Executive Session

Floor Speech

EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - March 19, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to share my views on the nomination of Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Obama to serve as Solicitor General of the United States.

As my colleagues know, I have supported several of President Obama's executive nominees and opposed a few others. I believe that it is my constitutional duty to carefully review the record and qualifications of each nominee, while giving an appropriate amount of deference to the President when a nominee is objectively qualified for the position to which they are nominated, regardless of political orientation.

For example, I voted to confirm Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I likewise voted to confirm Ambassador Ron Kirk to be U.S. Trade Representative.

Unfortunately, I could not reach the same conclusion with Attorney General Eric Holder regarding his fitness to serve as the Nation's top law enforcement official.

And, for the reasons outlined below, I cannot support Elena Kagan's nomination to be Solicitor General. My primary concern with Ms. Kagan's nomination is her continued failure to respond to legitimate and relevant questions posed by me and others.

As I explained when the Judiciary Committee approved Ms. Kagan's nomination on March 5:

Ms. Kagan notes how much she respects the Senate and its institutional role in the nominations process. Regrettably, her refusal to answer legitimate and relevant questions posed by me and others belies this claimed respect. For this reason, I will be voting `no' this morning and do not believe that her nomination should be advanced. I hope that Ms. Kagan reconsiders her position because I believe that she is otherwise qualified to serve as Solicitor General.

In response to Senator SPECTER's subsequent request to supplement her answers in writing, Ms. Kagan returned a 22-page letter purporting to do just that. But I concur with Senator SPECTER, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, who has determined that too many of Ms. Kagan's answers to relevant and legitimate questions remain incomplete and unresponsive. As Senator SPECTER correctly notes, this is about the Senate's institutional prerogatives.

In sum, I do not believe that Ms. Kagan has provided the basic level of responsiveness that the Senate's constitutional advice and consent function demands. And for that reason I am forced to vote against her.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source