June 29th, 2010
04:57 PM ET

What we've learned about Elena Kagan

After a long day of questioning by senators hoping to find out more about Solicitor General Elena Kagan, there's one thing they now know for sure: No matter how they try to get her to discuss her judicial philosophy, there's no hard answer. For Kagan, it's all on a case-by-case basis.

At least, that's the sense Kagan conveyed today over and over again when asked about her political views and how they might influence her role on the Supreme Court.

Asked about issues including abortion, military recruitment, "don't ask, don't tell," executive power and other hot-button issues, Kagan always asserted that the law was the law, precedent was binding, and that's how she'd plan on ruling if any of those issues fell before her if her nomination was confirmed. She often answered questions with phrases indicating she felt she would bring no bias to the bench.

"I think I will take this one case at a time," she said several times. Others times, it came in the form of "I will try to judge each case as it comes."

The remarks were ironic, some congressmen noted, especially for someone who had once before written that the nomination process had become somewhat of a farce with barely any substance. So, she was asked her own question that she said would be fair to ask any nominee: How she felt she might move the institution, politically. Kagan said she expected that she wouldn't, but was pressed further, saying it was a question she herself obviously thought was fair and important.

"It might be a fair question ..." Kagan said, her voice rising, then pausing before it trailed off. It was almost as if she wanted to answer, or couldn't say "but I won't answer it."

Day 2 of questioning: Guns, abortion, jokes

Senators tried several ways to find out where she would fall as a judge - because she has never sat on a judicial bench - asking about her views on other justices, the court's prior rulings and previous precedents. She did answer questions about a military recruitment issue and abortion, and about several other issues in roundabout ways. But she didn't waver much in her answers, though she tried often to invoke some humor in them.

"I would not want to characterize the current court in any way - I hope one day to join it," Kagan said at one point, drawing comical remarks from senators that she may have some politician in her yet.

The hearing also had its contentious moments, including one between Sen. Jeff Sessions and Kagan, regarding her role as a dean at Harvard University and military recruiters being allowed on campus. At one point, Sessions said he thought Kagan was "unconnected to reality" in how she was classifying the situation. The hearing also had a few moments of sparring among committee members: Sen. Orrin Hatch and Sen. Patrick Leahy got into a small debate when Leahy tried to tell his colleague to rephrase his questioning.

But like many other moments during the hearing, the tension was broken with some laughter.

"We have to have a little back and forth every once in a while, or this place would be boring as hell, I'll tell you," Hatch said, laughing. Kagan responded that she was happy it took the spotlight off her for a moment.

"By the way, I've been informed that hell is not boring," Hatch remarked, laughing.

And during a break in the questioning, when not everyone was back in time, Sen. Jon Kyl found a way to invoke some humor himself.

"General Kagan, you can see how important my colleagues think my questions are here," Kyl said, with Leahy, the committee's chairman, chiming in quickly that he was there.

Kagan offered a quick-witted response that perhaps couldn't be more ironic: "Or how important my answers are."

soundoff (315 Responses)
  1. mjm

    I hope she gets confirmed.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • BD70


      June 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • rld

      I have the same question as well. Why? What, if anything, do you know about her? Did you read &/or agree with any of her rulings? Oops, that's right – there are none. Thoughtless people like you are the reason that we're in the situation that we're in. Or, maybe I'm missing something.

      June 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jennifer

      rld, that's very rude and uncalled for...this country is about having free thought and if this person wants to express it then you should let them!

      June 29, 2010 at 6:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • CY

      Why not?

      June 29, 2010 at 6:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • wagge

      Are you Crazy,or just not know what you are saying?

      June 29, 2010 at 6:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • BD70

      I asked why because I want to know why? I don't know anything about this person. And she seems to be side stepping even her own question. She makes me nervous with her not so definite answers.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • chris

      Judge judy is more qualified than this woman.. get real.. Hope she falls flat.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • BD70

      I agree! If she is liberal say so! I want to know where she really stands!

      June 29, 2010 at 6:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Marcus68

      I hope she doesn't. She is not a judge, she is a politician. Just listen to her answers, she will judge on a "case-by-case" basis, yet she says "the law is the law". Just another career politician. Obama is bad enough, we need real professional solving real problems that face us. Have the liberals/dems learned that yet?

