The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Devastating Report on Kagan Nomination; Press Conference With Sen. Jeff Sessions; UPDATE: Press Conference Postponed

Posted on | July 15, 2010 | 33 Comments

Americans United for Life is about to release a bombshell 54-page report on Elena Kagan’s 1996 intervention in the partial-birth abortion issue, and has scheduled a Capitol Hill press conference this afternoon:

Senator Jeff Sessions, ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, will host a press conference today with several leading Senators at 2:30pm to discuss a new report released today by Americans United for Life Action which contains new information regarding Elena Kagan’s role, during her time in the Clinton Administration, in pressuring the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to change their policy statement on partial-birth abortion. Senator Sessions will be joined by Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life Action, and leaders of other major pro-life organizations.

The report is embargoed, but it highlights serious ethical issues and may be enough to reignite the debate over Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination. The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote next week on the nomination, but that vote could well  be delayed.

UPDATE: The press conference “has been postponed due to a floor vote that was scheduled in the United States Senate” on the financial regulation bill, however, the PDF of the report is now online.

Comments

  • Bert Spence

    This kind of posturing is all well and good, but I’m tired of GOP senators acting as if they don’t want a candidate confirmed but not doing what they can to stop it. If all seven GOP members of the Judiciary Cmte. refuse to move Kagan forward, she doesn’t move forward. It’s that simple. Read the rules of the Judiciary Cmte. They don’t have to bemoan the lack of 40 votes in the full Senate. They can kill it if seven stick together. They have the power to stop her and should be repeatedly asked why they don’t use it (and didn’t use it to stop Sotomayor).

  • Bert Spence

    This kind of posturing is all well and good, but I’m tired of GOP senators acting as if they don’t want a candidate confirmed but not doing what they can to stop it. If all seven GOP members of the Judiciary Cmte. refuse to move Kagan forward, she doesn’t move forward. It’s that simple. Read the rules of the Judiciary Cmte. They don’t have to bemoan the lack of 40 votes in the full Senate. They can kill it if seven stick together. They have the power to stop her and should be repeatedly asked why they don’t use it (and didn’t use it to stop Sotomayor).

  • Pingback: Caffeinated Thoughts()

  • Joe

    I am all for blocking nominees in committee, but the GOP members better hold the line and have a clear goal (and recognize the same will come back on GOP picks in the future). If they block Kagan and we end up with someone as bad or worse, it is a wasted effort. If we can force the Dems to go more moderate, it has merit.

  • Joe

    I am all for blocking nominees in committee, but the GOP members better hold the line and have a clear goal (and recognize the same will come back on GOP picks in the future). If they block Kagan and we end up with someone as bad or worse, it is a wasted effort. If we can force the Dems to go more moderate, it has merit.

  • http://www.reddogreport.com Brian O’Connor

    This explains why the GOP wanted the extension, but is it significant enough to sway public opinion and pressure the White House to withdraw her?

  • http://www.reddogreport.com Brian O’Connor

    This explains why the GOP wanted the extension, but is it significant enough to sway public opinion and pressure the White House to withdraw her?

  • Pingback: Breaking: Trouble ahead for Kagan Nomination? | Politicallore.com/blog()

  • http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/ PatrickKelley

    Caffeinated-

    They probably didn’t stop Sotomayor because they didn’t want to be accused of holding up the vote on the first Latino American Supreme Court nominee. They probably figured she was probably as good as anybody Obama would nominate anyway, and seeing as how he would eventually almost have to get somebody through, why leave themselves open to charges of racism in this one case?

  • http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/ PatrickKelley

    Caffeinated-

    They probably didn’t stop Sotomayor because they didn’t want to be accused of holding up the vote on the first Latino American Supreme Court nominee. They probably figured she was probably as good as anybody Obama would nominate anyway, and seeing as how he would eventually almost have to get somebody through, why leave themselves open to charges of racism in this one case?

  • http://effingconservatives.blogspot.com Jeff Weimer

    Bert, you are right. We can stop this right now in committee.

    The only question is, who would Obama nominate if she can’t make it to the floor?

  • http://effingconservatives.blogspot.com Jeff Weimer

    Bert, you are right. We can stop this right now in committee.

    The only question is, who would Obama nominate if she can’t make it to the floor?

  • http://qwertyaltofuori.blgospot.com Red

    What Bert said.

  • http://qwertyaltofuori.blgospot.com Red

    What Bert said.

  • http://threebeerslater.blogspot.com Richard McEnroe

    (and recognize the same will come back on GOP picks in the future)

    Yeah,right. LikeTHAT’s ever happened to a GOP nominee…

  • mike in houston

    PRESS CONFERENCE POSTPONED DUE TO
    SENATE FLOOR VOTE SCHEDULE

    Here is the report

    http://www.aul.org/featured-images/Kagan-Ethics-Report.pdf

  • http://threebeerslater.blogspot.com Richard McEnroe

    (and recognize the same will come back on GOP picks in the future)

    Yeah,right. LikeTHAT’s ever happened to a GOP nominee…

  • mike in houston

    PRESS CONFERENCE POSTPONED DUE TO
    SENATE FLOOR VOTE SCHEDULE

    Here is the report

    http://www.aul.org/featured-images/Kagan-Ethics-Report.pdf

  • http://theothermccain.com smitty

    @Jeff,
    Why, Robert Bork, of course.

