual rigor of practicing law and serving as a judge … and I think it showed in her testimony. She also lacked the clarity and strict intellectual honesty that I think we should look for in a nomination to the Supreme Court.”

Senate Judiciary Committee rules allow any senator to delay action on a bill or nomination until the next meeting or for one week, whichever is later.

“At the request of any member, or by action of the Chairman, a bill, matter, or nomination on the agenda of the Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later,” the committee rules state.


10 posted on 07/13/2010 1:55:21 PM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

That goes for every Obama crap that passes the senate.
If you didn’t vote for the filibuster you voted FOR it even if you vote against final passage.

No excuses allowed come November.


11 posted on 07/13/2010 2:10:01 PM PDT by Happy Rain ("Liberals frolic at ersatz enlightenment because conservatives keep the savages from the door.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14

While I think this is just putting off the inevitable, given
the arm-twisting that will be going on, I credit Sen. Sessions
with balls to even try.I would love to see Kagan rejected, but
that would require more than one brave soul!


12 posted on 07/13/2010 2:18:51 PM PDT by LUV W (DIMs?......start packin'--you're fired!....I can see November from my house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14

Isn’t this woman even less qualified than Harriet Myers? Where is the outrage about a non-jurist being nominated?


13 posted on 07/13/2010 2:20:57 PM PDT by woweeitsme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
Absolutely!
14 posted on 07/13/2010 2:23:59 PM PDT by ishabibble (ALL-AMERICAN INFIDEL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: maggief; hoosiermama

maggief comes through for us!

Is a week enough time for just one to grow a spine to mount a filibuster that all will back?


15 posted on 07/13/2010 2:28:52 PM PDT by onyx (Sarah/Michele 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: onyx; maggief

Is a week enough time to find a “smoking gun”?


16 posted on 07/13/2010 2:46:59 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; maggief

Absolutely. She’s a communist, red diaper baby. Isn’t *that* enough?


17 posted on 07/13/2010 2:51:14 PM PDT by onyx (Sarah/Michele 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: onyx
At the request of any member, or by action of the Chairman, a bill, matter, or nomination on the agenda of the Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later,” the committee rules state.

How many members do we have on committee?

18 posted on 07/13/2010 2:52:37 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Irish Eyes

Well then lets hold over her nomination one week at a time until November!


19 posted on 07/13/2010 2:57:28 PM PDT by Flint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; onyx; penelopesire; Liz; STARWISE; bjorn14; SE Mom; nutmeg; kristinn

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38048

Senate Judiciary GOPers Want Kagan Answers on Obamacare Recusal
by Connie Hair
07/13/2010

(snip)

Dear Solicitor General Kagan:

Thank you for the answers you provided in response to the written questions submitted following your confirmation hearing. Although your answers have been helpful, there are some responses that need clarification in order for the Committee to have the information it needs to thoroughly review your record. Notably, we are concerned about the standard you would use to decide whether to recuse yourself from litigation you participated in as Solicitor General. In particular, we are concerned about litigation that was clearly anticipated, but had not yet to reached the point where your approval was sought for filings or pleadings.

In response to Senator Sessions’ Question 1(b)(i), you stated: “I would recuse myself from any case in which I approved or denied a recommendation for action in the lower courts. This category would include cases in which I authorized an appeal, intervention, or the filing of an amicus brief. It would also include cases in which I denied leave to intervene or file an amicus brief.” You also stated: “I would also recuse myself from any cases in which I did not take such official action but participated in formulating the government’s litigating position or reviewed a draft pleading. In all other circumstances, I would consider recusal on a case-by-case basis.”

In response to a question from Senator Coburn at your hearing, you indicated that you had not been asked to express an opinion on the “merits” of the health care bill (Pub. L. No. 111-148) in your role as Solicitor General. Numerous state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit challenging, amongst other things, the constitutionality of the health care bill. See State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010). Please answer the following:

1. Were you ever present at a meeting in which State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010) was discussed?

2. Have you ever been asked your opinion regarding the merits of or the underlying legal issues in State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010)?

3. Have you ever been asked your opinion regarding any other legal issues that may arise from Pub. L. No. 111-148?

4. Have you ever offered any views or comments regarding either the merits of State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010) or the strategy that the United States government should employ in defending Pub. L. No. 111-148?

5. Have you read, seen or reviewed any of the papers filed by the United States in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010), and, if so, before or after filing? Have you read, seen or reviewed any internal documents or memoranda discussing the case?

6. Were any documents filed in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010) while you were performing as Solicitor General?

7. Have you ever approved any document (either for filing with the court or for internal Administration use or distribution) with respect to Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Filed Mar. 23, 2010)?