      June 29, 2010 at 6:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • BD70

      Not sure I want a conservative on board in the Supreme Court. Although it might be a good balance. My libertarian/liberal/sometimes conservative self has pretty much thrown the conservatives in the garbage. They are the definition of insanity. But I do want definite answers from this person who is going to be one of the supreme rulers of our land. Right now I am not getting them.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • jrj

      Really this is all very normal. When the left wants someone the right cries out and when the right nominates the left cries. There is nothing so unusual about this candidate, there have been previous SC judges without actual judicail experience and there is no acutual requirement that she have such experience. There really is not anything interesting or unusual about this process or the fact that she is side stepping questions. Thats par for the course, its what they all do, if you watch previous hearings they look pretty much like this one. She will get confimed easily despite all the political posturing

      June 29, 2010 at 6:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ricky

      Whatever guys.

      If Kagan were preaching her political views, she wouldn't make it.

      All too often, I hear how conservatives and liberals want a Supreme Court Judge who is somewhat impartial. This is a nominee who says she will take on cases on a "case by case" basis. Isn't this what you want? Or do you just want the Supreme Court to have your point of view?

      I actually think it's great that there's a nominee out there that BOTH political parties can't really get behind. There's nothing wrong with a little independent thinking in Washington, D.C.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Abraham Lincoln

      Fred, that's perhaps the stupidest comment I've read yet. I mean, seriously.

      June 29, 2010 at 7:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Yosh

      Uhhh... Fred? I wasn't aware there was a requirement for SCOTUS to reflect religious demographics. Let me guess – are you a white Christian male? Don't worry, one day you have your chance to be a part of the American Dream.

      June 29, 2010 at 7:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • jimmy

      rld, you are definitely missing something.

      June 29, 2010 at 7:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • jimmy

      ricky, good comment. I agree.

      June 29, 2010 at 7:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hawk in texas

      She should be confirmed. she is very knowledgable. all these people on here saying she should not have their heads either i the sand or in faux so called news. if they would bother to check there have been a lot of justices that were not judges. chief justice renquist was never a judge either.they are just some of the republican nut jobs that are brain washed if they had a brain.

      June 29, 2010 at 7:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • demogal

      Me too!

      June 29, 2010 at 7:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Trolleyfish

      BD70 says: "I asked why because I want to know why? I don't know anything about this person."

      If you did some reading, you'd know about her. Don't blame someone else for being uninformed.

      June 29, 2010 at 7:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • BD70

      I didn't realize you thought I was blaming. NOT! I want to truly know why anyone else would think she should be nominated. I said before....I am not sure since she seems to be side stepping and not even answering her own questions. How is that uniformed? As far as having bench experience does not matter to me. What matters is definite answers. Abide and uphold the law is fine. But anyone can say that. Again I ask why? Why should she be seated in the highest court in the land? I have read what she has done but her answers make me not so sure. So WHY?

      June 29, 2010 at 7:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hmmm

      Apparently most of you have forgotten about the 40 other supreme court justices that had no prior judicial experience. No, this is just more Republican banter. It's fun to watch them self-implode.

      June 29, 2010 at 8:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • pedro

      Its extremely troubling that she is side stepping questions and how she lied about what happend in Harvard. I agree that she should come out and stand firm on her principals. At least that way we can judge her accordingly. This is a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT

      June 29, 2010 at 8:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • What the hell

      Why? I think you are not giving any specific why she get confirmed. I OPPOSE her, she has no judical experience and does not fit right into supreme court for many reason. she cannot answer specific issues quickly enough.

      June 29, 2010 at 8:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Grafixer

      rim – 36% of the past SC Judges had no judicial bench experience. It is not a requirement. Kagal's positions have been stated more clearly than Alito's or Robert's were prior to their confirmations. This woman has proven experience, proven patience, and will certainly be confirmed.

      June 29, 2010 at 8:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • effelbee

      Because she is exceptionally well qualified, so I completely agree. Earl Warren, regarded as the best CJ of the Court in the second half of the last century, had been Governor of California and never sat on the bench.

      June 29, 2010 at 8:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • jopmur

      She is totally and completely unqualified...

      June 29, 2010 at 9:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • jag

      Her answers are as evasive as Tony Hayward's. The knife cuts both ways.

      June 29, 2010 at 10:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • lbrl

      I guess I could see why there is concern about her lack of experience. However, if anyone is bringing up reservations on this basis was fine with Sarah Palin as Vice President it's very hypocritical.

      June 29, 2010 at 10:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • lbrl

      I guess I could see why there is concern about her lack of experience. However, if anyone is bringing up reservations on this basis was fine with Sarah Palin as Vice President it's very hypocritical. Also, on the issue that she can't answer questions specifically and logically enough, have any of you actually READ a decision by Scalia?

      June 29, 2010 at 10:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Markle

      She is far more dangerous than President Barack Hussein Obama. Obama will be gone in 2012.

      She also makes Ruth Bader Ginsburg look like she is a centrist.

