Quantcast
Utah

Sen. Orrin Hatch grills Elena Kagan on First Amendment

Comments

Return To Article
  • padanny
    June 29, 2010 5:08 p.m.

    If the republicans (HATCH included) hadn't been so aloof from their constituents and spent so much time power grabbing and holding hands with democrats, we might still have a voice in this debate. As it stands now this liberal activist will be appointed.

    Flush the Washington toilet. Change the country...no shots fired>

  • Cougar Blue
    June 29, 2010 5:14 p.m.

    I watched Senator Hatch today. He spent half of it railing against Obama for chastising the court for saying that corporations are people, which it should have been. But this was about Kagan, not about the grandstanding by our illustrious, as it were, senator. It was a disgusting display of arrogance.

  • CadillaqJaq
    June 29, 2010 7:33 p.m.

    "...a disgusting display of arrogance" IMO was President Obama's demagoguery of the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address. No respect. Less than presidential.

  • Solomon
    June 29, 2010 8:21 p.m.

    Re:CadillaqJaq

    "...a disgusting display of arrogance" IMO was President Obama's demagoguery of the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address. No respect. Less than presidential."

    The President has the right and duty to call the Supreme Court and Congress out when he feels they have made the wrong decisions because should act as a check on the Supreme Court and Congress just like they are supposed to act as a check on each other and the Executive.

    Executive deference to any other branch would be as inappropriate as legislative deference to the President or the Supreme Court or the Court being overly deferential to the President or Congress. Our system of government fails if the President doesn't take the opportunity to speak openly to the American people and Congress during State of the Unions.

    If Supreme Court decisions which may not be at the forefront of the public's mind are important to the President he should boldly speak to the American people and denounce the Courts decision so we can decide who we believe is right and if necessary urge members of Congress to propose an amendment to correct a Supreme Court ruling.

  • My2Cents
    June 30, 2010 5:23 a.m.

    The Supreme Court has the last word in all matters it reviews. The problems is the petty problems the Supreme Court has chosen to review. Most should have been thrown out as non constitutional matters, limits on contributions and spending by candidates is a legislative matter.

    Orin Hatch is right to establish the motives and personal beliefs on a Supreme Court Judge. The real objective is to keep a separation of powers. Each element of government has individual powers and the Supreme Court covers matters in legal and justice system, Legislators control the legislative branch, Obama is the administrative branch. These separation of powers have been breached and each trying to control the other. The Supreme Court has involved itself in matters that are not of constitutional rights or laws, Obama has made attempts to control all three powers. That is not his job or responsibility to oversee or make objectionable remarks about. Obama is supposed to be a leader and a president, not a dictator to tell each division of government what to do. Criticizing other departments of government shows how shallow and egotistical Obama is. He is overstepping his authority.

  • Zetareticuli
    June 30, 2010 5:42 a.m.

    The president checks the Judicial system by nominating the judges, not by disrespecting them. It isn't the place of the President to try and embarrass or guilt the Supreme Court Justices into making decisions he endorses. Trying to browbeat the other branches into conformity isn't "checks and balances", it's totalitarianism.

  • IakoSan
    June 30, 2010 5:45 a.m.

    Hatch was very unimpressive and arrogant. But what's new?

  • Sarah Nichole
    June 30, 2010 6:46 a.m.

    Obama has yet to act presidential in any of his dealings. I'd love to see it happen, but it hasn't yet.

  • Flashback
    June 30, 2010 7:22 a.m.

    Kagen replacing Stevens...What will be different about the makeup of the Supreme Court? Nothing. So what's the big deal if she makes it through the hearings and Senate vote? Nothing will change. Sotomeyer said that she felt gun ownership was an individual right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Of course she voted in the minority on the recent Chicago case. Unexpected? No.

  • The Real Maverick
    June 30, 2010 7:29 a.m.

    Dog and Pony show.

    Hatch making a big deal out of something he cannot change or influence yet scoring big points with ignorant Utahn voters who think that he's actually making a difference there in talking to Kagan. Sigh...

  • Beefrank
    June 30, 2010 7:30 a.m.

    The headline and premise of this article was that Hatch is thought to have asked a brilliant line of questions according to another Republican senator. Why would the DN use a quote from another Republican senator saying Hatch was brilliant? This is an example of the DN trying to lead the reader to a conclusion. In reading the article, we discover that Hatch used his turn to question Kagan to give a speech, not use a brilliant line of questioning.
    The Deseret News' deception in this case is antithetical to Deseret Media's mission statement. The DN should report a summary of what Hatch said, not lead the reader to a conclusion. The former is news, the latter is propaganda.

  • David B.
    June 30, 2010 7:36 a.m.

