WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Herb Kohl delivered a statement before the Senate on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Kohl is second in seniority among Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was responsible for conducting the hearings as the Senate engages in its Constitutional role to "advise and consent" on Supreme Court nominations. Solicitor General Kagan was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 13-6 and her confirmation moves to a full vote before the Senate.

Please find the text of the statement below.    

I rise today in support of General Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.  Her confirmation will be a milestone that we can all be proud of -- for the first time in history three women will be serving on the Supreme Court at one time. 

General Kagan came before the Judiciary Committee with an impressive resume that had all the trappings of an accomplished lawyer worthy of appointment to the Supreme Court.  During her hearings she proved herself to be well qualified for the job. 

She impressed us with her sharp mind, keen intellect, and comprehensive knowledge of the Constitution and the law.  She pledged to consider each case with an open mind and to impartially uphold the rule of law.  And, she appeared mindful of the need for judicial modesty and fidelity to precedent, but not when it stands in the way of ending injustice or guaranteeing our fundamental rights. 

At times during the hearing, Solicitor General Kagan seemed to be somewhat more candid than previous nominees.  She disavowed a purely originalist interpretation of the Constitution, recognizing that such a limited approach will not always solve our 21st Century problems.  And, I was pleased that she unequivocally expressed her support for opening the Supreme Court to cameras. So I believe that with General Kagan's confirmation the American people will be one step closer to seeing for themselves the Supreme Court debate our most pressing legal and Constitutional issues. 

But, despite the strength of her qualifications, like so many nominees before her, General Kagan often retreated to the generalities and platitudes that she once criticized.  I am pleased that she rejected the analogy that Supreme Court Justices are like umpires, simply calling balls and strikes.  Instead, she acknowledged that each Justice's legal judgment determines the outcome of close cases.  But, at times her answers gave us too little insight into what informs her unique legal judgment and how it will impact those close cases. 

As I have said before, the confirmation process demands more than that.  This was the public's only opportunity to hear from General Kagan.  In my opinion, she made small in-roads, but we still have a long way to go in meeting the high standard to which we should hold Supreme Court nominees during their confirmation hearings. 

In sum, I am voting for General Kagan because she is unquestionably qualified, has a record of being a principled, consensus-building lawyer, and because I believe her judicial philosophy is within the mainstream of our country's legal thought.  I am confident that she will make a superb Supreme Court Justice and is a worthy nominee to carry on Justice Stevens' long legacy of exemplary public service to our nation.