E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, announced in a statement on the Senate floor Tuesday that he will not support Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan in her confirmation vote later this week.
Voinovich, who is retiring, was one of nine Republicans who voted to support Obama nominee Sonia Sotomayor in 2009.
"I have no idea what she'll do on the bench and whether she will be able to suppress her own values to apply the law," Voinovich said of Kagan, citing her lack of judicial experience and her "limited written record." (Sotomayor served on the federal appellate bench for over a decade before being nominated to the Supreme Court.)
Five Republicans - Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Judd Gregg, Dick Lugar, and Lindsey Graham - have said they will vote for Kagan's confirmation. One Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, has announced he will oppose her.
Leave a Comment:
He has been too busy working on his retirement plans to pay attention to much of anything that goes on in DC.
Good reasons to support Kagan:
You need to research your facts sir before posting them for everyone to see. You are wrong, wrong, wrong.
It seems petty, in my opinion. It isn't like she's replacing Scalia, for pete's sake, she is replacing the MOST liberal judge the Dems have,...
Small and petty. Good point, Dennis.
I find his justification simplistic and vague. There is no sure way and never has been a sure way to determine how a SCOTUS will "do on the bench". There are no guarantees--ask former Pres G.H.W. Bush and there was plenty of "records to review".
I am a Democratic liberal who grew up in Cleveland. This guy was my mayor, Governor and Senator after I left. As far as Republicans go, he is probably one of the most reasonable of politicians, especially when not running for re-election. I am sure he has reasons that he feels are justified for not voting for Kagan.
I don't know if they are right but I firmly believe he thinks they are.
His vote doesn't matter anyway. With five GOP votes in support and only one Dem against (the Democratic base will be remembering that one in 2012 Senator Nelson...) Kagen clears the Senate by a wide margin.
Time to let George out to pasture with all the benefits of a retired senator . At least he didn't hang around til he was 90 years old. I don't know how he will be remembered but it won't be for picking people for a job that he couldn't ever hold.
I don't feel his opinion is simplistic at all. This is lifetime appointment and you only get one shot at thoroughly examining that this is the best person for the job. How can any senator decide that when she has no experience and there is no record that she will be able to suppress her personal ideals and interpret based on intent.
I don't feel she is a good person for the job myself. If you look at some of her past opinions, she has let personal views cloud judgement. She is also too political for the position being that she worked for Clinton for years.
I'm not giving Bush a free pass for Alito...I'm just saying that we need impartial judges on this court not politically motivated people.
She was smart enough to figure out that you dare not say anything in the hearings if you want to be confirmed. That's been true of nominees for years now. The best one can do is accept, as Senator Graham said, that elections have consequences, and try to confirm nominees that at least have brains. No one seems to question that Kagen has brains, so she should be confirmed.
No new news here as yet another scum sucking repugnant one will vote against Elena Kagan who deserves to sit on the Supreme Court.
Hey Voinovich...we have no idea what any of them would do until they are seated. And look what happened. We have the most biased (and obvious about it) Supreme Court to ever exist. It's time to even up the playing field, so people who are far less wealthy than yourself, stand a chance of moving forward. The present court has shown their willingness to be unfair time and time again and hide behind religion to mask their own bias. Not to mention giving corporations carte blanche to tip all elections in the future.
I keep shaking my head asking "really??? 306 million people and this is the best person we can come up with??" Someone with almost no experience that won't answer questions.....we have to take a chance and hope for the best???
Sorta like walking into the voting booth in 2004 and having to choose between Bush or Kerry....I mean COME ON!!! We have to have better in this country
I've found the best remedy for snorting RINO's is a cup of hot tea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Kybavugyk
A vote for the first Gay Women Supreme Court Justice would be a vote for the Communist Party, Kagen is an idiot. So is the person that nominated her. She should be tried for treason, along with most of the Congress.
She would be the first justice that has not sat on the bench since I think Rehnquist. Warren was a governor, it has only been in the past 20+ years that sitting judges were all that has been nominated. Maybe this will be a breath of fresh air on the court. The current court has been taking more of a right wing, pro business approach. I thought this was a country for the people, by the people, NOT for the corporation and by the corporation.
Some people like "yourscrew" just make it clear how dumb and bigoted a segment of our population is. This has nothing to do with anything "communist" or gay.
Lies and lack of regard for facts is what makes this country a loose cannon. Some of our most distinguished justices were not judges before nomination. Obviously this guy is unable to evaluate based on items of importance - and prefers to blather talking points that have no connection to reality.
Congrats "yourscrew" - you get the "doofus of the morning" award!
This article was copied from "American Grand Jury" 04Aug10. I found it interesting especially with the push to get Kagan confirmed so quickly.
Kagan Lies to Supreme Court - Charges Filed
August 4th, 2010
COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST KAGAN AT SUPREME COURT
source..
