According to CBS News reporter Lauren Seifert, Supreme Court Justice Nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings begin on Monday. There are a lot of questions surrounding this nominee’s confirmation. Among those questions, Seifert contends, is the lack of experience that Judge Elena Kagan has and how that lack of experience will affect her rulings on the Supreme Court. The GOP is certainly in an uproar over this nominee. In her article, Seifert explains that a Senate filibuster is wholly possible. Senators like Sessions argue that Kagan simply does not have enough of a record to really have a valid confirmation hearing without questioning her ideals and political views.
Writer Mark Sherman makes a valid point about Kagan though. She can expect to be pressed, hard, about her views especially since she wrote an article condemning senate confirmation hearings as being too easy on nominees. She may have place a proverbial nail into her own coffin.
I would ask the following:
In thinking about the Grutter v. Bollinger ruling of 2003, would you have been a member of the majority ruling or the dissenting opinions? Why? In answering this question, I would understand how conservative or liberal this nominee is on issues of Affirmative Action and race. A Supreme Court Justice will inevitably decide what cases will be heard and how those cases will be decided. Several programs- in my opinion- have taken Affirmative Action and the need for diversity, much too far.
There has been some concern about the Health Care Bill being unconstitutional and that it violates the Commerce Clause found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. How would you interpret the Commerce Clause and what are your views about the Health Care Bill as legislation? Many state governments were concerned with the government’s forcing Americans to buy health insurance. Many individuals argued that this bill opened the door for government control over how American’s are spending their money. Some people went so far as to cite religious views against the healthcare bill and the President’s administration. My concern, though, is should state governments follow through on their threats and sue the federal government, how would Nominee Kagan interpret the Constitution and thus rule about this necessary piece of legislation?
Articulate your feelings about the necessity and use of Eminent Domain. The Supreme Court has upheld the government’s right to Eminent Domain. With the economy being as fragile as it has been in the last few years, the government may find it necessary to revoke citizen rights in efforts to promote the economy. These rights include losing homes, land and other properties for the greater good. Unfortunately, the government is not the best at allocating funding; this ruling could promote a slippery slope.
References:
Seifert, L. (2010). Sessions: Kagan Filibuster “Conceivable”. CBS News, June, 27, 2010. Retrieved from::
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/27/ftn/main6623873.shtml
Sherman, M. (2010). GOP senatory: Can Kagan be impartial judge? Associated Press. Retrieved from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100627/ap_on_go_co/us_kagan_supreme_court
Infoplease. Milestone Cases in Supreme Court History. Retrieved from: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101289.html
