Graham Criticizes Senate Confirmation Process In Announcement Of Support For Kagan

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted today to approve Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The approval was widely expected; only Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) broke with his Republican colleagues to vote for Kagan. All the Democrats on the committee voted in favor of Kagan’s nomination.

Senator Graham chastised the other committee members and the Senate as a whole for the politicization of the nomination process, noting that only 21 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Congress. Graham said that the Senate has a role in protecting the independence of the the Judicial Branch, since the Supreme Court does not have a “political voice.”

Graham read a portion of a letter Kagan had written in favor of Miguel Estrada, whose 2001 nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals had been filibustered by Senate Democrats. Estrada, a conservative, had written a letter in support of Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and during Kagan’s confirmation hearings earlier this month Graham asked Kagan if she would write a letter in support of Estrada. Graham said that he was not sure if the cross-ideological support meant something, “but it makes me feel better.”

Graham said that criticism by senators of specific Supreme Court decisions was the cause of the increased politicization of the nomination process and therefore the cause of the increased politicization of Supreme Court decisions. “Are we living in an age of legislative activism?,” Graham asked, before repeating that “elections have consequences” and announcing his support for Kagan’s confirmation.

Kagan’s nomination will go to the Senate floor where it is expected to be approved, likely next week.

Republicans Postpone Sotomayor Vote

By Matthew S. Schwartz
Legal Affairs Correspondent - Talk Radio News Service

The confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor may be a sure thing, but Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have requested a one-week delay in the committee vote.

Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said he was "disappointed" by the delay, but "they have a right to put it over." Republicans informed him over the weekend of their intent to delay the vote to next Tuesday. If the committee approves her, the vote will go to the full Senate floor.

Leahy stressed the importance of confirming Sotomayor quickly, as the Supreme Court reconvenes early next term to hear a case on the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. "I hope that once she is passed out of this committee, there will be no delay on the floor, because she will have a very, very few weeks after she is confirmed to move to Washington" and prepare for the case, he said. "Delay would not help either her or the Supreme Court."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Al.) said that even with the delay, "Confirmation, if it occurs, will occur sooner than even John Roberts." Chief Justice Roberts began his Judiciary Committee hearings on Sept. 12, 2005, and was confirmed by the full Senate on Sept. 29.

Just 10 members of the 19-member Judiciary Committee showed up Tuesday, the minimum needed for committee business to take place.

Leahy told reporters he doesn't know how long the floor debate will last, but it should be quick because senators should all know how they plan to vote by the time the official debate starts.

Holder: Gitmo Detainees Not A Threat To U.S. Or Allies

By Mickael Combier-Talk Radio News Service

U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday that the Department of Justice is working with U.S. allies to assure them that there is no risk in accepting Guantanamo Bay detainees.

“By sharing information about who [the detainees] are, responding to the questions that are posed by our allies...we can ensure them that they will not pose a danger to their countries and will not pose a threat to us. I think we will be successful,” Holder stated.

Holder said that these detainees will be judged “with due process consistent with the laws of war..and with the assurance that what we are doing is consistent with our values and with our commitment to due process.”

Holder made it clear during his testimony that our allies will not be able to host all of the detainees and that, therefore, the U.S. will have to take its share of the task.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chair of the Committee noted “our criminal justice system handles extremely dangerous criminals, and more than a few terrorists, and it does so safely and effectively. We are the most powerful nation on hearth, we got to be able to handle the worst criminals.”

The hearing was held in front of a full audience. There were two protestors who accused the U.S. of torture and called for the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

Mukasey dodges bullets

Attorney General Michael Mukasey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing on oversight of the Department of Justice. Mukasey was questioned about past and present ‘politicization’ of the department, openness of the department with its findings, and controversial new criteria he has implemented for launching investigations into suspected terrorist activity.

A barrage of questions from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) proved ineffective. When asked by Schumer whether he would make records from certain cases from the Office of Professional Responsibility available to committee, Mukasey stated that it would depend on evidence. In response to his testimony, Schumer stated that he was very disappointed with the Attorney General’s answers. These sentiments were echoed by other members of the committee.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) criticized the Office of Legal Counsel’s actions, referring to it as ‘George Bush’s Shop of Legal Horrors'. He also called for Mukasey to learn from past mistakes in the deparment.

Mukasey was also questioned about new terrorist investigation criteria. These criteria would allow the department to access information on things like travel records and weapons possession. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WIS) addressed the issue, asking about the limits to which these criteria would go. Mukasey dismissed the questions as dealing with hypotheticals.

"What should be done with the collected information?"

No answers were given when asked the following question: "What should be done with the collected information?"
The senate judiciary committee held a hearing on "National Security Letters (NSL): The Need for Greater Accountability and Oversight." the witnesses present were James A. Baker, former council for Intelligence Policy at the Department of justice, Gregory T. Nojeim, director of the Freedom, Security and Technology project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and lastly Michael J. Woods, former chief of National Security Law Unit at the Office of the General Counsel, FBI.

The chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), introduced the guests after each Senator present delivered their remarks and their opinions on the issue. In his opening statement, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who has introduced the National Security Letter Reform Act, blamed the Patriot Act for the misuse and abuse of the NSL by the FBi itself. He mentioned that the Patriot Act "expanded the NSL statutes to essentially grant the FBI a blank check to obtain sensitive information about innocent Americans."

James Barker, in his remarks, distinguished between two different kinds of dat collection. He called the first one "metadata", which is the collection of "non-content information". Metadata is not protected by the fourth Amendment and focuses on the whereabouts of the criminal. Whereas the "content information" is the collection of the substance of the information and it is protected by the fourth Amendment. in Baker's opinion, metadata is an important tool to start the investigation, rather than fully rely on it, in other words, it is the "bread and butter and not the main course or the desert."

Gregory T. Nojeim mentioned that the NSL legislation is a one way spree and "self-policing does no work." He continued by pointing that FISA is "quite permissive" of the FBI to act independently. Certain data are considered to be sensitive and others less sensitive, he highlighted the fact that there must be tools to protect the checks and balances.

Michael J. Woods offered his practical experience in the FBI and said that the development of technology has had a tremendous effect on the investigations and the handling of the Patriot Act.