  • http://theothermccain.com smitty

    @Jeff,
    Why, Robert Bork, of course.

  • Joe

    Bork was not blocked by the judicial committee, he was voted down in the Senate, 42 to 58. Travesty, especially those six Republicans who went along with it.

    Dems tried to block Miquel Estrada to the Court of Appeals in the judiciary committee and when that failed to work they filibustered him (successfully). Then the Gang of 14 agreement was reached that use of a filibuster would only be available for judicial nominees under extraordinary circumstances (what ever that means). The travesty there was that Bill Frist ever let it get so far with the GOP in power.

    Estrada’s wife, who is now deceased, miscarried during the nomination fight.

    Estrada opposed opposition to Kagan for solicitor general, saying that a President should be entitled to pick nominees. Kagan has said that Estrada is fully qualified to be on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.

  • Joe

    Bork was not blocked by the judicial committee, he was voted down in the Senate, 42 to 58. Travesty, especially those six Republicans who went along with it.

    Dems tried to block Miquel Estrada to the Court of Appeals in the judiciary committee and when that failed to work they filibustered him (successfully). Then the Gang of 14 agreement was reached that use of a filibuster would only be available for judicial nominees under extraordinary circumstances (what ever that means). The travesty there was that Bill Frist ever let it get so far with the GOP in power.

    Estrada’s wife, who is now deceased, miscarried during the nomination fight.

    Estrada opposed opposition to Kagan for solicitor general, saying that a President should be entitled to pick nominees. Kagan has said that Estrada is fully qualified to be on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.

  • Adobe Walls

    What part about blocking all Obama’s court nominees thru 2012 are we not grasping.

  • Adobe Walls

    What part about blocking all Obama’s court nominees thru 2012 are we not grasping.

  • Joe

    If we are going to do it, let’s do it. We just have to go in heavy or not at all.

  • Joe

    If we are going to do it, let’s do it. We just have to go in heavy or not at all.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.wordpress.com Bob Belvedere

    Adobe’s right. We should block every single one until after 2012. In 2013 and beyond, the Bolshes will try to do the same to us if we gain control of the Congress, but one would hope the GOP would be in fighting trim.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.wordpress.com Bob Belvedere

    Adobe’s right. We should block every single one until after 2012. In 2013 and beyond, the Bolshes will try to do the same to us if we gain control of the Congress, but one would hope the GOP would be in fighting trim.

  • Pingback: Three Metaphors « Obi’s Sister()

  • Mary

    Please stop linking to Kathy Shaidle’s blog posts the woman is seriously deranged. Her saying America should be destroyed if private individuals do stupid things, yet she doesn’t believe the same should happen to Canada, when it’s stupid individuals, fascistic government HRC’s, and multi-culti commisions influence insanity around the world and into our own country. I think Kathy’s off her meds and is part of a fringe we need to step away from.

  • Mary

    Please stop linking to Kathy Shaidle’s blog posts the woman is seriously deranged. Her saying America should be destroyed if private individuals do stupid things, yet she doesn’t believe the same should happen to Canada, when it’s stupid individuals, fascistic government HRC’s, and multi-culti commisions influence insanity around the world and into our own country. I think Kathy’s off her meds and is part of a fringe we need to step away from.

  • http://www.haemet.blogivists.com Roxeanne de Luca

    There is a huge disconnect between a liberal Supreme Court justice and most Americans (even liberal ones). Partial-birth abortion is a perfect example: about 85% of Americans oppose it, but four Supremes think that it is not only acceptable, but is a constitutional right.

    Imagine if four conservative Supreme Court justices said that not only is birth control wrong (a position held by a small minority of Americans), but that the Constitution prohibits its sale and use. The liberals in America would create such a stink that no conservative would get elected for the next fifty years.

    Why, then, are we not doing the same with these people? Why are we not pointing out that “mainstream” liberal academics and judges are extremists who are hell-bent on imposing their will on the rest of us?

    It’s not just about opposing Kagan; it’s about destroying the progressive movement. So long as we refuse to filibuster these people, we condone their actions. We’re saying that it’s a matter of legitimate discourse and disagreement, not something so illegitimate as to render the person holding the opinion unfit for office. We’re morons to do so.

  • http://www.haemet.blogivists.com Roxeanne de Luca

    There is a huge disconnect between a liberal Supreme Court justice and most Americans (even liberal ones). Partial-birth abortion is a perfect example: about 85% of Americans oppose it, but four Supremes think that it is not only acceptable, but is a constitutional right.

    Imagine if four conservative Supreme Court justices said that not only is birth control wrong (a position held by a small minority of Americans), but that the Constitution prohibits its sale and use. The liberals in America would create such a stink that no conservative would get elected for the next fifty years.

    Why, then, are we not doing the same with these people? Why are we not pointing out that “mainstream” liberal academics and judges are extremists who are hell-bent on imposing their will on the rest of us?

    It’s not just about opposing Kagan; it’s about destroying the progressive movement. So long as we refuse to filibuster these people, we condone their actions. We’re saying that it’s a matter of legitimate discourse and disagreement, not something so illegitimate as to render the person holding the opinion unfit for office. We’re morons to do so.