Elena Kagan and Iowa's Senior Senator
by Paul DeatonWe were standing in Montana Senator Jon Tester’s office when we had the first conversation about the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the nomination of Elena Kagan as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. The author had been on an extended road trip and coming down from the isolation of a mountain cabin to urban Missoula gave us a chance to visit a friend who is a staffer for Senator Tester and to see if anything had changed in society while we were gone.
No, not much had changed. The only surprise about the vote was that Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) voted for the Kagan nomination. Iowa’s senior senator, Chuck Grassley, voted no with the remaining Republicans, which was expected in a Senate where almost every action has become politicized. The Democrats on the judiciary committee all voted for the nomination. The next question will be whether the full senate will be able to break a filibuster of the nomination. One hopes they will.
President Obama released the following statement on the judiciary committee vote, “Elena Kagan is one of this country’s leading legal minds, and has shown throughout this process that, if confirmed, she would be a fair and impartial Supreme Court Justice who understands how decisions made by the Court affect the lives of everyday Americans. Today’s vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee is a bipartisan affirmation of her strong performance during her confirmation hearings. I want to thank the Judiciary Committee for giving her a thorough, timely and respectful hearing, and I look forward to the full Senate taking up and voting on this nomination before the August recess.”
Senator Grassley differed from the president in his press release, suggesting that Kagan was hypocritical. “Solicitor General Kagan failed to answer directly many of the questions posed to her. This was extremely disappointing, especially since she previously took the position that Supreme Court nominees should be forthcoming in their answers on substantive issues” said Grassley. He went on to list other reasons for his no vote, including this reference to the second amendment, “At the hearing, she declined to fully commit to upholding the constitution when it came to the Second Amendment.” In all, I counted a dozen reasons Grassley gave for his no vote.
Last Sunday, the author spent time with a number of Democratic attorneys in Mount Vernon, Iowa. I asked some of them, “What does Grassley’s reference to the second amendment mean in reference to the Kagan nomination?” The second amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” so I did not get the connection.
One noted, “even though the primary is over, Grassley is pandering to his base.” Another said, “I don’t know. It is one more piece of evidence that senator Grassley needs to be retired.” Iowans deserve better than this.
Surprisingly, it is in Senator Graham’s press release, that a grain of truth appears about the Kagan nomination which can be applied to Iowa’s senior senator.
“The Constitution puts a requirement on me, as a senator, to not replace my judgment for the President’s,” said Graham. “I’m not supposed to think of the 100 reasons I would pick somebody different. It puts upon me a standard that stood the test of time: Is the person qualified? Is it a person of good character? Are they someone that understands the difference between being a judge and a politician? And, quite frankly, I think she's passed all those tests.”Graham went on to say, “I view my role as a United States Senator in part by protecting the independence of the judiciary, and by making sure that hard-fought elections have meaning in terms of their results within our Constitution. At the end of the day, Ms. Kagan is not someone I would have chosen, but I think she will serve honorably.”
While Graham is no progressive, he gets to something fundamental. Elections have consequences. When we have an elected official who sifts through the hearing testimony to finds reasons to deny the president’s appointment to the Supreme Court, we have to ask ourselves, does Senator Grassley represent our values? With each vote, on every committee, it is clear that Senator Grassley does not represent the views of everyday folks like us. It is time for Senator Grassley to retire. ~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. E-mail Paul
Deaton
Click here to contribute to the Roxanne Conlin for US Senate Campaign.
Blog For Iowa 