      Elena Kagan in 2009:
      “Its Fine if The Law Bans Books Because Government Won’t Really Enforce It.”

      Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

      When asked if she was a "legal progressive" she responded that she didn't know what that was.to call herself a "legal progressive."

      "I honestly don't know what that label means," she said.

      However, when Kagan was asked later where she stood politically, she said she'd been a Democrat all her life and that "my political views are generally progressive."

      Democrats should be frightened as well.

      June 29, 2010 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Johnny Mo

      How about a little intellectual diversity??? Why does Harvard have to run the country?

      I'd like to see a farm girl with a law degree from Iowa end up on the court. Or how about a Georgetown grad from the hood? Be nice to have people with some reall life experience that more Americans can relate to.

      June 30, 2010 at 3:05 am | Report abuse |
    • Gorgegirl

      Kagan isn't the first person nominated for the Supreme Court who has never been a judge before. In her case, her writings have been made fully available to the public....that is if you REALLY care to see what she says. However, it is not unusual for a justice whether it is Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Ginsburg, Thomas or Kennedy – it doesn't matter who it is answering the questions of the judiciary committee., Questions which may end up in the supreme court should not be addressed at the hearing. And, the justices sitting on the court today were never asked about their feelings about gun control or corporations being given the same rights as humans etc.

      June 30, 2010 at 3:38 am | Report abuse |
    • mary

      Are you kidding me? I shouldn't be surprised by all this pro Kagan crap here. It is CNN and you are all mindless liberals!!!

      June 30, 2010 at 8:18 am | Report abuse |
    • reds34

      i heard on the radio today that she said she was a progressive. So that should sum her up.

      June 30, 2010 at 9:01 am | Report abuse |
  2. Robert

    Patrick Leahy is a sock puppet for the democrats. He made a fool of himself in the Soto Mayor hearings.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim H

      If anybody has made a fool of themselves here, it is Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.

      And Obama is no "ultra liberal." If you think so, you've been sniffing the GOP fumes.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Marcus68

      Sotomeiyer is another that should not be on the bench. But for different reasons.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • geogaddi

      it's one word, bobby.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Izzisgirl

      It's Sotomayor, not Soto Mayor or Sotomeiyer.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:43 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Chicago Joe

    Harriet Miers was more qualified to sit as a judge...and a whole lot less partisan.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • University of Chicago Guy

      You can't be from Chicago. We outlawed Republicans in the early 1930s.

      June 29, 2010 at 5:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • rjp3

      LOL - right as W personal lawyer and fellow Christianist Theocrat nutjob she was not partisan at all.

      June 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bloke

      You have GOT to be kidding. She was nowhere near as qualified and not nearly as intelligent a person. Dislike her for whatever reason but in that comparison you make yourself look like a joke.

      June 29, 2010 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • usr001

      "The Harriet Miers Affair" showed exactly how much Dubbya was in charge; the majority Republican congress torpedoed her because she, the Republican President's handpicked candidate, wasn't conservative enough.

      June 29, 2010 at 5:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • BajaJohn

      Harriet's only credentials were purely political. She clearly did not have the right stuff to sit on the SCOTUS.

      June 29, 2010 at 5:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Donal

      Writing such a ridiculous statement doesn't make it true. Cite valid examples or say nothing if you have nothing valid to say.

      June 29, 2010 at 5:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mark, Phoenix

      Thanks for making milk shoot our our collective noses.

      June 29, 2010 at 5:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim H

      And who was it that rejected Harriet Miers? Why, it was the conservatives! The Democrats were a bystander to that one.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • JRM

      You have got to be kidding. As a female lawyer who has practiced in the Courts for nearly 20 years, Harriet Miers' resume for the U.S. Supreme Court was a joke. Your local elected judge has more experience and intellectual prowess than Ms. Miers I might not agree with Justice Robert's position, but I respect his ability to be an effective judge. Similarly Kagan has the chops to be a good judge. Again, I might not agree with her politics, but her ability makes her a very good candidate. I think laymen often see lawyers as lawyers, but this is a misnomer. Trial lawyers in federal court and those who do appellate work on a daily basis can easily distinguish a lawyer who will be good as a state judge, federal district court judge, federal appellate court judge and U.S. Supreme Court judge. Kagan is in that top group,which is a very small group of maybe a couple hundred people are qualified to join. Think of high school football stars versus NFL Hall of Fame and you'll get the concept.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • meatczar

      Harriet Meyers ? have you been dropped on your head? You still angry the Aunt Bea isnt on the bench? WOW

      June 29, 2010 at 7:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • jimmy

      Harriet Miers? Qualified? Even the Republicans who can't stray from party lines thought it was a ludicrous choice. The only reason Bush nominated her was for her "religious" views. Get real.