    If you think Hatch was unimpressive and arrogant what does that make Kagan? Kagan has no intention of being down the middle voice of the court and she still has absolutely no time on the bench so how does that qualify her other than a clerking position and maybe very limited roles in the last few years? She doesn't impress me at all and at the same time niether does Sotomayor.

  • David B.
    June 30, 2010 7:39 a.m.

    I also wish they would quit playing this dog and pony show and ask real questions and not accept jokes and laughs around the pertinent questions given to them.

  • Baccus0902
    June 30, 2010 7:42 a.m.

    "Sen. Orrin Hatch grills Elena Kagan on First Amendment" by Joseph Dougherty
    Hatch didn't grill Kagan, even the story does not substantiate the title of the article. More than anything, it seems everybody was having a good time.
    It seems that the DN many times tries to make the senators and politicians as great fighters. Well, most of that happens only in the mind of the reporter. No harm done other than the disservice to the DN'readers. On the other hand, possibly the DN publishes only what their readers want to read, sacrificing the truth in the process. No big deal!

  • Baccus0902
    June 30, 2010 7:45 a.m.

    Ooops! I meant politicians from Utah!

  • CP
    June 30, 2010 7:49 a.m.

    I really admire Senator Hatch. He knows what he is doing and he's not afraid to ask the questions and get the necessary answers to make sure the right people get into certain positions. You keep doing what you're doing Sen. Hatch..because you at least know what you're doing. Can't yet say that about the person in the seat of President.

  • sparkut
    June 30, 2010 7:56 a.m.

    I am sure if President Bush spoke against the supreme court in a similar way the same people decrying how disrepectful President Obama has been would be congratulating Mr Bush for how incredibly right it would be for him to do such a thing.

    President Obama is not the first President to speak out on a supreme court ruling. The supreme court is not perfect either and may very well make a wrong decision and I think the President should say something.

    To Sarah Nicole, I find that President Obama has acted far more presidential than Mr Bush ever did.

  • RobertBennett
    June 30, 2010 8:00 a.m.

    Kagan WILL get the job.
    Hatch WILL be without a job in 2012.

    Where were you Hatch when Utah needed you?


  • dustman
    June 30, 2010 8:03 a.m.

    PLEASE UTAH!!!!!, Get someone besides Hatch in there. Same guy, same results....aaaaaahhhhhh!!!!! He's milked out tax dollars enough. All you old people need to stop voting for him!!!!

  • Common sense man
    June 30, 2010 8:32 a.m.

    Hope all of you obama supporters or willing to learn to speak chinees after they own us, but don't worry about illegals from Mexico the chinees aren't as nice and giving as us Americans.they won't let you guys come and live on their tax dollars you'll have to pay taxes or go back to mexico, if you come back they will make examples of you.but we Americans who have wrked so hard to make this a great country will pay the real price.

  • The Authority
    June 30, 2010 9:01 a.m.

    Hatch has done a lot for this state. If you think getting rid of him will do anything to help conservative policies in Washington, you're dreaming.

  • Moderate
    June 30, 2010 9:03 a.m.

    Hatch does not represent the people who voted for him. He represents corporations above people every time.

  • Al
    June 30, 2010 9:24 a.m.

    @ sparkut

    You said: "I am sure if President Bush spoke against the supreme court in a similar way the same people decrying how disrepectful President Obama has been would be congratulating Mr Bush for how incredibly right it would be for him to do such a thing."

    That's just the point, President Bush did NOT disrespect the Supreme Court in a State of the Union speech or at any other time in public.

    Your point is null and void.

  • Lane Myer
    June 30, 2010 9:24 a.m.

    The Authority | 9:01 a.m. June 30, 2010
    "Hatch has done a lot for this state. If you think getting rid of him will do anything to help conservative policies in Washington, you're dreaming."


    Really? I didn't realize that. Will you enlighten me about what he has done "for this state?" There must be a long list, but the top three will do.

    PS - sCHIPS is for the whole nation, not just little ol' Utah.

  • Al
    June 30, 2010 9:25 a.m.

    @ dustman

    Your bigotry is showing

  • patriot
    June 30, 2010 9:41 a.m.

    Questions not answered. Kagan was asked by one senator if she was a legal progressive. She claimed she didn't know what that meant which was a lie... she just feared being labeled as a progressive because a progressive is a socialist. A legal progressive is someone who believes the constituion is an old , out dated document that can and should be changed to fit new laws. There are alot of legal progressives in the democratic party today who would just as soon do away with the constitution or at the very least see it as a hinderance to doing what they want (Obama). Justice Scalia ruled that the constitution is a standard - unchanging - and all laws are weighed against it. This woman is afraid to show her true colors (a legal progressive) and there needs to be a senator who will hammer this point home and not let her wiggle off the hook.