8. Have you ever been asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?

9. Have you ever offered any views or comments regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?

10. If your answer is “yes” to any of questions (1) to (9) or you were otherwise consulted regarding Pub. L. No. 111-148, will you recuse yourself from any related case, should you be confirmed?

11. If you answered “yes” to any of questions (1) to (9), and yet will not recuse yourself from any case related to Pub. L. No. 111-148, please explain why you refuse to, in the words of Justice Marshall, “quell any appearance of impropriety” that may result from your participation in such a case.

12. What date did you cease performing responsibilities of the Solicitor General?

13. What duties are you now performing as Solicitor General?

We very much appreciated your prompt response to our initial questions for the record and look forward to your answers to the foregoing questions. Your answers to our questions are essential to the Committee’s process of thoroughly reviewing your record prior to making our recommendation to the full Senate on your nomination.

Sincerely,

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member
Sen. Orrin Hatch
Sen. Chuck Grassley
Sen. Jon Kyl
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Sen. John Cornyn
Sen. Tom Coburn


20 posted on 07/13/2010 2:59:55 PM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: maggief; hoosiermama

WHOA BOY! “CAL” IS DOING SOON GOOD WRITING!


21 posted on 07/13/2010 3:03:51 PM PDT by onyx (Sarah/Michele 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: maggief; hoosiermama

Did I blow that post or what? LOL.
CAL is doing some good journalism.


22 posted on 07/13/2010 3:05:09 PM PDT by onyx (Sarah/Michele 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Irish Eyes

On our side, there’s

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member
Sen. Orrin Hatch
Sen. Chuck Grassley
Sen. Jon Kyl
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Sen. John Cornyn
Sen. Tom Coburn


23 posted on 07/13/2010 3:06:58 PM PDT by onyx (Sarah/Michele 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Irish Eyes

Lindsey Gramham is supposed to be on our side, so he’s listed on our side.

I’m sure you get my point. :)


24 posted on 07/13/2010 3:08:22 PM PDT by onyx (Sarah/Michele 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: onyx

;) Yup


25 posted on 07/13/2010 3:26:43 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: onyx

On our side, there’s

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member
Sen. Orrin Hatch
Sen. Chuck Grassley
Sen. Jon Kyl
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Sen. John Cornyn
Sen. Tom Coburn

******************
We can maybe count on two or maybe three of them besides Sessions


26 posted on 07/13/2010 3:29:32 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: maggief; onyx; hoosiermama

That is a great letter. They have her boxed in. She can’t answer no to any of those questions because she has been intimately involved in the health care bill and everybody knows it. I wish they would fillibuster her nomination until November.


27 posted on 07/13/2010 3:42:40 PM PDT by penelopesire ("Did you plug the hole yet daddy?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dandiegirl

I’m saying that Republicans could be selling their votes to Obama.


28 posted on 07/13/2010 3:49:59 PM PDT by donna (The fruits of Feminism: Angry fathers, bitter mothers, fat kids and political correctness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14; green pastures

I don’t believe the “on our side” list. And Sessions can only “strongly suggest”?? Do ANY of the Reps have a backbone? Couldn’t the top one on the Judiciary Committee call a press conference and tell the people his vote is “Hell, no” and why? Are Reps even allowed to have press conferences? Are they allowed to talk to the press? While they still are, they better make use of it. Or the day is coming................


29 posted on 07/13/2010 5:09:01 PM PDT by CatDancer (I want to call Sarah Palin "Madame President". And I'm old. So hurry up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

WAKE UP AMERICA!


I AGREE WITH THAT2

30 posted on 07/13/2010 5:24:37 PM PDT by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SloopJohnB

Wow. That’s some tombstone.


31 posted on 07/13/2010 5:41:07 PM PDT by American Quilter (Obama hates FreeRepublic--annoy him by donating today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Not in this day and age.


32 posted on 07/13/2010 6:42:05 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: maggief

BINGO...Got her cornered!


33 posted on 07/13/2010 6:42:54 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: maggief; All; onyx; Irish Eyes
...Judiciary Committee rules allow any senator to delay action on a bill or nomination until the next meeting or for one week, whichever is later.

Dad asks if each and every senator can request the one week delay or just those on the committee.....;~)

34 posted on 07/13/2010 6:48:22 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/committee-rules.cfm

Rules of Procedure United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

155 Cong. Rec. S2550 (daily ed. Feb. 26, 2009)

I. MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE

1. Meetings of the Committee may be called by the Chairman as he may deem necessary on three days’ notice of the date, time, place and subject matter of the meeting, or in the alternative with the consent of the Ranking Minority Member, or pursuant to the provision of the Standing Rules of the Senate, as amended.

