WASHINGTON, June 27, 2010

Sessions: Kagan Filibuster "Conceivable"

Committee Chairman Leahy Dismisses GOP Senator's Suggestion That Nomination Has "Real Problems"

Like this Story? Share it:

  • Play CBS Video Video Senator's Clash Over Kagan's Experience

    Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Pat Leahy and ranking Republican Jeff Sessions spoke with Bob Schieffer and Jan Crawford on how Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan's confirmation is shaping up.

  • The Ranking Member and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on _Face the Nation,_ Sunday, June 27, 2010.

    The Ranking Member and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on "Face the Nation," Sunday, June 27, 2010.  (CBS)

(CBS)  On CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) and Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) differed sharply in their opinions of President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan, whose confirmation hearings start on Monday.

It was no surprise that Sessions, the ranking GOP member of the senate Judiciary Committee, echoed Republican sentiments by saying Kagan "has the least experience of any nominee at least in the last 50 years."

"So I think that raises questions. I've been using the phrase, you know, 'This is a confirmation, not a coronation,'" he said.

It was also no surprise that Leahy, the committee's chairman, countered the criticism by saying: "I think you're going to see a brilliant woman, a brilliant legal mind, and you're going to see somebody who is going to be the 112th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court."

Leahy even quipped that the party lines have already been drawn before the hearings commence Monday.

"It's reached the point that if [Obama] had nominated Moses the law giver, some would have said we can't have him because among other things he hasn't produced a birth certificate," he said.

Sessions told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer that a filibuster of Kagan is not off the table.

"I think the first thing we need to decide is, is she committed to the rule of law even if she may not like the law?" Sessions said. "Will she as a judge subordinate herself to the Constitution and keep her political views at bay? And then secondly, if things come out to indicate she's so far outside the mainstream, it's conceivable a filibuster might occur."

When asked if he believed Mr. Obama's pick was even qualified for the Supreme Court, Sessions responded sharply: "I think her nomination has real problems that need to be examined. I believe she's entitled to a fair hearing and a chance to respond, but this nominee has a very thin record legally - never tried a case, never argued before a jury, only had her first appearance in the appellate courts a year ago. She just is not the kind of nominee you would normally expect to have."

CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford raised a point to both senators that the battle over the nominee's confirmation hearings falls largely along rigid party lines - and pointed to earlier conflicts over High Court nominees.

Crawford asked Leahy about the confirmation hearings for President Bush's Supreme Court nominee (now Justice) Samuel Alito. Crawford said that despite support for Alito from liberals (similar to support Kagan has received from conservatives) and the highest rating from the American Bar Association, Leahy voted against Alito's nomination, and that he and then-Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden thought that he should be filibustered.

Leahy responded, "I voted for John Roberts - very Conservative. Had been in the Reagan and Bush administrations. But I felt that he gave us direct and honest answers.

"I felt that Justice Alito did not," Leahy said. "That is why I voted against him."

Leahy also added, "Keep in mind I voted for hundreds, even thousands of judges nominated by Republicans; President Reagan, both President Bushes, President Ford, who were not the people I would have nominated had I been president. But I felt after going through the hearing that they were people that I could trust to uphold the law. I didn't feel that way [about Justice Alito]. I hoped Justice Alito would prove me wrong."

Crawford turned the focus to Sessions and mentioned his position seven years ago on filibustering - a stark difference from his position now as the Kagan confirmation hearings approach.

"In 2003 when the Democrats were filibustering, you told [PBS'] Jim Lehrer it was a very, very grim thing. You said it would weaken the hand of the president and a constitutional alteration of power," Crawford said.

Sessions responded to why his position with President Obama's latest nominee is different: "We just have to live with the world we're in, Jan.

"The filibuster [in 2003] was ongoing by the Democrats on quite a number of Bush judges for the first time in history. The compromise that was reached with the 'Gang of 14' was that you should not filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances. I've never filibustered a Supreme Court Justice. I hope I don't have to. We didn't with [Justice Sonia] Sotomayor."

For all the debate over President Obama's second Supreme Court nominee in as many years, Leahy told Schieffer that people's minds won't be swayed until they hear from Kagan herself.

