Transcript from the Judiciary Committee

The following is the transcript of Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R) Alabama questioning of Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan before the Judiciary Committee, interpreted here, by yours truly.

Note: Adding at least 3 syllables to every word spoken by Senator Sessions makes this exponentially more fun, preferably out loud.

LEAHY: Senator Sessions?

SESSIONS: Oh Fuck that asshole liberal from Vermont is talking again

SESSIONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I value our relationship. And we’ve disagreed over documents and a few things, but I believe you’ve tried to handle this committee in a fair way, and nobody’s had more experience at it. And, fundamentally, I hope that we have, Dean Kagan, a good hearing. I hope that you can feel free to tell us precisely how you think so we can evaluate what you might be like on the bench. We can have brilliant and wonderful people, but if their approach to judging is such that I think allows them not to be faithful to the law, to not take the -- be able to honor that oath, which is to serve under the Constitution and laws of the United States, then we’ve got a problem. And I don’t think that’s judging. I think that becomes politics or law or something else. And so I would say that to you. I look forward to all of our members asking a number of questions to probe how you will approach your judgeship. Let me ask you this...

SESSIONS: Thank you, we actually agree on nothing. Dean Kagan, you may think you are a smarty pants, but I know that you are a liberal and you will be an activist judge like all you smarty pants liberals from Harvard.

LEAHY: Incidentally, thank you for those kind words.

LEAHY: Shut the fuck up and move on with your bullshit questions.

SESSIONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I meant that. One thing before I get started, I would like to ask about your discussion of constitutional change earlier. You indicated that there is an amendment process in the Constitution, there are two ways to do so in the Constitution. Is there any other way than those two ways that the Constitution approves to change the Constitution?

SESSIONS: Fucking idiot. Now before I get started, I failed civics in high school can you help me out?

KAGAN: Well, Senator Sessions, the Constitution is an enduring document. The Constitution is the Constitution. And the Constitution does not change except by the amendment process. But as I suggested to Chairman Leahy, the Constitution does over time -- we’re asked -- courts are asked to think about how it applies to new sets of circumstances, to new problems, to things that the framers never dreamed of. And in applying the Constitution case by case by case to new circumstances, to changes in the world, the constitutional law that we lives -- live under does develop over time.

KAGAN: Shit, this is going to be worse that I thought. Listen you fucking idiot, the amendment process is in Article V of the Constitution, that means five, not vee, by the way. We've done it 27 times. But of course the document has to change over time, the authors never dreamed of things like the internet or lethal injection. duh.

SESSIONS: Well, developing is one thing. And many of the provisions, as you noted, they’re not specific. But they’re pretty clear, I think, but not always specific. But you -- you’re not empowered to alter that document and change its meaning. You’re empowered to apply its meaning faithfully in new circumstances. Wouldn’t you agree?

SESSIONS: huh, five, huh. Well listen up you, those words are those words and no one said any different. Agree?

KAGAN: I do agree with that, Senator Sessions. That’s the point I was trying to make, that you take the Fourth Amendment and you say there’s unreasonable searches and seizures and that provision stays the same unless it’s amended. That’s the provision. And then the question is, what counts as an unreasonable search and seizure? And new cases come before the court and the court tries to think about, to the extent that one can glean any meaning from the text itself, from the original intent, from the precedents, from the history, from the principles embedded in the precedent, and the court sort of step by step by step, one case at a time, figures out what the Fourth -- how the Fourth Amendment applies.

KAGAN: Sigh. Take the fourth, it says unreasonable search and seizure. What does the word unreasonable mean Senator? Precedent, tells us what it means.

SESSIONS: Well, I do believe that there’s some out there who think the court really has an opportunity to update the Constitution and make it say what they’d like it to say. I know we’ve seen a bit of a revival in the idea of the progressive legal movement that people in the early 20th century advocated views for changing America. They felt the Constitution often blocked them from doing that, and they were very aggressive in seeking ways to subvert or get around that Constitution. Your former colleague at University of Chicago, Richard Epstein, said any constitutional doctrine that stood in the way of the comprehensive social or economic reforms -- he’s referring to the progressives -- had to be rejected or circumvented. And he noted that the progressive influence continues to exert itself -- he’s talking about today -- long past the New Deal in modern Supreme Court decisions that address questions of federalism, economic liberties and takings for public use. I believe that’s a dangerous philosophy. I believe that’s a philosophy not justified by any judge on the court. And I’m worried about the trends. I think the American people are. Greg Craig, the former chief council to President Obama, who’s known you for some time, I understand, said of you, "She is largely a progressive in the mold of Obama himself," close quote. Do you agree with that?

SESSIONS: yeah yeah yeah who gives a shit about the 4th, the 2nd is the only one that counts ... now I'm going to quote a bunch of unrelated material cause it has some big words and then call you a liberal and a progressive, cause that's what you are and your smarty pants friends from that liberal University of Chicago said so. Are you a liberal?

KAGAN: Well, Senator Sessions, I’m not quite sure how I would characterize my politics. But one thing I do know is that my politics would be, must be, have to be completely separate from my judging ... it’s what the text of the Constitution says, it’s what the history says, the structure, the precedent. But what the law says, not what a judge’s personal views.

KAGAN: If you can't tell that I'm a Democrat you are dumber than I thought, but that doesn't matter because I'm smart enough to keep my politics out of my decisions, unlike yourself.

SESSIONS: Well, I agree. But the point I just wanted to raise with you is that this idea, this concept of legal progressivism is afoot ... great progressive era of Justice Louis Brandeis. And I think we do have this national discussion going on about a revival of progressivism ... clerked for Judge Mikva, clerked for Justice Marshall, worked in the Clinton administration, in the Obama administration. I don’t think there’s any mystery to the fact that she is. As I said, a more progressive role than not," close quote. Do you agree with that?

SESSIONS: humph, cause I didn't like your answer, I'm going to ask the same thing again because something is definitely afoot, using different quotes and mention a bunch of liberals you have been known to work with, cause I know you are a filthy liberal who associates blacks and Jews.

KAGAN: Senator Sessions, it’s absolutely the case that I have served in two Democratic administrations. And I think...

KAGAN: Yes, full disclosure I worked for Clinton and Obama. Racist jackass. And I think...

SESSIONS: No, but I’m asking, do you agree with the characterization that you’re a legal progressive?

SESSIONS: did she just make fun of me? damn I think so .... interrupt her, interrupt her!

KAGAN: Senator Sessions, I honestly don’t know what that label means. I worked in two Democratic administrations. Senator Graham suggested yesterday, and I think he’s right, that you can tell something about me and my political views from that. But as I suggested to you, that my political views are one thing...

KAGAN: Christ, this man is an asshole.

SESSIONS: Well, we agree with you, exactly, that you -- you should not be condemned for being a political believer and taking part in the process and having views. But I’m -- I’m asking about his firm statement that you are a legal progressive, which means something. I think he knew what he was talking about. He’s a skilled lawyer who’s been in the midst of the great debates of this country about law and politics, just as you have. And so I ask you again: Do you think that is a fair characterization of your views? Certainly, you don’t think he was attempting to embarrass you or hurt you in that process.

SESSIONS: I'm going to ask a 3rd time cause it's fuuunnn. ARE YOU A LIBERAL!?!?! And if you are I hope you are embarrassed by it. he he that was kinda funny. I think I just made fun of her.

KAGAN: I love my good friend, Ron Klain, but I guess I think that people should be allowed to label themselves. And that’s -- you know, I don’t know what that label means and so I guess I’m not going to characterize it one way or the other.

KAGAN: This is stupid, can we move on.

SESSIONS: Well, I would just say, having looked at your overall record, having considered those two people who know you very well, I think you have to classify you -- I would have to classify you as someone in the theme of the legal progressive. Now, as you -- one of the things that we want to test, I guess, is your willingness to follow the law even if you might not agree with it. And Senator Leahy has asked you about the Harvard and the military. Isn’t it true, isn’t it a fact that Harvard had full and equal access to the recruiting office, the Office of Career Services when you became dean? And isn’t it true -- well, when you became dean?

SESSIONS: Well I don't care what you say, I declare you a filthy liberal and a progressive. Now. I am going to use the remainder of my time to ask you again and again about Harvard's sneaking around my law that I helped write.

KAGAN: Senator Sessions, the military had full access to our students at all times, both before I became dean and during...

KAGAN: here we go ....

(CROSSTALK)

SESSIONS: That’s not the question. I know that...

SESSIONS: Shit! She didn't say what I wanted her to say.

LEAHY: Senator, let her answer the question.

LEAHY: Shut the fuck up ass clown and let her out smart you again.

SESSIONS: All right, but -- you know, you -- you -- go ahead.

SESSIONS: All right, but -- you know, you -- you -- go ahead.

KAGAN: So the history of this is Harvard did have this antidiscrimination principle and for many, many years, my predecessor, who is Bob Clark, had set up a system to ensure military access, but also to allow Harvard to comply with its antidiscrimination policy which prohibited the Office of Career Services from providing assistance to employers that could not sign the antidiscrimination pledge. And the accommodation that Bob worked out was that the veterans’ organization would instead sponsor the military recruiters. So the only thing that was at issue was essentially the sponsoring organization, whether it was the Office of Career Services or instead the student veterans’ organizations.

KAGAN: Here it is Senator, so pay the fuck attention. Harvard has an antidiscrimination policy, if an employer doesn't want to sign the policy, they can't recruit at Career Services. The military, by act of this congress discriminates against gays and lesbians, so they can't recruit at Career Services. Because of what the military is, we worked out a special accommodation for the military so they could recruit on campus, just not a Career Services.

Now it gets really boring (you can read the whole thing here) so I'll summarize. Sessions asks the same question again and again about his law that the Third Circuit rejected. Kagan again and again answers that Harvard was always in compliance with the law. Then Sessions accuses her of being against don't ask don't tell, which she readily admits to. This goes on and on and on. Now on to the merciful end ...

KAGAN: Senator, the military at all times during my deanship had full and good access. Military recruiting did not go down. Indeed, in a couple of years, including the year that you’re particularly referring to, it went up. And it went up because we ensured that students would know that the military recruiters were coming to our campus. Because I talked about how important military service was. Because our veterans organization and the veterans on campus did an absolutely terrific job, a terrific service to their fellow students in talking to them about the honor of military service.

KAGAN: I will repeat myself for the umpteenth time ....

SESSIONS: Well -- I would just say, while my time is -- is running down, I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks, because it’s unconnected to reality. I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy. I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy and deny those military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government of loss of federal funds. This is what happened.

SESSIONS: Shit, I'm out of time and she hasn't said what I want her to say. Quick make another declarative and that will make it true! Ahhh that felt better.

LEAHY: The senator’s time has expired.

LEAHY: RED LIGHT!!!! A the fuck men, it's over! Did he just fart?

(CROSSTALK)

LEAHY: But you can respond to that if you want.

LEAHY: Christ, finish up, but make it quick.

SESSIONS: ... did not happen in that way. And I think if you had any complaint, it should have been made to the United States Congress, not to those men and women who we send in harm’s way to serve our nation.

SESSIONS: Shit! Shit! Shit! Quick, do something! .... well, you hate the military! HA! there, that did it, I got her!

LEAHY: Especially because of the number of people, including the dean of West Point who has praised you and said that you were absolutely not anti-military, I’ll let you respond -- take time to respond to what Senator Sessions just said.

LEAHY: Since Senator Jackass likes to make wild accusations I'll prove him wrong, then you can.

KAGAN: Well, thank you, Senator Leahy. You know, I respect and indeed I revere the military. My father was a veteran. One of the great privileges of my time at Harvard Law School was dealing with all these wonderful students that we had who had served in the military and students who wanted to go to the military. And I always tried to make sure that I conveyed my honor for the military. And I always tried to make sure that the military had excellent access to our students. And in the short period of time, Senator Sessions, that the military had that access through the veterans organization, military recruiting actually went up. But I also felt a need to protect our -- to defend our school’s very long-standing anti-discrimination policy and to protect the men and women, the students, who were meant to be protected by that policy: the gay and lesbian students who wanted to serve in the military and do that most honorable kind of service. And those are the two things that I tried to do. And I think, again, the military always had good access at Harvard Law School.

KAGAN: My Dad's a veteran, I've always had the utmost respect for those who serve our country. Thank god this is over.

LEAHY: Senator Kohl?