Judicial Watch Founder Asks High Court to Disbar Her for Falsifying "Evidence" It Relied Upon To Strike Down Partial Birth Abortion Legislation
Klayman Also Calls for Criminal Referral to Justice Department
(Washington, DC). Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch public interest law groups, today filed a complaint before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the high court disbar Elena Kagan.
Kagan, while she was an Associate White House Counsel in the Clinton administration, falsified an expert medical report, prepared by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). In this report, ACOG had originally found that partial birth abortion was in fact not medically necessary to save the life of a woman, but Kagan changed the report's finding to say that it was an appropriate procedure under some circumstances. This report was then relied upon by the U.S. Supreme Court in striking down legislation banning partial birth abortion.
In filing the complaint this morning, Klayman issued the following statement:
"Elena Kagan, a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, has defrauded the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, her membership to practice before the Court should be revoked and the matter referred to the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. How, then can Ms. Kagan be confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a seat on the high court, when in reality she should not even be allowed to practice in front of it?
The rules of legal ethics require her disbarment and I intend to pursue it, to set an example that prospective and sitting judges, or anyone in the legal profession or otherwise, are not above the law."
Klayman represents the Declaration Alliance, a national non-partisan advocacy and social welfare organization. The details of Ms. Kagan's misconduct can be found in a report prepared by the Americans United for Life Action, see http://www.aul.org/featured-images/Kagan-Ethics-Report.pdf
For more information call 310 595 0800.
"Klayman represents the Declaration Alliance, a national non-partisan advocacy and social welfare organization" That sounds pretty innocuous, right? Yeah, well from their website I'll quote the following:
"From Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Reagan, to the humblest citizen today, the American heroes are those who resolve to put the truths of the Declaration at the heart of all they say or do in American politics."
"Our allegiance to the God-given truth of these principles makes us Declarationists."
"Indeed, are not the outrages of infamous Supreme Court decisions, recent presidential abuses of power, and apparently unlimited Congressional spending and regulation, just so many instances of today's elites refusing to be bound by the Constitution to which they give nominal allegiance?"
Other 'non-partisan' stances are the right to keep and bear arms, the right to life and their stance on the income tax. Again I quote the website "Our Founders' prohibition of an income tax in the Constitution is explained by the tendency of such a tax to make government the master of the material basis of our liberty, enslavement the Declaration clearly will not tolerate."
If this is a 'non-partisan advocacy and social welfare organization', I shudder to consider what a right-leaning one would look like.
Bottom line Paul, get your facts straight or at least be intellectually honest about the position you're pushing and why. My read on these guys, and why none of the media [even Fuxs News] are carrying this story, is that they're a bunch of neo-conservative nut jobs that make Sharon Angle look moderate.
First timer,
Can't handle the truth?
Paul,
What 'truth' would you be referring to in your response? You posted material from a complaint filed by an individual that Fuxs News described as "a conservative attack dog". What do you think he'd say in his complaint? You think he'd be 'fair and balanced' in his approach? Of course not. You make the classic mistake of thinking that because someone you agree with alleges something, that it's the truth. Employ a tiny bit of critical thinking here and find out if the person making the allegation may have an agenda. Such as being the poster child for the "impeachobamacampaign" website. Or, as I 'truthfully' pointed out, represented the neo-conservative (and in NO WAY non-partisan) group that lists as its "candidates" such candidates as, yep, you guessed it, Sharon Angle.
I felt it a much more balanced assessment of what this Klayman was all about. And if you were at all interested in the "truth", you'd have mentioned that in her confirmation hearings Kagan defended the amendment saying "My only dealings with (the College) were about talking with them about how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."
Again, have your own view and I respect that you do. Don't disrespect me or the other readers by providing only part of the 'truth', which includes possible motivations for 'allegations' that someone's made or making.
Some much wiser than I once said, "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Paul,
Funny, I think most people reading your exchange with FirstTimer would agree with your last comment. However it seems to me you're calling yourself an idiot. If you are, I'm in complete agreement.
Luther, I was right there with you - you beat me to the punchline!
When confronted with actual "truths" or even an opinion that you don't agree with, I guess the last safe haven for the intellectually challenged adult (or children in the second grade) is to call people names.
As for someone much wiser than you, I imagine that wasn't hard to find. And I'll take your advice and not argue with you (although I felt I was just balancing the discussion). I imagine your 'level' is comforting in it's own way and you've clearly been mired there and gaining significant experience for quite some time.
Ben Nelsen is a Republican (Sorry if I just offended Republicans). I know I'm not touching on the subject at hand but he is nothing but a lying, hand out for money from the insurance industry, Republican. He is for Big Business and hides under the idea that his "Democrats" within his state are just far far conservative. Even a conservative Democrat sees through this smoke screen. He's a money pig. Regardless of the consequences, he should be kicked out of the Democratic Caucus. Left to fend on his own if he so chooses to stay a Democrat. He won't. He'll put his Republican Shirt on he has hanging in his closet. Freshly pressed I might add.