According to Leahy, "Right now we've debated almost in a vacuum. Let's hear from her. At the end of the week people's views may be entirely different. Let her answer these questions."

© MMX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Google Buzz
Add a Comment See all 93 Comments
by DocD--2008 June 29, 2010 3:29 AM EDT
Sessions is an ass, and mainly jealous that he was refused a seat on the bench by his own Republicans in the Senate. He is a biggoted racist.. As stated on his Wiki page..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions


"At Sessions' confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, four Department of Justice lawyers who had worked with Sessions testified that he had made several racist statements. One of those lawyers, J. Gerald Hebert, testified that Sessions had referred to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as "un-American" and "Communist-inspired" because they "forced civil rights down the throats of people."[6] Hebert said that Sessions had a tendency to "pop off" on such topics frequently and had once called a white civil rights lawyer who dealt with voting rights suits a "disgrace to his race."[7]

Thomas Figures, a black Assistant U.S. Attorney, testified that Sessions said he thought the Klan was "OK until I found out they smoked pot."[8] Figures also testified that on one occasion, when the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division sent the office instructions to investigate a case that Sessions had tried to close, Figures and Sessions "had a very spirited discussion regarding how the Hodge case should then be handled; in the course of that argument, Mr. Sessions threw the file on a table, and remarked, 'I wish I could decline on all of them,'" by which Figures said Sessions meant civil rights cases generally. After becoming Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Sessions was asked in an interview about his civil rights record as a U.S Attorney. He denied that he had not sufficiently pursued civil rights cases, saying that "when I was [a U.S. Attorney], I signed 10 pleadings attacking segregation or the remnants of segregation, where we as part of the Department of Justice, we sought desegregation remedies."[9]

Figures also said that Sessions had called him "boy." He also testified that "Mr. Sessions admonished me to 'be careful what you say to white folks.'"[10]

Sessions responded to the testimony by denying the allegations, saying his remarks were taken out of context or meant in jest, and also stating that groups could be considered un-American when "they involve themselves in un-American positions" in foreign policy. Sessions said during testimony that he considered the Klan to be "a force for hatred and bigotry." In regards to the marijuana quote, Sessions said the comment was a joke but apologized.[11]

In response to a question from Joe Biden on whether he had called the NAACP and other civil rights organizations "un-American", Sessions replied "I'm often loose with my tongue. I may have said something about the NAACP being un-American or Communist, but I meant no harm by it."[5]

He should not even be on the Judical Committee much less the Senate, he belongs in a jail somewhere.
Reply to this comment
by mikelpond June 28, 2010 3:14 PM EDT
She'll do fine. Sessions is the one we need to be rid of; he says one thing when a republican is President and something completely different now.
Reply to this comment
by thy-only_king June 28, 2010 5:20 AM EDT
"I think the first thing we need to decide is, is she committed to the rule of law even if she may not like the law?" ... "Will she as a judge subordinate herself to the Constitution and keep her political views at bay?
The answers are NO & NO.
True American Lawmakers should keep this Anti-Military Kagan off of the Supreme Court. If the democrats try to play politics,
a filibuster is in order.
Reply to this comment
by steeepe June 28, 2010 11:31 AM EDT
Do you think the current conservative justices subordinate their political views? Ha! What about Gore vs. Bush?Thomas's wife is a leader in the Tea Party. Don't you think that's a little political? Go Kagan!!! Dilute the far right wing impact of the neocon justices.
by thy-only_king June 28, 2010 5:15 AM EDT
Sessions: Kagan Filibuster "Conceivable"

Anti-Military Kagan Filibuster "Likely"
Reply to this comment
by propitiation June 27, 2010 9:36 PM EDT
It would have been better if President Obama had nominated the Liberal Protestant Justice Diane Wood instead of Kagan.

Justice Stevens was the only Protestant on The Supreme Court.
Justice Wood is a Federal Judge, and more experienced than Kagan.
President Obama decided to nominate a friend, rather than the better choice.

The Supreme Court currently had 6 Roman Catholics, 2 Jews, and 1 Protestant.

When Kagan is nominated there will be 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews.

