The new supreme on 2nd amendment

As I read that statement, it seems like good news for gun owners.

Correct me, if I am wrong.

Awesome.

As I read that statement, it seems like good news for gun owners.

Correct me, if I am wrong.

Click to expand...

Problem is, She has never been a judge, anywhere. We have no idea on how she will actually vote since there is zero track record from past decisions. Anybody can say what they want to get into the job. It's after she is seated for life that worries me. Also remember who is appointing her. Odds are she thinks just like him..

Looks good, but I don't put any faith in statements by folks looking for appointment to high office; opportunists all. Once nominated into a position of great power for life, the true sentiments will emerge. At which point it's too late, of course, to effect change.

WoofersInc said:

Problem is, She has never been a judge, anywhere. We have no idea on how she will actually vote since there is zero track record from past decisions. Anybody can say what they want to get into the job. It's after she is seated for life that worries me. Also remember who is appointing her. Odds are she thinks just like him..

Click to expand...

+1 That's precisely the point! She has no defineable track record.

Thats not enough to go on, although they may read that back to her during the confirmation. At least make her agree with her own statement again.

This might be the lesser of all the evil nominee's on Obama's list...it could be Hillary

As I mentioned in another thread, the problem with agreeing with Heller is that she may also agree that there are 'reasonable restrictions' and she might very well be on a Court that will decide what those are.

Since she has no judicial background we have no way of knowing what she really thinks of firearms.

She may very well believe that firearms should be allowed in the home but nowhere else. At this point that would not contradict Heller since the Heller case was specifically about firearms in the home.

Too little is known to start getting comfy feelings.

It appears it will not matter anyway, she's likely a shoe in unless something crazy happens. We will find out soon enough.

Truth is is she really can't be any worse than the Justice she's replacing anyway.

Let's see. She understands that Heller defined the 2nd as an individual right, and that it's the job of the Solicitor General to respect the Constitution. I don't think even Sarah Brady could argue either of those points.

If Obama is appointing her, dollars to doughnuts she's really anti-gun.

It's true she has no previous experience on the bench, but I'm not convinced that's necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. I'd like to see inexperienced Presidents and legislators that don't know "the Washington game" well enough to really do too much damage to the rest of us.

She does seem to be considered a scholar of the Constitution...which is more than I can say for many in power who never seem to have even read it...At this point there's not that much information. I really don't care if she's a homosexual, the fact that she held a position at Harvard bothers me more than that. The MSM is talking a lot today about her public opposition to "don't ask, don't tell". How that could really be a factor in her ability as a judge seems to me to be limited to the situation of a pro- or anti-gay-marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution being ratified, and I just don't see either one happening. And the days of publicly-activist SC judges seem to me to be drawing to a close, largely thanks to so many citizens calling them on it over the past decade or so.

I guess my overall impression of this nomination is..."meh...could be worse."

Truth is is she really can't be any worse than the Justice she's replacing anyway.

Click to expand...

If Obama is appointing her, dollars to doughnuts she's really anti-gun.

Click to expand...

I think we all really know the bottom line..

This might be the lesser of all the evil nominee's on Obama's list...it could be Hillary

Click to expand...

She's in Hillary's likeness so I guess it don't matter anyway...

bob.a said:

Looks good, but I don't put any faith in statements by folks looking for appointment to high office; opportunists all. Once nominated into a position of great power for life, the true sentiments will emerge. At which point it's too late, of course, to effect change.

Click to expand...

Does the name Earl Warren ring a bell?

It's been her job to defend cases from a certain side, as Solicitor General. What she argues does not necessarily represent her personal convictions about a subject (within bounds of reason, of course).

I know a criminal attorney. He might defend a burglar to the fullest extent of his ability; that doesn't mean he approves of burglary.

By and large, though, she's been an academic, who could write what she wanted without any real-world consequences. There's not the same moral challenge as what faces a judge, when one is writing papers instead of judging cases.

I guess my overall impression of this nomination is..."meh...could be worse."

Click to expand...

Mine too.

During her Solicitor General nomination proceedings, Ms. Kagan provided answers to Senator Chuck Grassley regarding her view of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008):

"The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Court granted this right the same status as other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as those protected in the First Amendment . . . . I understand the Solicitor General’s obligations to include deep respect for Supreme Court precedents like Heller and for the principle of stare decisis generally. There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."[19]

Click to expand...

Offer me a job where I have no boss, can't be fired, and get $170,000 a year with guaranteed COLAs and I'll say anything you like.

+1. Could be a lot worse.

Offer me a job where I have no boss, can't be fired, and get $170,000 a year with guaranteed COLAs and I'll say anything you like.

Click to expand...

Exactly!


A lot of people make promises that are contrary to their prior performance, or reflect the answers that they believe the person asking the question wants to hear.

You have to look no further than most of our elected officials for examples.

The confirmation is nothing more than a job interview. She said what she had to say in her Solicitor General confirmation, and will certainly appease the Right when it comes time for this confirmation.

On another note; why isn't anyone claiming sexism because the President has now nominated two women? Certainly there are qualified male candidates, no?

I don't know much about this nominee, but she is from NYC I believe. Odds are she's anti-gun. What I would like to know is whether she owns a gun or has been shooting as a hobby or for self defense.

I guarantee that President Obama is being very careful in his selection to accomodate his agenda and is leaving nothing to chance. I'm certain that his candidate will be vetting better than his half-dozen candidates for various offices who failed to pay their taxes.

"IN Case of Confrontation"? Define. To me, that reads if I am attacked, I can defend myself. What about concealed carry, which is just in case. By her statement, we don't have that right. To me, that reads, we can keep a gun in the home, but no way can we conceal carry. A step back.....

I don't trust her

What little of Kagan's published legal opinions are available point to extreme deference to executive authority and hostility toward individual liberties.

Great news if you get aroused by thoughts of indefinite detention, torture, warrantless searches and state sponsored assassinations at the whim of whoever sits in the Oval Office. Could be the brown guys this week. The white guys next.

Bad news if you're interested in being able to defend yourself against the above.

Diane Wood is a far better candidate, as far as the Bill of Rights, the rule of law and civil liberties are concerned.

Geez calavera, glass half-empty much?

The quote was “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

"carry in case of confrontation" isn't some obscure term of art.

Anyway, the more important tidbit is actually above that.

"The Court granted this right the same status as other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as those protected in the First Amendment..."

If she's on record saying the 2nd is a right with a status "like the First Amendment" (and thus 4th, 5th etc.) that almost guarantees Strict Scrutiny, not some half-baked Intermediate version.

If we get strict scrutiny, Scalia's dicta is meaningless, every federal and state restriction will have to be defended, with evidence, as "narrowly tailored and the least restrictive option" possible. For example, want to defend "may issue" New York State? Fine, explain how it is the "least restrictive" state option when three states don't require permits to carry concealed (and 30+ to carry openly) at all.

The burden goes from us trying to argue carry is harmless to them trying to prove, with no evidence, that barring lawful carry has any factual relation to crime or safety rates.

It turns the fights we've been winning lately on their ear. Now the anti's will be on the factual defensive with 48 states worth of less restrictive, more narrowly tailored, restrictions to explain away. And they have no evidence to do so.

Let's not let hatred of Obama creates problems where none have yet arisen.

I'll say she could be worse even if she is PRETENDING to be neutral on 2A. It's still better than a flagrant gun hater.

Apparently there have been many previous Supreme Court Justices that were never a Judge.

Professor Thomas McAffee, who teaches constitutional law at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said dozens of Supreme Court justices, including William Rehnquist and Earl Warren, were not judges before joining the high court.

We will wait and see I guess.

Obama BARELY has a track record, and she wants to repeal the dont ask dont tell policy, there's a concern..

What fundamental right is at stake in DADT repeal that makes it meaningful to a 2nd Amendment discussion?

There's no real parallel to gun rights, a lot of pro-gun absolutists (libertarians) don't support DADT, it's just a policy.

Besides, DADT has been and will continue to be given deference by the Court, I doubt they'll ever accept a case about it if one even makes it anywhere in Federal court to begin with. Management of the Armed Forces is an explicit enumerated power of Congress, the judicial branch has no interest in stepping on toes unnecessarily.

Problem is, She has never been a judge, anywhere

Click to expand...

She's been solicitor general for a long time and has excellent relationships with all of the Court justices.

The "no experience" meme is false and wrong. Anybody pushing that should be ashamed of themselves for carrying Fox News water. Kagan is probably one of the most qualified candidates imaginable. She's on good terms with the far right-wing activist judge arm of the court, and also comfortable with the smart people. A really good pick and she should be easily confirmed.

bob.a said:

Looks good, but I don't put any faith in statements by folks looking for appointment to high office; opportunists all. Once nominated into a position of great power for life, the true sentiments will emerge. At which point it's too late, of course, to effect change.

Click to expand...

+1

And unfortunately it's for life................