During the July 2 edition of Bloomberg Television's Political Capital,
Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson exalted Supreme Court nominee
Elena Kagan. Carlson stated she would vote for Kagan "twice" because "It
has been so long since I saw someone in public life joyful about being
there." [audio available here [1]]
The gushing didn't stop there for
Carlson who continued to adorn Kagan for her impeccable "intellectual
ability" and "temperament," despite admitting that there was little
substance known about Kagan. This however was not important to Carlson
who then proceeded to fawn over Kagan's joke that "brought the house
down."
Carlson ended by blaming Republicans as one of the reasons Kagan
wouldn't receive an almost unanimous decision to the court, similar to
Justice Scalia. However, National Review Editor Kate O'Bierne pointed
out that the fundamental reason some Republicans were going to vote
against Kagan was because of a "deep respect for the Constitution" and
Kagan would, "fall into the liberal mistake of wanting laws to reach
certain results and go there whether or not the Constitution permits
it."
A transcript of the July 2, 2010, segment follows:
AL HUNT: Margaret, if you were a Senator would you vote for Elena Kagan?
MARGARET CARLSON: Um, twice if I could.
AL HUNT: You are not from Chicago.
CARLSON: Given these vapid hearings that we have, all you can learn about is a judge is their intellectual ability and their temperament. And on those two points, she just excelled. It has been so long since I saw someone in public life joyful about being there. That is what was infectious about the hearings. When Lindsey Graham asked her about the Christmas day bomber he then switched with, 'Where were you on Christmas,' and she said 'like all Jews, I was at a Chinese restaurant'. She just said it right out. It brought the house down. I think that is why she is such good friends with Justice Scalia. Now he got a 99-1 vote. We live in a different era, she will not get that. People like Kate would vote against her.
HUNT: Let's find out. How would you vote?
KATE O'BEIRNE: I would vote no, and unlike Margaret because the fundamental reason I am voting no is because my deep respect for the Constitution. So I wouldn't even try to vote twice like Margaret. I would only vote once. And It is not because she is not qualified even though she hasn't been a judge. I don't think you have to had been a judge. She has enough of a background in federal and constitutional law. She certainly is an extremely likable person. But, it is wholly permissible for the Senate in their advise and consent role to see somebody as Elena Kagan, and everything in her background tells me this is the case, she is going to be a liberal on the bench. She is going to, I think, fall into the liberal mistake of wanting laws to reach certain results and go there whether or not the Constitution permits it.
-Rachel Burnett is News Analysis intern for the Media Research Center. You can follow her on Twitter here [2].