  • Lane Myer
    June 30, 2010 10:05 a.m.

    Al,

    Whether or not Obama was right and the Supreme Court was wrong, it was refreshing to see a President stand in front of those he was confronting and look them in the face as he did so.

    So many times, people will go on talk shows and criticize others or, even worse, send their minions to do so rather than encounter them personally.

    The Supreme Court is not infallable, especially on 5-4 votes. They should be able to take public criticism and listen. That is what good jurists would do.

  • Lane Myer
    June 30, 2010 10:09 a.m.

    Patriot: " A legal progressive is someone who believes the constituion is an old , out dated document that can and should be changed to fit new laws. "


    Why did our Founders give us an amendment system? Did they assume that they got everything exactly right? Do you think they got everything exactly right?


    Is our court right now "activist" in favor of business?

    Are they going against decades of precidence to rule in favor of businesses?

  • RobertBennett
    June 30, 2010 10:12 a.m.

    Kagan will get in.
    The Constitution will be disregarded.
    Obama will be smiling once again.
    Thanks alot Hatch.
    We will remember you in 2012.

  • WHAT NOW?
    June 30, 2010 10:21 a.m.

    Kagan's reputation will be destroyed by Republicans.

    Even if appointed to the SCOTUS her legacy will be one of someone who received a position for which she was not qualified.

    This is just another step of the Republican Ramp-Up to the mid-term elections.

    With the aide of foreign money flooding the Republicans, they will win at least 100 seats in the house and should pick up at least 10 seats in the senate.

    Just remember voters to put the power back where it belongs in the hands of corporations and lobbyists.

    Trust us.

    Anything less will be seen as an abject failure on the part of RNC Steele and Co.

  • Lane Myer
    June 30, 2010 10:37 a.m.

    RobertBennett | 10:12 a.m. June 30, 2010
    Kagan will get in.
    The Constitution will be disregarded.


    I do not understand what you are saying. Does Obama have the right to nominate Kagan per the constitution? Does the Senate have the right to approve of her per the constitution? Will she replace a conservative on the SC?

    Nothing will change with this appointment.

    The constitution has been followed.

  • RobertBennett
    June 30, 2010 11:10 a.m.

    Lane Myer, I wish you were right.
    I fear what Obama does.
    He will get his way.

  • Cincinnatus
    June 30, 2010 11:51 a.m.

    @Patriot

    "she just feared being labeled as a progressive because a progressive is a socialist."

    Well, if progressives are socialists, let's just roll back all the things that "progressives" in U.S. history have done, such as:

    Improved educational systems
    Child labor laws
    Regulation of large corporations (monopolies)
    Enactment of safe food and drugs laws
    Labor laws (8 hour days, safety, min. wage, workers comp)
    National parks
    Focus on local municipal issues, such as better ways to provide essential services, etc.

    You are twisting the meaning of the word progressive to fit your own usage of the term. There is a difference between a progressive and a socialist, but some people lump them together to create a reaction. As far as your use of "legal" progressive, there are Republicans that feel the same way about the Constitution.

    The Constitution is an amazing document, but it CAN be changed, through an amendment process created and approved by the Founding Fathers. Not to mention the fact that the world and technology have changed in 225 years, and the SCOTUS is forced to adapt rulings based on ideas and technologies that hadn't been thought of back then.

  • Blaine
    June 30, 2010 11:52 a.m.

    My2Cents said, "The Supreme Court has the last word in all matters it reviews...."

    That's true only because we the people allow it to be so. We the people established the federal government and we can fix any and all problems created by any of the three branches simply by directing our elected repersentatives to do it.

    The problem is that most voters are idiots (both major parties). We have the government we deserve.

  • RantBully
    June 30, 2010 12:04 p.m.

    Bad Supreme Court nominations like Kagan are the result of electing poor candidates to be President of the United States. This is the most damaging aspect of the election of Obama.

  • Lane Myer
    June 30, 2010 12:17 p.m.

    RobertBennett | 11:10 a.m. June 30, 2010
    Lane Myer, I wish you were right.
    I fear what Obama does.
    He will get his way.

    -------

    As a duly elected President with enough votes in the Senate, he WILL get this nomination through.


    She will replace a much more liberal judge and nothing will change.

    OK?

  • Lane Myer
    June 30, 2010 12:20 p.m.

    RantBully | 12:04 p.m. June 30, 2010
    "Bad Supreme Court nominations"


    Why do you think she is bad?

  • GC1
    June 30, 2010 12:29 p.m.

    @RantBully
    So, if this were the case, wouldn't the worst supreme court candidate nominee in the past 25 years (Thomas), be the result of electing a VERY poor candidate to be president of the United States (Bush Sr.)?