      June 29, 2010 at 7:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • JDinTX

      JRM, One of the best posts I have seen, to bad it will be lost on so many here.

      June 29, 2010 at 7:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Burgie

      Joe, you'd better switch dealers ... you're smokin' some BAD stuff!

      June 29, 2010 at 8:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • kb

      She was the dean of Harvard Law school moron. What was Meirs qualification besides another one of King George's yes-men?

      June 29, 2010 at 8:45 pm | Report abuse |
  4. jt

    She will get confirmed, moving OHBAMARAMA's agenda right along.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ellen

      Oh you conservatives are so grumpy!

      June 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • ThsIsNotReal

      Ellen – Hahah, you liberals were so grumpy when GW was president. And if Obama loses the election in 2012, you become grumpy again.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Thomas

      Grumpy? Livid was more like it. I am not really impressed with Obama, but I still think the Easter Bunny would have been a better chief executive than GWB.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • CTYank

      Now what would that agenda be? And I assume you have problems with it.

      Seems to me, if you can ascribe and agenda to Mr. Obama, it's to fulfill his oath, to the benefit of the people of the US.

      Balance is important, too, on the Court, given the previous series of far-right appointees. May she be progressive enough.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Izzisgirl

      I'm with CTYank . . . that agenda being . . .?

      June 29, 2010 at 6:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jesus

      Qualified? Heck, 60% of all the lawyers out there were more qualified than Clarence Thomas, a GOP appointee. Roberts, Alioto, and Scallia were so right of center as to make Sarah Palin look like a left winger. They're turning out to be ACTIVIST judges for the neo conservative movement.

      June 30, 2010 at 8:56 am | Report abuse |
  5. Chicago Joe

    She will get confirmed and Obama will get his first and obvious rubber stamp.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • DesertRed

      Not to worry...the conservative legacy of five rubber stamps wil continue, ready for the next Florida re-count.

      June 29, 2010 at 5:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Stephen

      Don't worry. There are still plenty of people to help republicans steal elections.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • The Chad

      DesertRed, please read something more about the Supreme Court before you spout off stupid comments. The so-called fifth rubber stamp of "conservative legacy" belongs to Anthony Kennedy, a well-known swing vote. And you fail to mention in that the four rubber stamps already on the court of Bader-Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and the retiring Stevens. Let's face it: all Obama's doing is a one-for-one swap–one liberal for another.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:35 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Cnorris

    This is some pretty unbiased reporting (sarcasm intended). The reason she's sticking with by-the-book answers is because her work history shows clearly her left wing stance on abortion, gun control, and judicial activism. This is a horrible nomination not just on idealogical grounds but also because she's not even remotely qualified in terms of judicail experience. But leave it to CNN to cheerlead.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bloke

      Do you know ANYTHING about our Supreme Court and the judicial branch? ANYTHING? If you did you'd realize that some of the most revered justices had no judicial experience before being seated. Her knowledge of the law is likely quite a bit deeper than most, if not all of the nominees in the past 30 or 40 years. It's amazing how you partisan kowtowers of the far right will go to any length to try to destroy that with which you don't agree. (And before you go there, it's just as bad when someone has the same blind ignorance on the left.)

      June 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Linda

      A liberal stance is exactly what we need on the SCOTUS! I truly hope our legislators of both stripes are smart enough to confirm her.

      June 29, 2010 at 5:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anne P

      To those who see the world through their "right wing" filters....there are other people in this country who have different values and pay taxes as well, so get over it. Kagen knows the law and from all I've seen, will strive to apply it, not twist and mold it into some ideological framework to meet her own self-serving political beliefs. That's what she's trying to communicate, yet the nay-sayers (we know who they are) have lost their ability to reason. They operate at an emotional and irrational level and disagree with anything that flies in the face of their narrow mindsm, esp. if Obama has anything to do with it. Fear mongering, rather than viable solutions seems to be their only defense....very sad. Confirm this woman!

      June 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • simonwigzell

      Considering the 2 outright fascists the Bush nominated, OBama should be nominating the most liberal and progressive person in the land to try to bring even a semblance of balance to the court. Most of the american people support some form of abortion yet you seem to think that no abortion at all on your religious grounds is the majority opinion???

      June 30, 2010 at 2:48 am | Report abuse |
    • Gorgegirl

      Cnorris posts: "her work history shows clearly her left wing stance on abortion, gun control, and judicial activism........she's not even remotely qualified in terms of judicail experience."
      How could see be an activist judge when she doesn't "have judicial experience"? The fact is that many justices in the past didn't have judicial experience. Rehnquist was in the Justice Dept before being appointed by Nixon to the high court.

