Research Briefing

Just As Arlen Specter Reaches Out To The White House About Possible Jobs, He Flips To  Support Elena Kagan

LAST YEAR, SPECTER OPPOSED KAGAN’S NOMINATION

TO BE SOLICITOR GENERAL, CITING LACK OF ANSWERS

In 2009, Sen. Arlen Specter Voted Against Elena Kagan’s Nomination To Be Solicitor General. (On The Nomination Of Elena Kagan To Be Solicitor General, Roll Call # 107: Confirmed: 61-31: R: 7-31, D: 54-0; 3/19/09)

• Specter Opposed Elena Kagan Due To Her Failure To Answer His Questions On “Critical Issues.” “I have gone to substantial length, really great length, to find out about Dean Kagan's approach to the law and approach to the job of Solicitor General….We had an extensive hearing, where I questioned her at some length. Written questions were submitted, and she responded. I was not satisfied with the answers that were given, and when her name came before the committee for a vote, I passed. That means I didn't say yea or nay.” (Sen. Arlen Specter, “Arlen Specter Speaks On The Kagan Nomination,” Press Release, 3/19/09)
• Specter Said That Without Clearer Answers From Kagan, He Was “Constrained To Vote No.” “She feels she does not have to answer questions because it would be inappropriate because the case is pending and the Solicitor General has rendered an opinion. Well, I disagree with that. … We ought to take the confirmation process very seriously….. Well, I think we have to pay a little more attention, and I have gone to some length to try to find out more about Dean Kagan. In the absence of being able to do so and to have a judgment on her qualifications, I am constrained to vote no.” (Sen. Arlen Specter, “Arlen Specter Speaks On The Kagan Nomination,” Press Release, 3/19/09)

NOW DESPITE EXPRESSING SAME CONCERNS,

SPECTER SUPPORTS HER NOMINATION TO BE ON SUPREME COURT

Today, Sen. Specter Voted For Kagan’s Nomination To The Supreme Court In The Senate Judiciary Committee. (John Stanton, “Kagan Nomination Advances To Full Senate,” Roll Call, 7/20/10)

Specter “Went To Notable Lengths To Chastise” Kagan For “Avoiding ‘Substantive Discussion.’” “The third day of Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings may have demonstrated that there are limits to her charm offensive, as Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) went to notable lengths to chastise the Supreme Court nominee for, as he put it, avoiding ‘substantive discussion.’” (Sam Stein, “Specter Gets Frustrated With Kagan: These Hearings Haven’t Been Substantive,” The Huffington Post, 6/30/10)

Specter “Exasperated” By Kagan’s Failure To State “Precise Opinion.” “Sen. Arlen Specter, Democrat of Pennsylvania, wasn't getting straight answers and was kind of grumpy about it, peering down Tuesday at Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and lashing her with questions - as if she were a first-year law student who had overslept and didn't know the cases for the day. ‘Let me go on to another question - I have not been making much progress,’ Specter said at one point, exasperated after the former Harvard Law School dean declined to give her precise opinion of Supreme Court precedents that have made it easier for the justices to overturn congressional actions.” (Thomas Fitzgerald, “Specter Pushes Kagan During Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/30/10)

Specter Believed Kagan “Followed The Pattern” Of Avoiding “Substantive Answers.” “‘Well, Solicitor General Kagan, I think the commentaries in the media are accurate. We started off with a standard that you articulated at the University of Chicago Law School about substantive discussions,’ Specter said. ‘And they say we haven't had them here, and I'm inclined to agree with them. The question is where we go from here. You have followed the pattern, which has been in vogue since [Robert] Bork. And you quoted me in your law review article that someday the Senate would stand up on its hind legs. It would be my hope that we could find some place between voting no and having some sort of substantive answers.’” (Sam Stein, “Specter Gets Frustrated With Kagan: These Hearings Haven’t Been Substantive,” The Huffington Post, 6/30/10)

MEANWHILE, SPECTER RECENTLY ASKED WHITE HOUSE FOR A JOB

Just Last Week, Specter Told White House “He Would Like To Consider Remaining In Public Service After His Senate Term Ends.” “Sources tell ABC News that Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pennsylvania, has informed the White House that he would like to consider remaining in public service after his Senate term ends at the end of this session, and White House officials are keeping an open mind about possible job openings for him. Specter, who was defeated in his March primary by Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pennsylvania, is a close friend of Vice President Joe Biden and someone praised for his leadership in pushing for greater funding for the National Institutes of Health.” (Jake Tapper, “An Obama Administration Job for Sen. Specter?” ABC News, 7/15/10)

• “Some Who Know Specter Say He's Eager To Go Out With A Bang -- To Have A More Majestic Career-Ender …” (Jake Tapper, “An Obama Administration Job for Sen. Specter?” ABC News, 7/15/10)

OF COURSE, THESE COULDN’T POSSIBLY BE CONNECTED, RIGHT?

Responding To Question In February Whether He Was Offered Job To Drop Out Of Pennsylvania Primary Race, Joe Sestak Said “Yes.” “During the taping of my Comcast Network Voice of Reason show, which airs Sunday night at 9:30, I asked Congressman Joe Sestak: ‘Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?’ Sestak looked a little surprised by the question. He said, ‘Yes.’” (Larry Kane, “Sestak Surprises Me With A Bombshell Answer,” The Larry Kane Report, 2/18/10)

• After Stonewalling, White House Released Memo Denying Wrongdoing, But Admitting Former President Clinton Spoke To Sestak About Primary On Behalf Of White House. “Refuting allegations that the Obama administration offered Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., a job in exchange for dropping out of the contested Pennsylvania Democratic senate primary earlier this month, the White House says an internal investigation shows nothing improper took place and ‘that the allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and a lack of basis in the law.’… In a memo released to the press, White House counsel Robert Bauer says no White House staff made such a proposition to Sestak and that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel only worked through former President Bill Clinton to discuss ‘options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board.’” (Jon Garcia And Jake Tapper, “White House Memo On Sestak Discussions Refutes Alleged Misconduct,” ABC’s “Political Punch” Blog, 5/28/10)

In Statement, Colorado Senate Candidate Andrew Romanoff Said White House Deputy Chief Of Staff Jim Messina Contacted Him And Specifically Mentioned Three Positions. Romanoff: "In September 2009, shortly after the news media first reported my plans to run for the Senate, I received a call from Jim Messina, the President's deputy chief of staff. Mr. Messina informed me that the White House would support Sen. Bennet. I informed Mr. Messina that I had made my decision to run... Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race." ("Romanoff Details Job Discussions With White House," Coloradoan, 6/2/10)

• White House Quickly Shifted Story And Claimed Messina Had Only Called To Follow Up On Romanoff's Job Applications "To Determine If It Was Possible To Avoid A Costly Battle." "Andrew Romanoff applied for a position at USAID during the Presidential transition. He filed this application through the Transition on-line process... Jim Messina called and emailed Romanoff last September to see if he was still interested in a position at USAID, or if, as had been reported, he was running for the US Senate.  Months earlier, the President had endorsed Senator Michael Bennet for the Colorado seat, and Messina wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters." ("Statement From The Press Secretary On Colorado Senate Race," The White House, 6/3/10)