I think that this is another example of President Obama's lack of leadership and is about as bad a choice as President Bush's choice of Harriet Meirs...which incidently was reccomended to him by Senator Harry Reid.
Reply to this comment
by curse914 June 27, 2010 10:14 PM EDT
How about an Atheist? Oh that's right, atheist, ie free thinkers have been "culled" from the gene pool throughout history.
by propitiation June 27, 2010 10:24 PM EDT
The reason I bring it up Curse is because the United States is composed of 51.3% that call themselves Protestants, 23.9% that call themselves Catholics, 1.4% that call themselves adherents of Judaism.

Since there are 16.1% that are unaffiliated with a religious organization, (atheist, agnostics, humanists, deists), you have a valid point. Why not have variety?
See all 4 Replies
by zzgomer June 27, 2010 9:31 PM EDT
She isn't anything but a clone for the libs...nothing else.
Reply to this comment
by Ms_enza June 27, 2010 9:30 PM EDT
The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

The Obama administration said the "material support" law is one of its most important terror-fighting tools. It has been used about 150 times since Sept. 11, resulting in 75 convictions. Most of those cases involved money and other substantial support for terrorist groups.

The Humanitarian Law Project has a long history of advocating peaceful resolution of international disputes, and it challenged the law in court, led by its president, 79-year-old Ralph Fertig. "My speech is particularly nonviolent," said Fertig, noting that his advocacy for peaceful dispute resolution goes back to his days as a Freedom Rider in the 1960s.

Fertig and his group wanted to train members of the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK, in how to present their grievances for resolution before the U.N. He contended that the material support law is unconstitutional when applied to such peaceful advocacy.

"One of the things that's very confusing about this decision is it purports to draw a line between what the court calls independent advocacy and coordinated speech, without really explaining when that line is crossed," said ACLU legal director Steven Shapiro, who filed a brief in the case on behalf of the Carter Center and other human-rights organizations.

Cole, the professor at Georgetown, suggests that such a fuzzy line is in fact a clear one. Who, he asks rhetorically, would risk writing such an op-ed piece? "No one's going to do it. It has a tremendous chilling effect. If you're going to risk spending 15 years of your life in jail for writing an op-ed, you're not going to write that op-ed."

Dissenting from Monday's ruling were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. In a passionate and rare spoken dissent from the bench, Breyer declared that general government assertions of a national security interest are not enough to justify suppressing otherwise lawful speech. "What is one to say," he asked, about the notion that the peaceful teaching of international human-rights law is "too dangerous" to tolerate? "A democracy like ours," he said, "is committed to such learning."
Reply to this comment
by propitiation June 27, 2010 10:11 PM EDT
So, the Justices that agreed with the Obama Administration were the ones that voted for the "material support" law?

Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Kennedy, Justice Stevens voted for maintaining the "material support" law that the Obama Administration has been using.

The ones that dissented were Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. It could be a strong dissent against since Justice Ginsburg was the ex-President of the ACLU that represented the group that was against the law.
by propitiation June 27, 2010 9:21 PM EDT
"The filibuster [in 2003] was ongoing by the Democrats on quite a number of Bush judges for the first time in history. The compromise that was reached with the 'Gang of 14' was that you should not filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances. I've never filibustered a Supreme Court Justice. I hope I don't have to. We didn't with [Justice Sonia] Sotomayor."

Senator Patrick Leahy was the jerk in charge of those filibusters - the reason Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman had to form the Gang of 14. The Democrats deserve a filibuster if the woman is too Liberal!
Reply to this comment
by curse914 June 27, 2010 8:46 PM EDT
by thy-only_king June 27, 2010 5:47 PM EDT

I think the first thing we need to is chose a candidate that God would choose and since I am so close to God, it should I will make the choice.

][][][][][][][][][][][

Speaking for God again, I see.
Reply to this comment
by curse914 June 27, 2010 8:40 PM EDT
by krotec54 June 27, 2010 7:29 PM EDT
I heard that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

[][][[][][][][[][]

From the theocratic leader of Iran, Amahdinjhad, no doubt.
Reply to this comment
by propitiation June 27, 2010 9:19 PM EDT
No, from Dr. Michael Savage...you Red Diaper Doper Baby!
by curse914 June 27, 2010 10:10 PM EDT
Does Michael Savage even show up on the importance meter?
See all 4 Replies
See all 93 Comments
Latest News
CBS News on Facebook
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right