Renaissance Hotel
Chicago, Illinois
3:56 P.M. CDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. I am very pleased that the Senate has just voted to confirm Elena Kagan as our nation’s 112th Supreme Court Justice. And I want to thank the Senate Judiciary Committee, particularly its Chairman, Senator Leahy, for giving her a full, fair and timely hearing.
Over the past two months, the committee has scrutinized Elena’s record as a scholar, as a law school dean, as a presidential advisor, and as Solicitor General. And after 17 hours of testimony during which she answered more than 540 questions, I’d say they got a pretty good look at Elena Kagan. They’ve gotten a good sense of her formidable intelligence, her rich understanding of our Constitution, her commitment to the rule of law, and her excellent -- and occasionally irreverent -- sense of humor. And they have come to understand why, throughout her career, she has earned the respect and admiration of folks from across the political spectrum -- an achievement reflected in today’s bipartisan vote.
But today’s vote wasn’t just an affirmation of Elena’s intellect and accomplishments. It was also an affirmation of her character and her temperament; her open-mindedness and even-handedness; her determination to hear all sides of every story and consider all possible arguments. Because Elena understands that the law isn’t just an abstraction or an intellectual exercise. She knows that the Supreme Court’s decisions shape not just the character of our democracy, but the circumstances of our daily lives -- or, as she once put it, that “behind the law there are stories -- stories of people’s lives as shaped by the law, stories of people’s lives as might be changed by law.”
So I am confident that Elena Kagan will make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. And I am proud, also, of the history we’re making with her appointment. For nearly two centuries, there wasn’t a single woman on our nation’s highest court. When Elena takes her seat on that bench, for the first time in our history, there will be three women.
It is, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently stated, “one of the most exhilarating developments” -- a sign of progress that I relish not just as a father who wants limitless possibilities for my two daughters, but as an American proud that our Supreme Court will be more inclusive, more representative, and more reflective of us as a people than ever before.
Thanks very much, everybody.
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
GOP Senate Candidate Mark Kirk Says He Would Vote for Kagan, Were He Currently a US Senator
from the Kirk for Senate Campaign
With regard to Solicitor General Kagan, I would support her nomination. Ms. Kagan appears to be modest and thoughtful not because she expected this nomination but because she is modest and thoughtful. Under the Constitution, only the President can make this nomination and Solicitor General Kagan is one of the more careful nominees he could have picked.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 76: “To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though in general a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, would tend generally to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from family connection, from personal attachment, and from a view to popularity.”
Under this tradition, the Senate tempered any partisan review of the president’s choice. Recently, justices Ginsberg (96-3), Kennedy (97-0), Stevens (98-0), Scalia (98-0), Bryer (87-9) and Roberts (78-22) were confirmed by bipartisan majorities that applied the Federalist standard. I note Solicitor General Kagan earned support from the American Bar Association and conservative judges Estrada and McConnell.
Ms. Kagan's decision to ban military recruiters from Harvard troubled me. During her hearings, she committed to follow the unanimous Supreme Court ruling striking down that ban. I also note she considered the death penalty settled law and successfully won her case before the Supreme Court affirming the government's position against terrorists.
###
With regard to Solicitor General Kagan, I would support her nomination. Ms. Kagan appears to be modest and thoughtful not because she expected this nomination but because she is modest and thoughtful. Under the Constitution, only the President can make this nomination and Solicitor General Kagan is one of the more careful nominees he could have picked.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 76: “To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though in general a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, would tend generally to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from family connection, from personal attachment, and from a view to popularity.”
Under this tradition, the Senate tempered any partisan review of the president’s choice. Recently, justices Ginsberg (96-3), Kennedy (97-0), Stevens (98-0), Scalia (98-0), Bryer (87-9) and Roberts (78-22) were confirmed by bipartisan majorities that applied the Federalist standard. I note Solicitor General Kagan earned support from the American Bar Association and conservative judges Estrada and McConnell.
Ms. Kagan's decision to ban military recruiters from Harvard troubled me. During her hearings, she committed to follow the unanimous Supreme Court ruling striking down that ban. I also note she considered the death penalty settled law and successfully won her case before the Supreme Court affirming the government's position against terrorists.
###
Monday, May 17, 2010
US Supreme Court Rules Against Life Sentences for Juveniles Who Haven't Killed
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court said that sentences of
life without possibility of parole for crimes other than
homicide that were committed when the offender was under the
age of 18 are unconstitutional. The decision, in a Florida
case involving an armed burglary conviction, said such
sentences violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and
unusual punishment
life without possibility of parole for crimes other than
homicide that were committed when the offender was under the
age of 18 are unconstitutional. The decision, in a Florida
case involving an armed burglary conviction, said such
sentences violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and
unusual punishment
Monday, May 10, 2010
Biography of Elana Kagan, Nominated by President Obama to Supreme Court
Elena Kagan was confirmed as the 45th Solicitor General of the United States in March 2009.
Prior to her confirmation, Elena Kagan was the Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law and the 11th Dean of Harvard Law School. During her nearly six-year tenure as Dean, Harvard Law School expanded and enhanced its faculty, modernized its curriculum, developed new campus facilities, promoted public service, and improved the student experience.
A leading scholar of administrative law, Kagan came to Harvard Law School as a visiting professor in 1999 and became Professor of Law in 2001. While on the faculty, Kagan taught administrative law, constitutional law, civil procedure, and seminars on issues involving the separation of powers. She was appointed Dean of the Law School in 2003.
From 1995 to 1999, Kagan served in the White House, first as Associate Counsel to the President (1995-96) and then as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1997-99). In those positions she played a key role in the executive branch’s formulation, advocacy, and implementation of law and policy in areas ranging from education to crime to public health.
Kagan launched her academic career at the University of Chicago Law School, where she became an assistant professor in 1991 and a tenured professor of law in 1995. In 1993, Kagan received the graduating students’ award for teaching excellence.
Kagan clerked for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1986 to 1987. The next year, she clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the United States Supreme Court. She worked as an associate in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1989 to 1991.
Kagan received her bachelor’s degree, summa cum laude, from Princeton in 1981. She attended Worcester College, Oxford, as Princeton’s Daniel M. Sachs Graduating Fellow, and received an M. Phil. in 1983. She then attended Harvard Law School, where she was supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated magna cum laude in 1986.
Prior to her confirmation, Elena Kagan was the Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law and the 11th Dean of Harvard Law School. During her nearly six-year tenure as Dean, Harvard Law School expanded and enhanced its faculty, modernized its curriculum, developed new campus facilities, promoted public service, and improved the student experience.
A leading scholar of administrative law, Kagan came to Harvard Law School as a visiting professor in 1999 and became Professor of Law in 2001. While on the faculty, Kagan taught administrative law, constitutional law, civil procedure, and seminars on issues involving the separation of powers. She was appointed Dean of the Law School in 2003.
From 1995 to 1999, Kagan served in the White House, first as Associate Counsel to the President (1995-96) and then as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1997-99). In those positions she played a key role in the executive branch’s formulation, advocacy, and implementation of law and policy in areas ranging from education to crime to public health.
Kagan launched her academic career at the University of Chicago Law School, where she became an assistant professor in 1991 and a tenured professor of law in 1995. In 1993, Kagan received the graduating students’ award for teaching excellence.
Kagan clerked for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1986 to 1987. The next year, she clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the United States Supreme Court. She worked as an associate in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1989 to 1991.
Kagan received her bachelor’s degree, summa cum laude, from Princeton in 1981. She attended Worcester College, Oxford, as Princeton’s Daniel M. Sachs Graduating Fellow, and received an M. Phil. in 1983. She then attended Harvard Law School, where she was supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated magna cum laude in 1986.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
IL Supreme Court Rules Against Provena Healthcare, In Challenge to Its Nonprofit Status
FROM: The Center for Tax and Budget Accountability
Chicago, IL - 3/18/2010 The Illinois Supreme Court clarified state law today in its decision in Provena Covenant Medical Center v. The Department of Revenue.
"This is a groundbreaking decision because it makes clear that Illinois non-profit hospitals must provide charitable care to poor, uninsured patients in exchange for the valuable property tax exemptions granted by local government. The Court stated that 'if a charitable institution wishes to avail itself funds which would otherwise flow into a public treasury' it must provide a charitable public service in exchange," according to Heather O'Donnell, Policy Director of Healthcare and Human Services at the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, which filed an amicus brief in the case.
All states, as well as the federal government, have been waiting on the Provena decision for guidance on what the standard should be for the multiple tax benefits granted to non-profit, charitable hospitals. This decision will have a significant impact on improving access to affordable health care for the poor, especially during such difficult economic times. For further information, click here
Chicago, IL - 3/18/2010 The Illinois Supreme Court clarified state law today in its decision in Provena Covenant Medical Center v. The Department of Revenue.
"This is a groundbreaking decision because it makes clear that Illinois non-profit hospitals must provide charitable care to poor, uninsured patients in exchange for the valuable property tax exemptions granted by local government. The Court stated that 'if a charitable institution wishes to avail itself funds which would otherwise flow into a public treasury' it must provide a charitable public service in exchange," according to Heather O'Donnell, Policy Director of Healthcare and Human Services at the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, which filed an amicus brief in the case.
All states, as well as the federal government, have been waiting on the Provena decision for guidance on what the standard should be for the multiple tax benefits granted to non-profit, charitable hospitals. This decision will have a significant impact on improving access to affordable health care for the poor, especially during such difficult economic times. For further information, click here
Thursday, February 4, 2010
MORE DETAILS: Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Down Medical Malpractice Caps
From Crain's Chicago Business
(Crain’s) — The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday struck down limits on jury awards in medical malpractice cases passed by the Legislature four years ago amid spiking liability costs for medical providers.
The court ruled that the caps on pain and suffering and other non-economic damages — $500,000 per case for doctors and $1 million for hospitals — are unconstitutional.
The court’s opinion upholds a 2007 ruling by a Cook County Circuit Court judge determining that the law violated the Illinois Constitution’s “separation of powers” clause, essentially finding that lawmakers interfered with the right of juries to determine fair damages.