  • davidjay
    June 30, 2010 12:41 p.m.

    Note for Patriot:

    Who died and made Justice Scalia the expert of note on all things Constitutional. Last I heard there were nine justices on the Court. 4 of whom disagree strongly with Justice Scalia and 4 who sometimes agree with him.

    Perhaps it would be good to go back and look at the background of the Constitution once in a while.

    I'm sorry, but I am definitely not in the everything Scalia says is right school of thought.

  • Not_Scared
    June 30, 2010 1:50 p.m.

    We have Fox New and talk radio spreading lies.

    “. She claimed she didn't know what that meant which was a lie... she just feared being labeled as a progressive because a progressive is a socialist.”
    There’s the truth.
    “Progressive Pro*gress"ive, a. [Cf. F. progressif.]

    [1913 Webster]

    1. Moving forward; proceeding onward; advancing; evincing progress; increasing; as, progressive motion or course; -- opposed to retrograde. [1913 Webster]
    2. Improving; as, art is in a progressive state. [1913 Webster]
    3. (U. S. History) Of or pertaining to the Progressive party. [Webster 1913 Suppl.]
    4. Favoring improvement, change, progress, or reform, especially in a political context; -- used of people. Contrasted with conservative. [PJC]

  • Not_Scared
    June 30, 2010 1:52 p.m.

    "She will replace a much more liberal judge and nothing will change."

    It's so rare to read common sense here.

  • thelogicalone
    June 30, 2010 2:01 p.m.

    Senator Hatch had some good questions, at least he didn't waste time asking what she did on Christmas or if she's "team Edward" or "team Jacob"

  • Grover
    June 30, 2010 2:50 p.m.

    Sessions calls Hatch's questions "brilliant" and questions her lack of judicial experience and "political" focus. When Hatch was considered a prime candidate for the court, he presented the same profile, would Sessions have judged Hatch with the same yardstick? Pathetically partisan.

    PS. Not scared: "nothing will change"?? The age of the liberal wing is dropping dramatically while the good old boys are only getting older.

  • TMR
    June 30, 2010 3:32 p.m.


    I am scratching my head trying to figure out why Hatch's questions were "brilliant." Not that they were bad questions, but I am not sure why their value was so appealing to Sessions and apparently the DN.

  • Furry1993
    June 30, 2010 4:21 p.m.

    To GC1 | 12:29 p.m. June 30, 2010

    **So, if this were the case, wouldn't the worst supreme court candidate nominee in the past 25 years (Thomas), be the result of electing a VERY poor candidate to be president of the United States (Bush Sr.)? **
    You've left out a Bush. Yes, the worst Supreme Court candidate nominees in the past 25 years included Thomas -- he is indeed the worst -- but also Roberts and Alito, who skewed the Supreme Court off the center and into the far right and didn't tell the truth during their confirmation hearings about how they'd "respect" precedent (and then didn't in the Citizens United case).

  • the truth
    June 30, 2010 6:39 p.m.

    RE: Furry1993 | 4:21 p.m

    Actually it skewed it BACK To center from the left.

    Clearly you have a biased view of certian judges both politically and ideologically,

    if you compare their rulings to the constitution, you will see they are very much closer to the original intent and meanings than the others.

    they do not have the luxury of creating their own intents and meaings, that is NOT their job.


    but obviously you are quite biased towards those who will twist and redefine the constitution with very liberal interpretations,

    in other words, ignore the constitution and rule however you desire.

  • Jack Ryan
    June 30, 2010 6:54 p.m.

    My goodness, people, y'all need to relax a little. Flashback hit the nail on the head. I could see the outcry by conservatives if Kagan were replacing Scalia. But she's taking Stevens' place, one of the most liberal members of the court!

    So, we're at a status quo. Stevens obviously waited to retire until a Democrat was in office so that a like-minded justice would replace him. Did anyone really anticipate anything different? I may not agree with everything that Kagan has done or said, but she's extremely bright and has a strong CV. She's going to get confirmed.

    I tend to lean a little right of center politically, but this nomination doesn't offend me. Personally, I like to see a healthy mix on the Supreme Court.

  • Larry
    July 1, 2010 3:40 a.m.

    You do not have freedom of speech in Utah, Hatch does not know that!
    Freedom of speech to me and you are 2 different things.

  • BigPoet
    July 5, 2010 12:57 p.m.

    I am so pleased to see that Utah's senators have a spine and a conscience.

  • Not_Scared
    July 5, 2010 1:15 p.m.

    Soon we will see the mashing and grinding of teeth as Kagan wins appointment to the court and Obama has another data point proving here is nothing to lose politically, if he creates a new huge national monument in Utah. :-)