2. Unless a different date and time are set by the Chairman pursuant to (1) of this section, Committee meetings shall be held beginning at 10:00 a.m. on Thursdays the Senate is in session, which shall be the regular meeting day for the transaction of business.

3. At the request of any member, or by action of the Chairman, a bill, matter, or nomination on the agenda of the Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later.

II. HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE

1. The Committee shall provide a public announcement of the date, time, place and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by the Committee or any Subcommittee at least seven calendar days prior to the commencement of that hearing, unless the Chairman with the consent of the Ranking Minority Member determines that good cause exists to begin such hearing at an earlier date. Witnesses shall provide a written statement of their testimony and curriculum vitae to the Committee at least 24 hours preceding the hearings in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee prescribes.

2. In the event 14 calendar days’ notice of a hearing has been made, witnesses appearing before the Committee, including any witness representing a Government agency, must file with the Committee at least 48 hours preceding appearance written statements of their testimony and curriculum vitae in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee prescribes.

3. In the event a witness fails timely to file the written statement in accordance with this rule, the Chairman may permit the witness to testify, or deny the witness the privilege of testifying before the Committee, or permit the witness to testify in response to questions from Senators without the benefit of giving an opening statement.

III. QUORUMS

1. Six Members of the Committee, actually present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of discussing business. Eight Members of the Committee, including at least two Members of the minority, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business. No bill, matter, or nomination shall be ordered reported from the Committee, however, unless a majority of the Committee is actually present at the time such action is taken and a majority of those present support the action taken.

2. For the purpose of taking down sworn testimony, a quorum of the Committee and each Subcommittee thereof, now or hereafter appointed, shall consist of one Senator.

IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTE

The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.

V. AMENDMENTS

1. Provided at least seven calendars days’ notice of the agenda is given, and the text of the proposed bill or resolution has been made available at least seven calendar days in advance, it shall not be in order for the Committee to consider any amendment in the first degree proposed to any measure under consideration by the Committee unless such amendment has been delivered to the office of the Committee and circulated via e-mail to each of the offices by at least 5:00 p.m. the day prior to the scheduled start of the meeting.

2. It shall be in order, without prior notice, for a Member to offer a motion to strike a single section of any bill, resolution, or amendment under consideration.

3. The time limit imposed on the filing of amendments shall apply to no more than three bill identified by the Chairman and included on the Committee’s legislative agenda.

4. This section of the rule may be waived by agreement of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member.

VI. PROXY VOTING

When a recorded vote is taken in the Committee on any bill, resolution, amendment, or any other question, a quorum being present, Members who are unable to attend the meeting may submit votes by proxy, in writing or by telephone, or through personal instructions. A proxy must be specific with respect to the matters it addresses.

VII. SUBCOMMITTEES

1. Any Member of the Committee may sit with any Subcommittee during its hearings or any other meeting, but shall not have the authority to vote on any matter before the Subcommittee unless a Member of such Subcommittee.

2. Subcommittees shall be considered de novo whenever there is a change in the Subcommittee chairmanship and seniority on the particular Subcommittee shall not necessarily apply.

3. Except for matters retained at the full Committee, matters shall be referred to the appropriate Subcommittee or Subcommittees by the Chairman, except as agreed by a majority vote of the Committee or by the agreement of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member.

4. Provided all members of the Subcommittee consent, a bill or other matter may be polled out of the Subcommittee. In order to be polled out of a Subcommittee, a majority of the members of the Subcommittee who vote must vote in favor of reporting the bill or matter to the Committee.

VIII. ATTENDANCE RULES

1. Official attendance at all Committee business meetings of the Committee shall be kept by the Committee Clerk. Official attendance at all Subcommittee business meetings shall be kept by the Subcommittee Clerk.

2. Official attendance at all hearings shall be kept, provided that Senators are notified by the Committee Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, in the case of Committee hearings, and by the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, in the case of Subcommittee Hearings, 48 hours in advance of the hearing that attendance will be taken; otherwise, no attendance will be taken. Attendance at all hearings is encouraged.


35 posted on 07/13/2010 6:56:47 PM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: donna

Yep, you are probably right.


36 posted on 07/13/2010 7:30:05 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SloopJohnB

The tombstone says a lot, but I don’t know if the American people would recognize the dates, considering how public education discourages the teaching of “just dates” and “just facts”.


37 posted on 07/13/2010 8:36:11 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Rush was right when he said America can survive Obama but not the Obama supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
Ordinarily I don't always subscribe to this kind of thinking, but I'm with you on this. This is a necessary time for party discipline to preserve the Constitution of the United States and its correct interpretation

we just had 3 RINOs vote for destruction of Wallstreet. I dont see these clowns voting any different on Kagan.

38 posted on 07/14/2010 3:53:15 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson