Senator Jeff Sessions questions Elena Kagan at her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Kagan has worked in the Clinton White House. It looks like she learned a thing or two from “Slick Willie” on evading questions and giving disingenuous answers.
After watching this, would you buy a used car off this woman?
If you would, I own a very tall building in Paris I’d like to sell you.
6 thoughts on “Evasive Elena”
America does NOT need a third Ivy League-educated liberal woman on the Supreme Court! And especially NOT one who refuses to speak the truth about her own actions. And ESPECIALLY NOT one who believes a few giggles will get her a pass on answering TOUGH questions!
It is amazing how politicians can believe the American public is SO stupid! Guess what, folks, I'd take any of my local political committee and put them on the Supreme Court before allowing such an UNQUALIFIED person such as Elena Kagan to sit on the highest court in the land!
She obviously thinks that the Supreme Court should rely on case loaww, and not the Constitution, just like Obama. But hey, she was decent in that Mall Cop movie.
I would agree with so many people in disliking her, but to suggest she is in anyway 'good' at evading questions is just silly, and frankly hands her an undue compliment. That interview did far more damage to her than it demonstrated any threat to US society.
That clip did not show evasiveness, it was a brick wall – as Jeff finally pins her down with the 'Legal Progressive' moniker, she just stonewalls by playing (im not sure if it was an act, she genuinely seems that dumb) dumb – "I dunno what legal-progressive means…". To be honest, I am not really angry at that performance, nor impressed by any apparant media skills – I'm simply embarrassed for her. For someone of such standing to have to resort to such schoolyard tactics is just, well, sad. I half expected her to start chanting "I know you are, but what am I! Takes one to know one!"…And end the interview with her fingers in her ears "La la la la la, I'm not listening, la la la la la…".
What is frightening is there is nothing to do to stop her from being confirmed, so it's all a dog and pony show.
It has been noted in the last couple of days that Justice Sotomayor said, during her confirmation hearing, that the owning of a firearm as characterized in the 2nd Amendment was a fundamental right of all Americans. In the most recent Supreme Court decision related to the 2nd Amendment, we find Justice Sotomayor on the liberal side of the argument. She voted against the idea that Americans have a Constitutional right to own a firearm. Should we expect anything different from Elena Kagan regarding what she has said during the course of this confirmation hearing (I agree that she hasn't said much of substance) and what she will do if she is confirmed? I don't think so. This is a dangerous woman who we know little or nothing about (just like we had with Obama during the presidential campaign) and mark my words when I say that we will rue the day that she becomes part of the SCOTUS.
The real problem with these hearings is that the politicians asking the questions love to hear themselves talking far too much, thus giving way too many openings to construct evasive answers, as is clearly demonstrated here. Short, sharp closed questions would do much more to pin this type of slippery operators onto their opinions.