posted on Fri, July. 30, 2010
Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson Friday became the
first Democrat to oppose Elena Kagan, President
Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee. But she
picked up the support of New Hampshire
Republican Sen. Judd Gregg.
Kagan, the solicitor general who's expected to
easily win confirmation to the Supreme Court
next week, now has the backing of five
Republicans. Democrats control 59 Senate seats.
Nelson, in a statement Friday, said he would
not agree to filibuster the nomination, but
would vote against it.
"As a member of the bipartisan 'Gang of 14,' (a
group of senators who formed a coalition several
years ago) I will follow our agreement that
judicial nominees should be filibustered only
under extraordinary circumstances," Nelson said.
"If a cloture vote is held on the nomination of
Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, I am
prepared to vote for cloture and oppose a
filibuster because, in my view, this nominee
deserves an up or down vote in the Senate," he
added. Sixty votes are needed to stop a
filibuster.
But, Nelson said, "I have heard concerns from
Nebraskans regarding Ms. Kagan, and her lack of
a judicial record makes it difficult for me to
discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or
to reach a level of comfort that these concerns
are unfounded. Therefore, I will not vote to
confirm Ms. Kagan’s nomination."
Gregg's statement:
"The Senate's duty to provide advice and
consent on Presidential nominations to the
Supreme Court is one of its most significant
constitutional responsibilities. Separate and
distinct from its legislative function, the
confirmation process requires the Senate to put
aside politics and conduct a frank and
evenhanded review of the nominee’s record,
qualifications and demonstrated ability to apply
the law in a fair and impartial manner.
"I have met personally with Solicitor General
Elena Kagan, reviewed her record, and followed
her testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee. During this process, Ms. Kagan has
pledged that she will exercise judicial
restraint and decide each case that comes before
her based on the law, with objectivity and
without regard to her personal views. She also
has served the American people under two
different administrations and has a strong legal
academic background. She is qualified to serve
on the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Ms. Kagan and I may have different political
philosophies, but I believe that the
confirmation process should be based on
qualifications, not ideological litmus tests or
political affiliation. I will vote for her
confirmation."
