The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tt11758 on May 13, 2010, 09:46:13 AM
-
Haz, I looked but couldn't find anywhere else you had posted this, so........................................ ;D
http://www.infowars.com/kagan-argued-against-second-amendment-in-gun-case/ (http://www.infowars.com/kagan-argued-against-second-amendment-in-gun-case/)
In addition to attacking the First Amendment, Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court also argued against the Second Amendment.
“I’m not sympathetic,” to the Second Amendment, said Kagan.
In 1987 as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk, Elena Kagan said she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol, according to Bloomberg.
The man argued “the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”
Kagan believes the state has the right to impose restrictive gun laws and she disagrees with the language of the Second Amendment.
Kagan told lawmakers last year when she was the nominee for solicitor general that she accepted the 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent of the court. “There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms,” she said.
Kagan, however, added that the Constitution “provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” thus leaving the door open for future regulation.
In answers to written questions by Patrick Leahy submitted in February of 2009, Kagan said: “Like other nominees to the Solicitor General position, I have refrained from providing my personal opinions of constitutional law (except in areas where I previously have stated opinions), both because those opinions will play no part in my official decisions and because such statements of opinion might be used to undermine the interests of the United States in litigation.”
Kagan’s previous stated opinions on the Constitution include her belief that the First Amendment should be modified by the government in order to prevent societal harm.
In addition to papers written in the 1990s on this subject, Solicitor General Kagan argued in favor of prohibiting political speech by corporations. Supreme Chief Justice John Roberts directly criticized Kagan’s argument that the government has the authority to ban political pamphlets.
“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts.
“Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
Justice Kennedy said the law had defended as an illegitimate attempt to use “censorship to control thought.”
In addition to opposing the First and Second Amendments, Kagan has argued against the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
According to the New York Times, Kagan said “that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”
Kagan’s “elastic interpretation” of the Fourth Amendment echoed remarks made by Eric Holder during his confirmation hearing for the position of Attorney General.
In 2009, Obama outlined his policy of preventive detention, without trial, for people he suspects might commit crimes in the future.
Not sure about the rest of you, but I find it (to use a democrat buzzword) "worrisome" that this woman might be sitting on this nations highest court for the next three-plus decades.
I urge you to, as I have just done, send your Senators an e-mail urging AGAINST confirmation of this enemy of the Constitution.
-
If those points are represntative of her views (not just cherry picked by InfoWars.com, which is hardly an objective site) than I will join you in sending letters (not e-mails which are worth the paper they are printed on). However, I want to hear from better sources before I decide. The fact is this. We WILL get a liberal. It will change nothing in terms of the court's balance. The only question is whether we get the right liberal. Right now, I think she sounds like a liberal version of Alito in drag. I oposed him since he always seems to favor the state against the individual and in his view, the police can do little wrong. I will probably oppose her for the same reasons. Its not about left or right for me, its about liberty versus the state.
FQ13
-
More:
Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
By Greg Stohr and Kristin Jensen
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.”
Kagan, currently the U.S. solicitor general, has made few public remarks about the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled, in a case that overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, that the Constitution protects individual gun rights.
As a nominee to be solicitor general last year, Kagan told lawmakers that she accepted that 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent of the court.
“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” she said.
Review Denied
The Heller decision left room for states to require registration of weapons. The majority also said the ruling didn’t cast doubt on laws barring handgun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill, or restrictions on bringing guns into schools or government buildings.
The lower court ruling in the 1987 case, issued by the District of Columbia’s highest court, said the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to raise militias, and not individual gun rights. The ruling upheld Lee Sandidge’s conviction for carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.
The high court refused to hear the case, known as Sandidge v. United States. The memo to Marshall, found in his papers at the Library of Congress, includes a handwritten “D,” indicating that he was among those who voted to deny review.
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the position taken in the memo to Marshall reflected the prevailing view of the law at the time.
Reflecting Marshall
During her confirmation hearing to be solicitor general, the federal government’s top Supreme Court advocate, Kagan said she was trying to reflect Marshall’s views when she evaluated so-called petitions for certiorari, or cert petitions. She called herself a “27-year-old pipsqueak” working for a “90- year-old giant in the law.”
“He was asking us, in the context in those cert petitions, to channel him and to think about what cases he would want the court to decide,” Kagan said. “And in that context, I think all of us were right to say, ‘Here are the cases which the court is likely to do good things with from your perspective, and here are the ones where they’re not.’”
Marshall was a civil rights icon before becoming the first black justice. He led the legal fight to dismantle the “separate but equal” regime in public education, arguing the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case.
As a justice, he opposed the death penalty and backed abortion rights and affirmative action. Kagan, now 50, clerked for Marshall during the court’s 1987-88 term and has described him as one of her heroes.
Clues to Kagan
The memos provide clues to Kagan’s potential approach as a justice. Much like Marshall, Kagan might find herself playing defense, at least in her first few years, working strategically to thwart the agenda of a more conservative majority.
Kagan on numerous occasions urged the justice to vote for so-called defensive denials, rejecting appeals from criminal suspects and defendants to prevent his more conservative colleagues from giving more power to police and prosecutors.
She urged rejection of an appeal from an Illinois man whose burglary conviction hinged on evidence discovered when he was stopped, ordered to lie down and searched by police. The search took place even though police lacked the “probable cause” required to make an arrest, Kagan said.
Kagan said she thought the court, if it heard the case, would uphold the conviction. That “would be an awful and perhaps quite consequential holding,” she wrote.
In recent years, Chief Justice John Roberts and four colleagues have joined forces in 5-4 decisions to strike down campaign finance regulations and limit shareholder lawsuits, as well as to protect gun owners’ rights.
B-Minus in Torts
The Marshall papers also include Kagan’s Harvard Law School transcript and glowing letters of recommendation to the justice from her professors. “She is soft-spoken and delightful to be with, but razor-sharp and iron-hard in intellectual give and take,” wrote one, Abram Chayes.
One professor referenced her transcript, which showed Kagan got off to a slow start as a law student. She received a B in criminal law and a B-minus in torts in the fall of her first year, later receiving predominantly A’s in classes including constitutional law.
“Whatever was in her way on those fall term exams, it wasn’t affecting her class performance even during the fall, and evidently was gone by exam time in May,” wrote Frank Michelman, who taught her in a spring property law course and said he had contact with his students starting in September.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPI35t8uR6Gs
-
If those points are represntative of her views (not just cherry picked by InfoWars.com, which is hardly an objective site) than I will join you in sending letters (not e-mails which are worth the paper they are printed on). However, I want to hear from better sources before I decide. The fact is this. We WILL get a liberal. It will change nothing in terms of the court's balance. The only question is whether we get the right liberal. Right now, I think she sounds like a liberal version of Alito in drag. I oposed him since he always seems to favor the state against the individual and in his view, the police can do little wrong. I will probably oppose her for the same reasons. Its not about left or right for me, its about liberty versus the state.
FQ13
FQ, Do you have ANY principals that you are unwilling to bend on, discuss, or otherwise throw under the bus? The woman is already anti 1A. Now she is being shown to anti 2A, BHO loves her, she has ABSOLUTELY NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE!!!!!! What is left to discuss that would convince you that this liberal sasquach does not belong on the SCOTUS? I'm sorry to say, but your constant openness to all points of view makes most of your arguments look weak. "I will probably oppose her"???? If you truly are for liberty, then you don't want this woman on the court any more that you want swine flu.
-
More here:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-13/kagan-was-not-sympathetic-as-law-clerk-to-gun-rights-argument.html
NRA takes her on here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/05/12/scoring-elena-nra-sizes-up-candidates-record-on-guns/
*Make no mistake.... this is a very calculated move by Obama. He knows her very well - They used to work together at Univ of Chicago - and dispite her "limited paper trail" he knows that she will be a activist justice focused not on the constitution but rather on social justice.
-
JC5123
You've said I will betray my principles, or that I have none.
A few points:
One of my first principles is a belief that humans are rational beings and that disputes can and should be settled by reasoned dialogue rather than force. I realize that this is not always attainable and its why I carry a Glock and support a large military budget. Still, I hold to the principle.
Secondly, the difference between a debate and an argument is that in a debate, you actually listen to what your opponent says, rather than just waiting for your chance to talk (a distiction that is too little valued these days).
This leads to my last point. Why am I only "leaning" against Kagan rather than condemning her outright (bending/breaking/pimping my principles as you would have it)? Its because this is the part of the debate where you listen. I have heard what people say about her. I haven't heard what SHE says. I won't make a decision about her (or any other candidate) until I do.
If this seems wishy washy, I'm sorry, but I don't tend to judge folks until I've heard them speak for themselves. Right now, if I had to vote it would be no. But you can't (or rather shouldn't) make that call until you hear both sides of the story.
FQ13
-
JC5123
You've said I will betray my principles, or that I have none.
A few points:
One of my first principles is a belief that humans are rational beings and that disputes can and should be settled by reasoned dialogue rather than force. I realize that this is not always attainable and its why I carry a Glock and support a large military budget. Still, I hold to the principle.
Secondly, the difference between a debate and an argument is that in a debate, you actually listen to what your opponent says, rather than just waiting for your chance to talk (a distiction that is too little valued these days).
This leads to my last point. Why am I only "leaning" against Kagan rather than condemning her outright (bending/breaking/pimping my principles as you would have it)? Its because this is the part of the debate where you listen. I have heard what people say about her. I haven't heard what SHE says. I won't make a decision about her (or any other candidate) until I do.
If this seems wishy washy, I'm sorry, but I don't tend to judge folks until I've heard them speak for themselves. Right now, if I had to vote it would be no. But you can't (or rather shouldn't) make that call until you hear both sides of the story.
FQ13
So, the bottom line here is that as long as she SAYS she will be a blind justice then you are willing to take her word for it (as well as Obama's) and you would confirm her ???
She has NO judicial experience and therefore there is no justifiable proof that she would be fair and impartial.... IMO, that is an automatic disqualifier - even without the fact that she is being nominated by the most dangerous man in the history of our nation.
Appointing a justice to the court is a monumental moment in our country. It should not be taken lightly because its a liberal replacing a liberal -- she would cement a liberal justice (one who will strive for legal repirations) in that slot for possibly the next 40 years.
I think its a damn shame that the SC has become so political (on both sides), and I personally dont want more of the same. We need to start elliminating the politics of the bench and get back to actual interpritation of the constitution. The never ending 5-4 decisions are a tell tale sign that it has all gotten out of hand, and the senate needs to fight tooth and nail to oppose anyone who is not a true originalist.
*Read the entire thing again, and this time read for content.
-
From Yahoo News, posted without comment:
- One of the most curious and awkward traditions of Capitol Hill is the practice of shepherding a Supreme Court nominee to the offices of senators who will eventually vote on his or her confirmation. The visits almost always produce some discomfiting photo-ops, and Elena Kagan's gantlet has been no exception.
On Wednesday, for instance, Kagan met with Senate Judiciary Committee veteran Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Their discussion opened by exchanging pleasantries. "It's a beautiful office," Kagan told Hatch, as they sat before dozens of photographers clamoring for the perfect shot. "Yeah, well, there's some nice stuff here," Hatch allowed.
And that's when it got weird. "You're going to get mad," Hatch said, motioning above the reporters, where a gun hung on the wall. "Man of the Year from the National Rifle Association ," the senator explained. "It's a piece of art, really."
Kagan, an amused look on her face, nodded. "It's beautiful," she said, staring at the gun.
"It's a handmade flintlock, and it's beautiful," Hatch said.
"It's gorgeous ," Kagan replied, as the press was hustled out of the room.
You can watch the exchange here (video courtesy of ABC News ): One reason the gun exchange came off as a bit forced is that memos released from Kagan's tenure as a Supreme Court clerk show her saying she was "not sympathetic" to the right-to-bear-arms argument of a prospective Supreme Court plaintiff. (The appellant argued that his constitutional right was violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed firearm in violation of the District of Columbia gun ban.)
Still, the encounter could have gone much worse. Hatch could have forced her to listen to his music .
-
JC5123
You've said I will betray my principles, or that I have none.
A few points:
One of my first principles is a belief that humans are rational beings and that disputes can and should be settled by reasoned dialogue rather than force. I realize that this is not always attainable and its why I carry a Glock and support a large military budget. Still, I hold to the principle.
Secondly, the difference between a debate and an argument is that in a debate, you actually listen to what your opponent says, rather than just waiting for your chance to talk (a distiction that is too little valued these days).
This leads to my last point. Why am I only "leaning" against Kagan rather than condemning her outright (bending/breaking/pimping my principles as you would have it)? Its because this is the part of the debate where you listen. I have heard what people say about her. I haven't heard what SHE says. I won't make a decision about her (or any other candidate) until I do.
If this seems wishy washy, I'm sorry, but I don't tend to judge folks until I've heard them speak for themselves. Right now, if I had to vote it would be no. But you can't (or rather shouldn't) make that call until you hear both sides of the story.
FQ13
Why are you willing to even discuss the possibility of this woman appointment? That is what I don't understand. Gotta agree with Eric on this one, The woman has no experience. That alone should disqualify her. I realize that the one appointing her doesn't have any either, but..... ::) This is why I will not listen to their side of the story, as you put it. I don't hire someone who has no experience, no track record, and who I cannot fire to a position where their decisions cannot be challenged. That's not a debate, that's called having your head in the sand.
Pretty much how we got here in the first place.
-
So far it seems she is more than willing to allow the government to set just how far our 1st, 2nd and 5th amendment rights go. That is flat out unacceptable in a SCOTUS nominee. She should be withdrawn now!
I just emailed my congress critters. Y'all do the same. Don't just bitch, act!
Here is my version:
Honorable Sir,
Miss Kagan is wholly unqualified to be considered as a candidate for the Supreme Court. So far it seems she is more than willing to allow the government to set just how far our 1st, 2nd and 5th amendment rights go. That is flat out unacceptable in a SCOTUS nominee. She should be withdrawn now!
I demand that you vote no her appointment.
Sincerely,
xxxxx
-
I think we should fight any appointment as vigorously as we can, but this one will be a BHO appointment.
Better than we force the decision until after the Nov. election and seating of the newly elected to force a nomination more to our liking.
It will still be a BHO appointment...but I'll listen to what they have to say before I decided how much I don't like them.
-
Why are you willing to even discuss the possibility of this woman appointment? That is what I don't understand. Gotta agree with Eric on this one, The woman has no experience. That alone should disqualify her. I realize that the one appointing her doesn't have any either, but..... ::) This is why I will not listen to their side of the story, as you put it. I don't hire someone who has no experience, no track record, and who I cannot fire to a position where their decisions cannot be challenged. That's not a debate, that's called having your head in the sand.
Pretty much how we got here in the first place.
I tend to agree with you (and oddly enough Eric) in that I don't think she should get the nod for this position. The lack of jusdicial experience isn't the issue. Rhenquist didn't have any, and he was one of the most effective justices in the last 50 years. I didn't like him either, but he did the job. My problem with Kagan is that she falls into a very old trap for government employed lawyers. They start to think of themselves as advocates for the state, not the Constitution. They make excuses for government power and the individual is forgotten. Doesn't matter about ther politics. Alito and Rhenquist were the same way. The only difference is what sorts of government power they will defend. They still side with the state. All I was trying to say with Kagan is that I want to hear her, under oath, tell me about how she views the Constitution. Not specific issues, just her general view. I doubt it will change my mind, but I think that the woman should have the chance to speak.
Peace
FQ13
-
The lack of jusdicial experience isn't the issue. Rhenquist didn't have any, and he was one of the most effective justices in the last 50 years. FQ13
Thats poor logic...... Because Rhenquist was an "effective justice" then Kagan will be fair and impartial ???
There is no coorelation there. The fact is, if you believe that she will dish out blind justice then you are basing that 100% on faith - there is nothing to point to in her past that proves that she will act accordingly. When there is no substancial proof in her history (or anyone's) that she will be fair and just it should be an automatic disqualifier.
Lets remember that this is a lifetime appointment, with no way whatsoever to hold her accountable.
*Read the entire thing again, and this time read for content.
-
Thats poor logic...... Because Rhenquist was an "effective justice" then Kagan will be fair and impartial ???
There is no coorelation there. The fact is, if you believe that she will dish out blind justice then you are basing that 100% on faith - there is nothing to point to in her past that proves that she will act accordingly. When there is no substancial proof in her history (or anyone's) that she will be fair and just it should be an automatic disqualifier.
Lets remember that this is a lifetime appointment, with no way whatsoever to hold her accountable.
*Read the entire thing again, and this time read for content.
Having read for context, and not disagreeing with you, I will say two things. Judicial experience has never been a prerequisite fo the court. Warren Burger and Roger Taney along with William Rhenquist just to name three of the most effective Chief Justices we have had (though not ones I always agreed with), had no judicial experience. Its not a DQ by any stretch of the imagination and never has been. As far as dishing out blind justice? No one ever will, or else they'd just be swinging about wildly. We all have a basic ideoglical bias. Something that roots us and gives us a perspective. You have yours and I have mine. A judge should and must be able to overcome it. Its like I tell my tell students. I am not neutral, but I am objective. Neutrality is a pipe dream. Objectivity is a job requirement. Does she have it? Damned if I know. Thats why I want to hear from her. As far as that basic world view that shapes her? I don't like what I've seen so far and am leaning against based on that. Her view of the BOR is not mine from what I have heard FROM OTHERS. I want to hear her view. We're not arguining here Eric, I am just withholding final judgement until I hear the woman explain her view of government power vs individual liberty. As I have said, if I had to vote now, it would be no. I don't have to though. I can wait till I hear her speak.
FQ13
-
Having read for context, and not disagreeing with you, I will say two things. Judicial experience has never been a prerequisite fo the court. Warren Burger and Roger Taney along with William Rhenquist just to name three of the most effective Chief Justices we have had (though not ones I always agreed with), had no judicial experience. Its not a DQ by any stretch of the imagination and never has been. As far as dishing out blind justice? No one ever will, or else they'd just be swinging about wildly. We all have a basic ideoglical bias. Something that roots us and gives us a perspective. You have yours and I have mine. A judge should and must be able to overcome it. Its like I tell my tell students. I am not neutral, but I am objective. Neutrality is a pipe dream. Objectivity is a job requirement. Does she have it? Damned if I know. Thats why I want to hear from her. As far as that basic world view that shapes her? I don't like what I've seen so far and am leaning against based on that. Her view of the BOR is not mine from what I have heard FROM OTHERS. I want to hear her view. We're not arguining here Eric, I am just withholding final judgement until I hear the woman explain her view of government power vs individual liberty. As I have said, if I had to vote now, it would be no. I don't have to though. I can wait till I hear her speak.
FQ13
While I will grant you that more than one previous SCOTUS Justice has been appointed and confirmed without Judicial experience, the fact that it has never been a disqualifier does not change the fact that, at least in my opinion, it SHOULD be. As has been pointed out to you in this thread ad nauseum this is a position of SUPREME power. This is a lifetime appointment. She can SAY any damn thing she wants at the confirmation hearings, but without a paper trail to back it up, her words ain't worth the paper they're NOT written on. I will further say that any Senator who votes yes on the conrfirmation of a SCOTUS Justice nominee with no Judicial experience should be impeached for violation of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Because in voting yes, they have violated not only the spirit, but the letter of that oath.
-
How does it violate the letter of the Constitution ? It doesn't say SCOTUS appointees need to be judges.
-
My take on the issue.
She is bho's nominee. She is a carbon copy of bho in thought, political leanings and associations.
She will - as have many of the nominees - shuck and jive and give bland, non-specific responses even to direct questions, responses such as "I don't pre-judge cases" and "I support the Constitution".
In her case, since she is a leftist and a statist, IMHO, she will be lying as she fully intends to use the law to justify any opinion she writes in support of her political viewpoints and desires. And I seriously doubt she supports the Constitution in the same way we believe in it as a foundational (i.e., not "evolving" document). She will interpret it to mean things that were never written, and would make the Founding Fathers spin in the their graves.
If you don't learn from history . . . .
-
How does it violate the letter of the Constitution ? It doesn't say SCOTUS appointees need to be judges.
I said it violates the OATH OF OFFICE, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Inasmuch as this nominee has NO Judicial experience for those responsible for confirming her to review and get a TRUE idea of how she could be expected to behave as a Justice, but DO have evidence of things she has been quoted as saying about such matters as two of the 10 Amendments comprising the Bill Of Rights, voting to confirm would violate that oath to preserve, protect and defend.
I firmly believe that the Constitution has been lost, trampled, and shred by our government in recent history, and the confirmation of this candidate would take us several steps further down the road leading AWAY from the country our forefathers had in mind.
Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
-
From TT's Post.
"I said it violates the OATH OF OFFICE,"
My mistake, I misunderstood your first post.
-
From TT's Post.
"I said it violates the OATH OF OFFICE,"
My mistake, I misunderstood your first post.
Understandable. When I'm on a rant I tend to babble like a frickin idiot. ;D
-
Understandable. When I'm on a rant I tend to babble like a frickin idiot. ;D
OK ... I'll just always assume you are on a rant, and we'll get along fine ;)
-
OK ... I'll just always assume you are on a rant, and we'll get along fine ;)
If I didn't know you so well that might offend me. Probably not, but you never know. ;D
-
Understandable. When I'm on a rant I tend to babble like a frickin idiot. ;D
Just because you are up for VP, doesn't mean you need to emulate your predecessor in any way ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just because you are up for VP, doesn't mean you need to emulate your predecessor in any way ;D ;D ;D ;D
Any of them for the last 20 years. GHWB is fine, beyond that, you lose my vote. ;)
FQ13
-
she did teach law and harvard...
I think that pretty much says it all.
-
Kagan is a Goldman Sachs shill, soon we will have to disobey the SCOTUS!
-
Got some proof or are you just blowing smoke ?