Break Dancing In The Senate Judiciary Hearing Room

Jillian Bandes | June 29, 2010 12:29 PM

There hasn’t been any break dancing in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room just yet, but there are a few juicy nuggets we can pull out of what has transpired. The first is something other nominees before her have brought up in past hearings: whether cases argued for clients is a reflection of their own personal legal opinion. Kagan spent many years practicing law for the government, and during that time, had to defend and prosecute cases that were assigned to her. In the hearing today, Kagan said that she did not always argue on behalf of the cause that she personally agreed with. Instead, it was just a business transaction.

The juicy part comes when Senators start questioning her about what sides of the cases she would’ve taken if given the chance. Then, of course, she will avoid giving an actual answer as to what she personally agreed with - something she has already done a little bit already. As Ilya points out, that's a wise strategy in terms of raw self-interest. Kagan is responding to questions by referencing to existing precedent rather than speaking about her own personal opinion. The American people won't have any concrete knowledge of her most important legal opinions, and there won't be any hiccups on her way to a smooth SCOTUS confirmation.

Another juicy part came when Sen. Sessions hit hard on Kagan’s stance on DADT, emphasizing that Kagan’s treatment of military recruiters was soley based on her attitude towards gay rights. Kagan insisted she had the utmost "honor" for the military -- direct quote -- but its would seem that she honored gay rights more than the rights of our nation's soldiers.