New Nominee for Supreme Court Justice - Elena Kagan

[KyJim]

Some food for thought about Kagan's views on the 2A and gun rights.

May 13 (Bloomberg) -- Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.

Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal.

The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

More at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aPI35t8uR6Gs

I can appreciate that one's views on matters can change over the years, especially given her youth when she wrote this and the subsequent change in law. However, I think it gives insight into her most sincerely held beliefs on the subject -- that there just isn't a Constitutional right; or, if there is, the right can be sharply curtailed by courts reviewing laws using a lesser standard than strict scrutiny.

 

[BCCL]

She helped write Clinton's import ban.

LINK

 

[Phatty]

In private meetings with senators, Kagan is telling them that she is going to be more forthcoming with her answers during the confirmation hearing than previous nominees. That will be a breath of fresh air if true.

 

[harmonic]

This bodes ill, as if we didn't already know.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/05/13/breaking-we-have-elena-kagans-college-thesis/

 

[Carl N. Brown]

With Kagan we would have four justices from New York City, one for each borough except Staten Island. How representative is that? What a fair and balanced court! Manhatten, Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens would be represented but Staten Island left out? What in the name of sacred diversity?

 

[JTH]

When I saw the news report and not knowing what it was about or who she was, I said to myself who is the Bull Dike. She comes across, very Butch but that would be the least of our problems if she makes it to the Supreme Court.
We need to be aware that our 3 Branches of Govt., especially the Executive and Judicial might well become the enemy of it's people and try to remove/limit Congress' power by finding a way around them to implement control over it's citizens!
It seems that this would be impossible. I saw this info, that through passing new treaties, they would remove having to ask Congress anything and introduce weapon bans and how to control civilans.
I'm not sure they could do this but what I read that it is possible. I think also this could be done just by the executive branch, mainly Obama and Hillary Clinton.

 

[Telumehtar]

I said to myself who is the Bull Dike. She comes across, very Butch

Leave the ad hominem attacks at the door please. I don't care if she was a polygamous transexual from Transylvania if she would honor the intent behind the Constitution and it's amendments. However, given her willingness to accept "reasonable" restrictions on gun and speech rights at the behest of the government, so long as the government deems those restrictions for the "greater good" I can safely say that on the issue of the Constitution she and I disagree mightily, and that her views are tyrannical.

It may be that people here are focused on Kagan's views on the second, as well they should be. But with little information available, let's look at her view on the first amendment, might be helpful.

1996 "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Government Motive in First Amendment Doctrine" Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

For you that are starting to fall in love with her, substitute "speech" and insert "guns".

Her drumbeat of reasonable restrictions extends to all portions of Constitutional law, and given her youth, that makes me very nervous.

 

[habeas]

not worried

"There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans 'the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'"

I am writing as a left of center, Obama voter, who believes that RTKBA is a fundamental and constitutionally protected individual right. (I am also a lawyer and I have a LTC).

Since Heller, a major change in perspective is occurring on the left toward guns. A large pillar was removed by Heller that was propping up a weak argument. People are moving on, and lawyers like Solicitor General Kagan have little difficulty shifting their views. It is how lawyers are trained. (the bulk of the cases that she has argued as SG were ones which began during the prior administration, and I cannot believe that she personally has agreed with the U.S. Govt's position on all of those cases).

I think that we know how McDonald will be decided. I am optimistic and I do not think that I am naive.

As for her senior thesis: irrelevant. You should see mine. As for her sexuality: also irrelevant, and those kind of comments undermine legitimate criticism of her as a nominee for this extremely important position.

 

[jimbeam]

habeas, not to belabor the point, which you and others seem to bring up, but if her senior thesis is unimportant, than so should be her complete college education, as than we could arguably state she learned nothing.