Solicitor General nominee Elena Kagan appears to have changed her mind about how forthcoming judicial nominees should be when appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It's probably nothing to do with the fact that she would be a leading contender to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court if the ailing jurist fails to recover from pancreatic cancer, but you never know.
At her confirmation hearing today, Kagan backtracked on remarks she made in a 1995 University of Chicago Law Review article called "Confirmation Messes."
She wrote then that nominees should have the chance to elaborate on their legal theories when they testify.
"When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public," she wrote.
Now, she's not so sure.
“I’m not sure if, sitting here now, I would agree with that statement,” she said in response to a question from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, this morning.
That could make things a little easier for her if she ever appears before the committee again.
No comments:
Post a Comment