The Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan get underway this afternoon, and while there are no doubt many many issues the committee would like to ask her regarding her constitutional views, I will be paying special attention to any and all references to comments and questions relating to church-state and religious liberty matters. I'm looking especially for her perspective on the limitations of government required by the Establishment Clause
Having watched a few of these, I know the hope of probing questions and illuminating answers may be a pipe dream, but hey it could happen! Follow along below for a live-blog of any relevant discussion during the hearings. I've got coffee, laptop and remote control ready to watch the proceedings so you don't have to. Updates below (quotations are my rough transcript):
Opening Statements
4:05 – The first day of hearings has come to a close. Questions will begin tomorrow at 9 am ET. Tune back in to the blog for updates and comment on any conversation relevant to religious liberty and church-state separation.
4:00 – In her opening statement, Kagan names religious liberty is one of the signature guarantees of American law.
My grandparents came to this country in search of a freer and better life for themselves and their family. They wanted to escape bigotry and oppression, to worship and they pleased, and work as hard as they were able. They found in this country and they passed on to their children and their children's children the blessings of liberty. Those blessings are rooted in this country's constitution and its historic commitment to the rule of law.
2:50 – The Senate Judiciary Committee is in a break, but should resume at any moment. Kagan's opening statement should be heard this afternoon.
2:10 – If the early opening statements of committee members are any indication, discussion of constitutional issues may be somewhat abstract and philosophical over the next few days. Is the role of a Supreme Court Justice like calling balls and strikes? Is it properly "results oriented"? Should its purpose be to look out for everyday Americans over and against powerful interests? Specific references to her record hover mainly over the question of whether she has the right judicial heroes (sigh), with a few well-traveled false distinctions thrown in ("traditional" vs. "activist"?) that we could hear – and have heard – in any confirmation hearing. I thought her lack of judicial experience made Kagan's nomination unique, requiring a special need to ask probing questions? Not especially encouraging.
1:50 – Senator Arlen Specter complains the Supreme Court has become an "ideological battleground" with "activism on both sides."
12:55 – In his opening remarks, Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) laid out what is at stake in being a Supreme Court Justice:
Should you be confirmed, your decisions will impact our pocketbooks and our livelihoods and determine the scope of our most cherished rights, from the right to privacy to the right to equal education, employment and pay; from the right to an attorney and a fair trial for the accused, to the right to speak and worship freely.
