July 14th, 2010
06:09 PM ET
4 years ago

Cornyn to oppose Kagan nomination

Sen. John Cornyn is the second Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to oppose Elena Kagan's nomination.
Sen. John Cornyn is the second Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to oppose Elena Kagan's nomination.

Washington (CNN) – Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, announced Wednesday he will not support Elena Kagan's nomination for the Supreme Court.

"Solicitor General Kagan's testimony before the Judiciary Committee did not assure me that she agrees with the traditional understanding of the proper role of a judge," Cornyn said in a statement. "Judges should strictly interpret the written Constitution, which means both enforcing written limitations on the scope of government power, such as the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause, as well as not inventing new rights or imposing their own policy views on the American people."

Cornyn is the second Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to oppose Kagan's nomination. He joins Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch who announced his opposition earlier this month.

Cornyn said Kagan's explanations of her judicial philosophy were "vague and open to multiple interpretations" and that she was "unable to articulate limits on the federal Commerce Clause power."

Last year, Cornyn opposed the nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's first high court nominee.

The committee is expected to vote on Kagan's nomination next Tuesday.


Filed under: Elena Kagan • John Cornyn • Supreme Court
soundoff (40 Responses)
  1. Jab

    And this is a surprise because why????

    July 14, 2010 06:15 pm at 6:15 pm |
  2. jannett

    republicans will block anyone nominated by president obama.

    July 14, 2010 06:19 pm at 6:19 pm |
  3. Kevin Collins

    When GOPers say they don't want "activist" judges on the Supreme Court, what they mean is they don't want *liberal"-activist judges, for they have no problem with GOP-activist ones as long as they agree with their rulings. After all, it was a GOP-dominated Court that handed Bush the presidency in Bush-vs.-Gore even though the Court made explicitly clear that the ruling was to *never* to serve as a precedent. Boy, was *that* unprecented!

    July 14, 2010 06:21 pm at 6:21 pm |
  4. Beverly - NYC

    Wow a Republican saying NO! Excuse me while I act shocked.

    July 14, 2010 06:22 pm at 6:22 pm |
  5. Doug

    "Judges should strictly interpret the written Constitution, which means both enforcing written limitations on the scope of government power... as well as not inventing new rights or imposing their own policy views on the American people."

    So, Cornyn must have voted against John Roberts.

    July 14, 2010 06:24 pm at 6:24 pm |
  6. hobart

    >"Judges should strictly interpret the written Constitution, which means both enforcing written limitations on the scope of government power, such as the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause, as well as not inventing new rights or imposing their own policy views on the American people."

    Earth to Cornyn: Unless, you're name is John Roberts, or Sam Alito, or Antonin Scalia, or Clarence Thomas. Hypocrite.

    Why do Republicans bear false witness against their neighbors?

    July 14, 2010 06:26 pm at 6:26 pm |
  7. fideauxdon

    This is not news. The GOP's only response to anything or anybody that the President supports is to oppose it. They'll continue to do this until they achieve the Presidency, and a majority in both Houses of Congress, at which point the country will go straight down the toilet. You and the rest of the media are complicit by treating the GOP as a serious alternative, instead of treating them like the obstructionists that they are.

    July 14, 2010 06:26 pm at 6:26 pm |
  8. scott

    Gee....what a suprise that Republicans would oppose someone whom everyone says is overwhelmingly qualified. On a practical note, she is only a bit left of center and they hate her, but Scalia, Thomas, etc...are all ultra right and Democrats confirmed her because of their qualifications. Too bad the GOP refuses to apply the same standars of what's good for America and not what's good for the GOP.

    July 14, 2010 06:29 pm at 6:29 pm |
  9. Video Guy

    Why is this news, the guy is a Republican in lock step with the party leadership. Rush would never let him hear the end of it if he voted otherwise.

    July 14, 2010 06:30 pm at 6:30 pm |
  10. DorisV

    Cronyn is just another ignornant obstructionist from TX. Would you expect anything else from him? You call this news??

    July 14, 2010 06:31 pm at 6:31 pm |
  11. D.

    So???They veteo everything after De Mint said so.

    July 14, 2010 06:31 pm at 6:31 pm |
  12. XWngLady

    "Judges should strictly interpret the written Constitution, which means both enforcing written limitations on the scope of government power, such as the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause, as well as not inventing new rights or imposing their own policy views on the American people."

    Yeah, you mean like how Chief Justice Roberts and the rest of his convservative cronies have been doing with campaign finance and other issues?....Rrrrrright.

