"I don't need to hear the sanctimonious lectures of Sen. Kyl and DeMint to remind me of what Christmas means."

Said Harry Reid.

Am I sorry not to be live-blogging the Kagan hearings today?

I don't want to slog through the Senators reading their questions to the nominee. It's such a slow-motion ritual. Her answers are so predictable. But what I find most annoying is the Senators' inability to do proper followup questions to force her to get past the predictable. For example, from my live-blog yesterday:

Senator Kyl [reads] Obama's empathy statement — you can read it here: In 5% of cases, Obama said, "adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon," and one must at that point rely on "one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy." Kagan is forthright: "It's law all the way down." She says that several times — and I note that her statement isn't really at odds with what Obama said. A good follow-up question would have been: But do you think that law includes a component that comes from deep values and human empathy? The secret answer is: Yes.

If I had a written transcript, I would pick out one thing after another like that and write the text of the missing colloquy.

Why don't the Senators do better? Yeah, they are scripted, but the nominee's answers are predictable enough that the followups could be scripted too, more or less. And that's assuming the Senators are too dumb or timid to think on their feet. (Technically: on their asses.  We say "asses" now in polite company, of course, after this and this. It's standard American speech in 2010.)

I think it's more likely, in fact, that Kagan is being given a pass, and that the Senators from both parties have their reasons for giving her a pass. It's related to the unavailability of a transcript, I'm guessing.

Who really has an interest in attacking Kagan? I think that it is the strong ideological progressive who doesn't care much about the political fate of the Democratic Party. Can you see why? I'll try to spell it out later, but, right now, I need to get out in the real world....



And we know where the ripe black raspberries are!

"So Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are in a row boat, and it springs a leak and starts to sink. Who gets saved? The American people."

Senator Kyl tells a poor joke and gets "a big laugh" at the National Republican Senatorial Committee retreat.

Kyl's joke is...
	... terrible because it envisions the death of real human beings.
	... terrible because it's either old or it sounds like it's old.
	... okay because who cares what dumb verbiage was used to loosen up a crowd.
	... okay because it conveys a core truth that justifies a little sadism.
pollcode.com free polls

What Goodwin Liu said about Samuel Alito...

At his confirmation hearing, lawprof Goodwin Liu, nominated for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is  being taken to task by Senator Kyl for what he said at Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing. (There is also talk of Liu as a future Supreme Court nominee.)

“Judge Alito’s record envisions an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse … where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man,” Liu wrote. “I humbly submit that this is not the America we know. Nor is it the America we aspire to be.”

The testimony was “vicious, emotionally and racially charged, very intemperate, and to me it calls into question your ability to approach and characterize people’s positions in a fair and judicious way,” Kyl said.

Liu only acknowledged that this language was “unnecessarily flowery.”

Flowery? As Lou Reed once sang, "Vicious, you hit me with a flower...."

Arlen Specter wants Justice Stevens not to retire this year.

"I think the gridlock in the Senate might well produce a filibuster which would tie up the Senate about a Supreme Court nominee. I think if a year passes, there's a much better chance we could come to a consensus."

Obama should just pick a relatively moderate liberal judge. That would avoid the filibuster this year, and it's what he'll have to do next year. So what is Specter talking about?

Specter is bouncing off what Senator Kyl said:

"I think the president will nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test," Kyl said. "And if he doesn't nominate someone who is overly ideological, I don't think -- you may see Republicans voting against the nominee, but I don't think you'll see them engage in a filibuster."

So, you see my point. Maybe what Specter is really thinking is that it will hurt the Democrats in the fall to spend the summer paying attention to the subject of liberal ideology on the Supreme Court. Specter has been on the Senate Judiciary for a long time, both as a Democrat and a Republican, so he knows all about the way the 2 parties manipulate the occasion of Supreme Court nominee hearings.

Did you notice how Sonia Sotomayor has backed away from any identification with Obama's notion that "empathy" is a component of judging?

I sure did, as you can see here. I'm on the phone doing a call-in show on Minnesota Public Radio during the Judiciary Committee's lunch break today:



For reference, here's what Obama said about "empathy," and here's what he said about "heart."

And now read the whole interchange between Sonia Sotomayor and Senator Jon Kyl. Let me highlight some of it:

KYL: Let me ask you about what the president said -- and I talked about it in my opening statement -- whether you agree with him. He used two different analogies. He talked once about the 25 miles -- the first 25 miles of a 26-mile marathon. And then he also said, in 95% of the cases, the law will give you the answer, and the last 5 percent legal process will not lead you to the rule of decision. The critical ingredient in those cases is supplied by what is in the judge's heart. Do you agree with him that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon and that that last mile has to be decided by what's in the judge's heart?

SOTOMAYOR: No, sir. That's -- I don't -- I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge.

KYL: ... [H]ave you ever been in a situation where a lawyer said I don't have any legal argument to me, Judge, please go with your heart on this or your gut?

SOTOMAYOR: Well, I've actually had lawyers say something very similar to that. (LAUGHTER) I've had lawyers where questions have been raised about the legal basis of their argument. I thought one lawyer who put up his hands and said, but it's just not right. (LAUGHTER) But it's just not right is not what judges consider. What judges consider is what the law says.....

KYL: ... Have you always been able to have a legal basis for the decisions that you have rendered and not have to rely upon some extra-legal concept, such as empathy or some other concept other than a legal interpretation or precedent?

SOTOMAYOR: Exactly, sir. We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts.