feinstein, because in 1995, as you well know, kagan wrote a law review article in which she said this: subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and holly charade in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints. now i know there is going to be a lot of joking on the committee. well, she said that when she wasn t a nominee and stuff. why not hold her to accounts and say, and press her to be more forth coming in her views? i believe this is going to come up at the hearing and she is very likely to be pressed for her views. chris: what if she says, well, i doesn t matter. we all read it. it was very precise. she expressed her very strong views that a nominee should be more forth coming, we should be more pressing in our questions and chris: so you re going to hold her to that? i suspect members will hold her to this. chris: senator graham? well, i expect that she will have a reevaluation of that
feinstein, because in 1995, as you well know, kagan wrote a law review article in which she said this: subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and holly charade in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints. now i know there is going to be a lot of joking on the committee. well, she said that when she wasn t a nominee and stuff. why not hold her to accounts and say, and press her to be more forth coming in her views? i believe this is going to come up at the hearing and she is very likely to be pressed for her views. chris: what if she says, well, i doesn t matter. we all read it. it was very precise. she expressed her very strong views that a nominee should be more forth coming, we should be more pressing in our questions and chris: so you re going to hold her to that? i suspect members will hold her to this. chris: senator graham? well, i expect that she will