Research

Elena Kagan once decried the lack of substantive questioning during Supreme Court nomination hearings, lamenting that, “hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis.” It is tough to disagree. But Kagan’s thin judicial record prompts the question: Will she go into detail, describing her judicial philosophy and legal thought process during her confirmation hearing, or will she bob and weave like too many of President Obama’s other judicial nominees have?

Today we released a video research briefing, highlighting the “Judicial Gymnastics” used by Obama’s judicial nominees to slide through hearings and avoid substantive debate. Watch and listen as they back away from previous statements, disown their written opinions, and generally run away from offering any substantial portrait of their legal reasoning. These are Obama’s stealth candidates looking to remake the bench in his activist image.

With the potential to serve for the rest of her life on the Supreme Court, Americans deserve to know what Elena Kagan’s legal philosophy is. Sen. Patrick Leahy has set the date for her hearing, limiting the time to review hundreds of thousands of documents from her time in government, many of which have yet to be released for public scrutiny.  And the administration is restricting access to her family and friends. With such a thin record, and such pressing time constraints, we want to know: Will Kagan submit to a thorough questioning of her judicial philosophy, or will she give us yet another “vapid and hollow charade?”