      June 30, 2010 at 4:06 am | Report abuse |
  7. rjp3

    She seems to be a very very good lady – and defend her attempts to stand up to the DOD's discriminatory policies when a leader in an Academic setting.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • BD70

      She does seem to be a very good lady. But one thing bothers me....she wouldn't answer her own question.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • jimmy

      BD70, Doesn't bother me because the whole confirmation process is a joke. Partisanship has become a deeply entrenched curse. It won't do to through out the people in charge....the system has to be re-worked. Don't quite know how to do it myself, but it must be done.

      June 29, 2010 at 7:25 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Stu from Phoenix

    Kagan called these hearings a "vapid exercise" She was absolutely correct and has maintained her own deportment accordingly. Good for her.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Izzisgirl

      She did say that she understood why now that she is in the hot seat.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:46 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Dad

    Dig that action!

    June 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm | Report abuse |
  10. enpe

    I'm sorry....but I can't get over Kevin James in a wig.........

    June 29, 2010 at 5:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Randy

      Kevin James? I don't think she's quite that attractive!

      June 29, 2010 at 6:19 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Byrd

    And nothing, apparently, scares these conservative fossils more than a woman with a brain who knows how to use it. Sessions is an embarassment to everyone of conscience who ever lived in the South and proves it with every redundant question, the answer(s) to which his feeble mind is apparently unable to comprehend. Kagan will be confirmed ins spite of their attempts to keep Americans subjugated to their warmongering, Partiot Act ways. It's not that Sessions doesn't hear her answers: It's simply that he doesn't understand them, which is not ignorance, but stupidity in it most purely pathetic form.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • ThsIsNotReal

      Byrd, how did you get any of that from this article??? They spent more time reporting on the jokes that were told during the hearing that what Sessions thought of her answers. You just decided to drop by and sprinkle in some of your left wing hate.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • simonwigzell

      ThsIsNotReal – byrd obviously watched the entire hearings on TV so is speaking from much broader knowledge than just the article.

      June 30, 2010 at 2:50 am | Report abuse |
  12. DidISayThat

    I'm not sure about her qualifications, but me she sure looks like Glenn Beck in drag.

    June 29, 2010 at 5:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • usr001

      Come to think of it, I've never seen Elena Kagan and Glenn Beck in the same room at the same time....
      You don't think....!!!

      June 29, 2010 at 6:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • ThsIsNotReal


      June 29, 2010 at 6:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • stanley

      more like kevin james in drag. if she's confirmed he'll have a great gig.

      June 29, 2010 at 6:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Randy

      Glen Beck? I don't think she's quite that attractive!

      June 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • usr001

      Actually, that was intended as a comment on Glenn Beck.

      July 5, 2010 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Jim from OH

    Yes, let's move ahead with this; she has the smarts to do this job; probably smarter than most of the others on that bench. But, I think that's what intimates so many folks. All the bantering and fear of her being "too liberal" is crap. Can't we use the same argument on the flip side and say the majority on the bench right now is too "right-wing"? What makes that ok? Middle would be perfect. There's no good reason for her not to be appointed; only the fear-mongering ones who want to change what's already law, feel threatened. Get over it folks, abortion rights, for example, are the law and your personal bias does not weigh in! If I was a woman in this country, I'd be up in arms over the thought of having that right taken away. When I was young, women had to endure some terrible things; we can't move backwards.

    June 29, 2010 at 6:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • usr001

      Most of the people complaining about "too Liberal" are so far to the right that they consider Liberals and Libertarians to be the same thing....

      June 29, 2010 at 6:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • sara

      Thank you Jim from Ohio – finally someone who gets it.

      June 29, 2010 at 8:55 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Jennifer

    She is awesome. I REALLY hope she gets confirmed, she's perfect for the seat. I just wish she would elaborate more on her stance on abortion, but I have faith in her.

    June 29, 2010 at 6:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • sara

      Thank you for the post – you get it – so many just don't. She do us well.

      June 29, 2010 at 8:58 pm | Report abuse |
  15. pdqBach

    She is an activist first, and jurist second. Her confirmation would be a serious mistake. No experience, no paper trail, just a rubber stamp for the obamunist takeover.

    June 29, 2010 at 6:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • usr001

      And John Roberts is not an activist?

      June 29, 2010 at 6:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dorkus Maximus

      Well that's just silly, Bach. You say she has no paper trail and no experience, and yet you're sure she's a "rubber stamp." If she has no paper trail, how do you know how she's going to react?

      June 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9