It’s the third time the state’s high court has quashed limits on medical malpractice awards, having tossed out similar laws in 1976 and 1997.
The ruling is a blow to physicians, hospitals and malpractice insurers, who successfully argued in 2005 that frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury verdicts were driving up insurance rates and forcing physicians to leave the state.
The court’s ruling stems from a malpractice lawsuit filed in 2006 by the family of a girl who suffered brain damage during her delivery at Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park. Illinois’ trial bar selected the suit as its “test case” to challenge the law.
Liability insurance rates for Illinois doctors generally have held steady or dipped slightly since the caps took effect in August 2005, according to survey data from Medical Liability Monitor, an Oak Park-based trade publication. That’s roughly in line with national trends.
(Crain’s) — The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday struck down limits on jury awards in medical malpractice cases passed by the Legislature four years ago amid spiking liability costs for medical providers.
The court ruled that the caps on pain and suffering and other non-economic damages — $500,000 per case for doctors and $1 million for hospitals — are unconstitutional.
The court’s opinion upholds a 2007 ruling by a Cook County Circuit Court judge determining that the law violated the Illinois Constitution’s “separation of powers” clause, essentially finding that lawmakers interfered with the right of juries to determine fair damages.
It’s the third time the state’s high court has quashed limits on medical malpractice awards, having tossed out similar laws in 1976 and 1997.
The ruling is a blow to physicians, hospitals and malpractice insurers, who successfully argued in 2005 that frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury verdicts were driving up insurance rates and forcing physicians to leave the state.
The court’s ruling stems from a malpractice lawsuit filed in 2006 by the family of a girl who suffered brain damage during her delivery at Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park. Illinois’ trial bar selected the suit as its “test case” to challenge the law.
Liability insurance rates for Illinois doctors generally have held steady or dipped slightly since the caps took effect in August 2005, according to survey data from Medical Liability Monitor, an Oak Park-based trade publication. That’s roughly in line with national trends.
BREAKING NEWS: Illinois Supreme Court Rules Caps on Medical Malpractice Awards Unconstitutional
Today, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that medical malpractice caps, adopted by the Illinois General Assembly in 2005, infringe on the judicial branch's power.
Click the link below for more information from the Springfield State Journal-Register.
http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x1090837992/Illinois-medical-malpractice-caps-unconstitutional
Click the link below for more information from the Springfield State Journal-Register.
http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x1090837992/Illinois-medical-malpractice-caps-unconstitutional
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Durbin Statement on the Supreme Court's Decision to Overturn Campaign Finance Laws
From the Office of U.S. Senator Dick Durbin
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to overturn a ban on corporate spending on political campaigns.
“Today’s decision by Supreme Court is a triumph for special interest and judicial activism at its worst. Overturning the ban on corporate spending on political campaigns opens the floodgates for the corrupting influence and the dominant hand of special interest groups.”
“At a time when the American people have ample reason to be wary of powerful corporations focused on a selfish agenda, this decision will only fuel feelings of cynicism and distrust in our system. The power of large corporations and special interests is already immense; this decision will put overwhelming pressure on elected officials to bend even more in the direction of Big Business.”
“We must now create a system where we finance campaigns fairly. It is the only way can ensure that our candidates and elected officials focus on addressing the nation’s problems and not on the limited interests of the wealthy and powerful few.”
Durbin is the author of the Fair Elections Now Act – a bill which would create a voluntary system that gives candidates the option to finance their campaigns with small dollar donations plus matching contributions from the Fair Elections Fund.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Durbin Statement on Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
From the Office of U.S. Senator Dick Durbin
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) made the following statement regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.
“President Obama has made an outstanding and historic choice in his selection of New York Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court.
Her compelling life story and three decade career in nearly every aspect of the law provide Judge Sotomayor with unique qualifications to be the next Supreme Court justice. She has been called “one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting” and would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any jurist in 100 years.
Barack Obama knows better than most: when you are the first, you have to be the best. And Judge Sotomayor’s life – from public housing in the Bronx to the highest courts in our land – is a story of excellence.
I look forward to hearing Judge Sotomayor’s testimony in the Judiciary Committee. I hope and expect she will receive quick confirmation in the United States Senate.”
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) made the following statement regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.
“President Obama has made an outstanding and historic choice in his selection of New York Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court.
Her compelling life story and three decade career in nearly every aspect of the law provide Judge Sotomayor with unique qualifications to be the next Supreme Court justice. She has been called “one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting” and would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any jurist in 100 years.
Barack Obama knows better than most: when you are the first, you have to be the best. And Judge Sotomayor’s life – from public housing in the Bronx to the highest courts in our land – is a story of excellence.
I look forward to hearing Judge Sotomayor’s testimony in the Judiciary Committee. I hope and expect she will receive quick confirmation in the United States Senate.”
Friday, January 9, 2009
State Supreme Court Hands Down Opinion in Burris Case
Illinois Supreme Court says Sec. of State Jesse White is not required to sign and affix the state seal to the document appointing Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate. Read the opinion here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)