Nominaton of Elena Kagan to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, to my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, and a special thanks for bringing us together this afternoon to speak on this important nomination.

I am very pleased to once again be able to come to the floor and speak in support of the confirmation of Elena Kagan to be the next Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I am happy to join Senators Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Mikulski, and Hagan to support this excellent candidate for the High Court.

The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee did a thorough job in vetting Ms. Kagan, and I thank them all for their hard work. I think the hearings they held on her nomination revealed three things; first, that Elena Kagan is a person of good character; second, that she is someone who understands and respects the rule of law and the role of courts in our democracy; third, that she is indeed qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. I believe the President chose wisely when he nominated her.

Back in June, after the nomination, I spoke about Ms. Kagan's impressive list of professional accomplishments, so I am not going to repeat them this afternoon. It is clear Elena Kagan has thrived in a number of settings and that she will bring a diverse set of experiences and abilities to the Court. In her rise to the top of the legal profession, Ms. Kagan gained practical experience that forced her to evaluate the impact of laws on people. She also has a track record of building bridges across the ideological spectrum, something I saw firsthand when I was the director of the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School at Harvard and she was dean of the Harvard Law School. She had that reputation on campus as someone who could work with everyone. These are critical skills for a Justice, and I am glad we have a Supreme Court nominee before us who has a variety of real-world experiences and has not been isolated only within the judicial system.

Perhaps most impressively, in her latest role as Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan has served as the representative of the American people before the Supreme Court. She has represented us forcefully in complex cases, including ones that dealt with major issues, such as our ability to conduct the war on terror and the amount of influence that big businesses should have in our elections. As is the case for every attorney who regularly appears in court, she won some and she lost some.

But above all, Ms. Kagan has shown she is capable of analyzing the law at the level required by the Nation's highest Court. She has the talent and the intellect to join the Court as a Justice. I think that is something on which most of us can agree. Unfortunately, the politics that have come to surround judicial confirmations in modern times mean that Ms. Kagan's qualifications to serve on the Court are just one piece of this debate. I wish this weren't the case.

These proceedings should force us to take a hard look at the role our Founders intended for the Senate in the confirmation process. When we provide advice and consent on judicial nominations, Senators are not supposed to be substituting their individual political judgments for those of the President.

We are collectively supposed to be checking that a nominee is qualified, that a nominee falls somewhere in the mainstream of legal philosophy, and that a nominee respects the rule of law and understands that judges are not meant to be politicians.

A few weeks ago, Senator Lindsey Graham, as my colleague from New York, Senator Gillibrand, alluded to earlier, gave a powerful reminder of this when he spoke at the Judiciary Committee's final hearing on Ms. Kagan. I appreciated especially his reference to Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 76: The Senate should have a ``special and strong reason for the denial of confirmation.'' We should remain focused on that standard, keep politics to a minimum, and really strive to conduct an evenhanded review of nominees.

Prior to joining the Senate, I had the privilege of serving as Governor of the State of New Hampshire. New Hampshire is one of those States where judges are not elected but appointed by the Governor. Once appointed, they can serve until age 70. So having been in the position of appointing judges, I fully understand that making lifetime appointments to our courts is a very solemn responsibility.

Knowing that, I believe the President has made an excellent selection. In Elena Kagan, we have been presented with a nominee who is a loyal American, an upstanding individual, and a supremely talented lawyer. Lawyers are, by definition, legal advocates for others. It is to be expected that, as a lawyer, Elena Kagan may have advocated certain positions with which we may not agree. That, however, does not disqualify her from being a judge. It almost goes without saying that her record presents no ``special and strong reason'' to vote against confirmation. These facts have been recognized by conservatives both in this body and outside of it who are willing to drop political rhetoric and speak candidly. This includes Senator Graham as well as my own senior Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg. I hope more of my colleagues from across the aisle will follow their lead.

I intend to proudly cast my vote in favor of Elena Kagan's confirmation, and I am confident that, as a Justice, she will serve this country with honor and distinction.

I yield back to my colleague from Minnesota.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source