'Glenn Beck': Does Elena Kagan Consider Herself a Progressive?

This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," June 30, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GLENN BECK, HOST: All right. I have another story that makes me go — hmm, something's not right there. Apparently, this story makes the rest of the media go zzzz — at least it does. Al Franken, here's Al Franken at the hearings, sleepy eyes — he is a little sleepy.

This is Al Franken at the Elena Kagan hearings. Here you have someone who — look at that, don't you hate that moment? I hate that moment where you're like — oh.

This is a woman that you don't know anything about. And what we do know sends up enough flags, you know, there are enough red flags to be really a protest of the G-20. There's something wrong here.

Now, here are a few moments from the hearings that I come just a wee bit interesting. Kagan was asked if she considered herself a progressive in the mold of Obama. Watch.

This is — this is not the clip. But it's a lovely picture of her.

Here we go. That's not a lovely picture of her. Do we have the —


ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Not quite sure how I would characterize my politics but one thing I do know is that my politics would be, must be, has to be, completely separate from my judging.


BECK: All right. There's a little bit of hemming and hawing. In television, we cut everything way too tight, you miss — when you really see things, you just — you — it is like you are reading the original sources, you got to read the original source.

She was asked, hey, are you progressive? Ahhh, hmm, I — then she went in to that. She avoided the progressive word, like the plague.

America, give yourself a pat on the back. You have learn who the progressives really are, two years ago, Hillary Clinton, "I proudly call myself a progressive, the model of an early 20th century, very American progressive."

They are scared to admit that they were liberals. They call themselves progressive. Now, they know you are on to them — so she's playing dumb like, I don't know what a legal progressive really is.

If you don't know what a legal progressive is, you're not smart enough to be on the Supreme Court.

Let me help you.

A legal progressive believes in the Constitution really isn't relative today, it's outdated, you know, and we base the current law on case law not on the Constitution.

That's what it is, just in case you — I said it in a professorial kind of voice so Kagan might get her arms around it.

Here's another incredible moment. This is Senator Coburn while alluding to the health care bill asked Kagan — I can't believe we even have to ask these questions in America today — if she believes the government could tell the people what they can and cannot eat.


SEN. TOM COBURN, R-OKLA.: Well, I guess the question I'm asking is: do we have the power to tell people what they have to eat every day?

KAGAN: Senator Coburn —

COBURN: What is the extent of the commerce clause? We have this wide embrace of the commerce clause which these guys who wrote this never ever fathomed that we would be so stupid to take our liberties away by expanding the commerce clause.


BECK: OK. It's really not a hard question. Let's see, can the government tell people what to eat? No. No. No.

But she couldn't answer it. Hmm.

I wish we were smart enough to figure out what this meant, you know? Poppy talk.

You just got a preview of how one Supreme Court justice would vote against the constitutionality of the health care bill. Because that's what's in the health care bill, they can tell you what to eat.

Finally, this made my eyes and ears bleed. The first time I saw this, I couldn't believe it. The solicitor general of the United States, Elena Kagan, argued in front of the Supreme Court that the federal government had the constitutional authority to ban certain political pamphlets. Tell that to Thomas Paine.

She also strongly implied that some political books, if they were partisan enough, could also be censored. She argues that she really wouldn't have a problem with it because the law really would never be applied anyway. Watch.


KAGAN: The government's view is that although 441(b) does cover full- length books, that there would be a quite good as applied challenge to any attempt to apply for 441(b) in that context. And I should say that the FEC has never applied 441(b) in that context. So, for 60 years, a book has never been at issue.


BECK: For 60 years, and it could never happen in the history of the world. No one has ever banned books — certainly not a progressive.

Uh-uh! You know, that doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy inside that we got a person that would sit on the Supreme Court and say ban books. Get the hell out of my courtroom.

You know, what's really strange? There's nobody in America who thinks banning books is constitutional or a good idea. I mean, you immediately think of Hitler — bad idea. But think of the amazing size of the population here in America that think — I would never ban books, but what's that political speech on radio or the Internet?

What's the difference? I mean, I hate to tell Elena Kagan and all of her friends in Progressiveville the political speech should never, can never, be banned, in any form. No. Political speech. I learned that from the guy I like to call America's first blogger — Thomas Paine.

Content and Programming Copyright 2010 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.