    ANNOUNCING Pres. Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court – Pres. George Washington....Republican Response: "I just don't believe that Mr. Washington understand's the America that we live in now. I believe his ideas are outdated and that he just doesn't have a good grasp on the Constitution as it functions today."

    July 14, 2010 06:33 pm at 6:33 pm |
  13. CBR

    It seems as if no person can meet Senator Cornyn's standards unless they share his idea of justice. I am not sure just what he meant but I have an idea that a white female who is anywhere near liberal and a Hispanic female would definitely not fit the mold.

    I don't believe a moderate Republican would fit the bill either.

    July 14, 2010 06:36 pm at 6:36 pm |
  14. Shelly

    Sen. Corny and the Republicans are now concerned about the interpretationf the constitution???? haha.....Have they read any of Justice John Roberts decisions....a man driven by his deep conservative ideology!

    July 14, 2010 06:37 pm at 6:37 pm |
  15. Go USA!

    So what's the big news? This idiot has voted "NO" on everything since January of last year....

    If the GOP was serious about cuting back on government spending, then they would stop paying every GOP member of Congress who has tried to obstruct the progress of our country for the last 19 months. Everyone who voting "NO" on everything, even the stuff they previously approved of, should have to return their pay to the Federal Government!

    God help our Nation if the GOP wins back Congress this fall, it will be the end of the middle class....

    July 14, 2010 06:40 pm at 6:40 pm |
  16. rita

    We in Texas are always 100% assured that Cornyn will tow the Republican line at all costs. Cornyn was not at all pleased with Harvards opposition to institutionalized discrimination of homosexuals created by a Republican congress for the U.S. military. Harvard took a stand against discrimination by refusing to allow recruiters access to their (heterosexual only) student body and Kagan happened to be part of the administration at the time. This is the real thorn in the sides of Hatch and Cornyn. They don't want to see any more baby steps toward legalization, equalization or normalization of gay rights for red-blooded, gay and fully American citizens within the borders of the United States of America.

    July 14, 2010 06:41 pm at 6:41 pm |
  17. sally

    How surprising! The Republicans are opposing the president. Of course, they offer such constructive alternatives for anything Obama tries to get accomplished. If this country is on the wrong track, it is important to put the shoe on the correct foot. The Republicans drove the economy into the drink and they are still resisting change. How dumb can you get, particularly if you buy into their negativity!!!!!

    July 14, 2010 06:41 pm at 6:41 pm |
  18. Marcus

    "Judges should strictly interpret the written Constitution, which means both enforcing written limitations on the scope of government power, such as the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause, as well as not inventing new rights or imposing their own policy views on the American people."
    1 – Pot calling the kettle?
    2 – Hypocrisy going rampant?
    3 – Selective memory of the recent SCOTUS rulings?
    4 – All of the above?

    July 14, 2010 06:42 pm at 6:42 pm |
  19. Marcus

    And in other news Cornyn doesn't like Obama's presidency because the sky isn't as blue as it used to be during GWB's presidency...

    July 14, 2010 06:43 pm at 6:43 pm |
  20. Independant Thinker

    And who is surprised by this?

    I really believe that even if Obama paid off the national debt tomorrow, won the war in Afganistan on Friday and over the weekend was able to get a signed peace agreement between Israel and the Palistinians...these jerks would still complain.

    There self interest is showing. You'd think that being "Conservatives" they'd cover it up!

    shameful.....

    July 14, 2010 06:44 pm at 6:44 pm |
  21. John

    Cornyn is a joke, he supports Roberts and his click on the right wing activists court.

    July 14, 2010 06:44 pm at 6:44 pm |
  22. hd 100% ETH

    Having a plenty time before nominating her is wiseful.
    ...he is right. He would like to see her view to American people by calibrating American Constitutional microscopes.
    Several years ago, we had a problem that we nominated some judges that knocks our head after they got the job.

    After all, we are living on a sub-conscioused civilizations.

    July 14, 2010 06:45 pm at 6:45 pm |
  23. Bob Ramos

    I am a Texan since birth. I cannot wait for the day when Cronyn is defeated at the polls and we get a good senator.

    July 14, 2010 06:45 pm at 6:45 pm |
  24. CM

    Funny how so-called strict constructionists rail against expansive interpretation of the commerce clause... unless they're talking about medical pot, in which case they uphold the power of the DEA to arrest cancer patients... this judicial "philosophy" is no less corrupt, politically-driven, and activist than its proponents want to pain Roe v Wade as.

    July 14, 2010 06:58 pm at 6:58 pm |
  25. harold

    So what..?..The Republicans are busy in a frenzy saying NO to everything ...eh?

    July 14, 2010 06:59 pm at 6:59 pm |
1 2