In Print: Volume 88: Number 2
What Elena Kagan Could Have and Should Have Said (and Still Have Been Confirmed)
By Eric J. Segall
88 Wash. U. L. Rev. 535 (2011)
Good morning, Senator Leahy, Senator Sessions, and the rest of the Judiciary Committee. It is a great honor to be here and to be nominated as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I am truly humbled by the proceedings today.
I have two obligations here this week. First, of course, I would like to make my President proud and be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Second, I would like to present to you and the American people a true and accurate picture of who I am and what I believe. Those two goals are not mutually inconsistent.
Before this process turns to your direct questions for me, I feel that it is important to explain and put into context some of the previous remarks I have made about this nomination process. These comments have generated controversy over the last several weeks, and I feel I should address them. A few years ago, wearing an academic hat, I wrote that the process had become a “vapid and hollow charade,” and that “repetition of platitudes ha[d] replaced discussion of viewpoints.” I concluded in that book review that the “hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government.” I would like to try to put a dent in that cynicism today.
