Kagan Might Not Be As Anti-Gun As We Thought - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Kagan Might Not Be As Anti-Gun As We Thought

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    edge of freedom
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Wow, I've got a stalker!
    nope, just moving the rock your under to let in some light, hopefully you'll see the big picture outside your little bubble of socialism. we won get over it.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    I think Kagan will make a good justice. I don’t think she would have voted with the majority in Heller or McDonald, but I think like most liberal leaning justices she has a high regard for stare decisis.

    Liberal justices ten to be intellectually driven, while conservative justices tend to be reactionary. For example, compare the opinions of Sotomyor and Ginsburg with those of the Scolito brothers. Sotomayor and Ginsburg support their opinions and dissents with intellectual rationale, while the Scolito brothers usually just mock the opposition rather than justify their own positions.

    Roberts and Thomas are exceptions to the rule, although Thomas simply doesn’t have the intellectual ability to compete with the others, at least he tries, unlike the Scolito brothers who seem content to premise their judicial reasoning solely on their perceived weaknesses of the other side’s rationale.
    Who's mocking who here nogods??? Scolito brothers? Clarence Thomas not intelligent? Just like most libs who say Justice Thomas lacks intellectual ability....he only lacks it in your eyes because of his conservative leanings and his skin color. For folks like you, he doesn't think the way a black man should, therefore his intelligence is questioned by the inteligensia! Praise the Lord, we have a 5-4 majority right now. If it were the other way around, your intilectually driven judges would be making some dumb ***** decisions on our behalf.

  4. #23

    Kagan - Clearly Anti-Constitution, Anti-Second Amendment & ZERO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE..

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    I am not buying it... especially considering the source "Christina Bellantoni" ...

    A frequent op-ed writer for the Huffington Post...

    Elena Kagan's record speaks for itself...

    Clearly Anti-Constitution, Anti-Second Amendment AND ZERO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE...

    AND HER ONLY CASE BEFORE THE VERY COURT SHE HAS BEEN NOMINATED TO WAS REJECTED 9-0 ...

    Which does not happen very often...

    Notwithstanding that the NRA is turning yellow again (still)...

    "That's right: the foremost (so-called) gun rights lobby in the nation is prohibiting its board from testifying in the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings about the second amendment," Erick Erickson wrote Sunday...
    NRA Issues Gag Order to Its Board Members on Elena Kagan | RedState

    This stinks to high-heaven ...

    As the Scorpion said to the Frog ... I cannot CHANGE what I am...
    Kagan Opposes Second Amendment Gun Rights

    Elena Kagan Could Decide Whether We're Stuck with ObamaCare -- Permanently

    Anti-Gun ObamaPet Nominated to the Supreme Court

    Senate Hearings Begin on Radical Anti-gun Pick for Supreme Court

    EDITORIAL: Kagan's threat to gun owners - Washington Times

    Congressional Documents and Publications
    June 23, 2010
    U.S. SENATE DOCUMENTS

    June 23, 2010

    Contact: Stephen Miller or Stephen Boyd (202) 224-5225

    GOP Senators Raise Concerns over Kagan's Background, Record on Guns

    Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, this vacancy is being left by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.

    The President has the constitutional prerogative to nominate whosoever he chooses, but it is important to recognize the Constitution does not stop there. It also provides a second constitutional obligation or responsibility, in this case upon the Senate, when it comes to the duty of advice and consent.

    We know there are only nine Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court and that each has that job for life. It goes without saying--or it should, I would add--that the process in the Senate must be fair and dignified. I wish I could tell you it has always been that way, but I believe the confirmation process of Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court was conducted in that way, and I certainly believe so will this confirmation process as well. But in addition to being fair and dignified, it must also be careful, thorough, and comprehensive.

    Our job is particularly difficult because of the fact that Solicitor General Kagan has never been a judge. She is a blank slate in that regard. We do not have any prior opinions to study. While that is not unprecedented, it is somewhat unusual for someone to come to the U.S. Supreme Court without ever having served as a judge.

    In addition, we know General Kagan has practiced law only very briefly. She was an entry level lawyer in a Washington law firm for about 2 years and then, of course, last year she was chosen by the President to be Solicitor General at the Justice Department. But that brief experience tells us virtually nothing about how she would approach cases as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    What we do know about Elena Kagan begins, and largely ends, with her resume. We know the jobs she has held. We know the positions she has occupied and the employers she has chosen to work for. A review of her resume shows us two things. First, Ms. Kagan is very smart. Her academic records are impressive. Second, we know Ms. Kagan has been a political strategist for a quarter of a century, but she has never been a judge. We know she has served extensively and repeatedly as a political operative, adviser, and a policymaker--quite a different job than that she would assume should she be confirmed.

    We know General Kagan's political causes date back to at least college, when she volunteered to help a Senate candidate in her native State of New York.

    We know that after law school, she worked for two of the most activist Federal judges in the 20th century, Abner Mikva and Thurgood Marshall. Justice Marshall often described his judicial philosophy as ``do what you think is right.'' I wish he had mentioned something about applying the law, but he said to do whatever you think is right. Elena Kagan has called Justice Marshall her judicial hero.

    We know that Solicitor General Kagan volunteered for a time in the Michael Dukakis campaign for President in 1988, where she did opposition research.

    We know that a few years later, Ms. Kagan advised then-Senator Joe Biden during the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    We know General Kagan gave up her teaching job to work at the Clinton White House where she was a leading policy adviser on many of the hot button issues of the day. She was a deputy assistant to the President on domestic policy. She was a deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council. During that time, she was a leading policy adviser on a number of controversial issues regarding abortion, gun rights, and affirmative action.

    After she left the Clinton White House, Ms. Kagan's political skills helped her become dean of the Harvard Law School and, by all accounts, she was successful in that job as an administrator and as a fundraiser. The one clear legal position she took as dean was her position against military recruiters that the Supreme Court rejected 9 to 0.

    Solicitor General Kagan returned to government a year ago when she became Solicitor General following the election of her friend Barack Obama.

    Ms. Kagan's resume shows that she is very comfortable in the world of politics and political campaigns. She has worked hard as a policy and political strategist in some very intense political environments. As a policy and political adviser, her record indicates she has been successful.

    The question raised by this nomination, though, is whether Elena Kagan can step outside of her past role as political adviser and policy strategist in order to become a Federal judge. I have had the honor of being a State court judge and I know firsthand that being a judge is much different from being a political strategist. The job of a political strategist is to help enact policies. The job of a judge is to apply the law wherever it takes them.

    The goal of a political adviser is to try to win for your team. On the other hand, a good judge doesn't root for or fight for a team but, rather, is impartial or, as sometimes stated, is disinterested in results, in winners and in losers.

    The important question is whether Solicitor General Kagan can and will set aside her considerable skills as a political adviser to take on a very different job as a neutral judge. Will she apply the law fairly, regardless of the politics involved" Will Solicitor General Kagan appreciate the traditionally narrow role of a judge who must apply the law rather than the activist role of a judge who thinks it is proper to make up the law" Can she make the transition from political strategist to judge?

    The hearings on Ms. Kagan's nomination are 1 week from today. I hope the hearings will be a substantive and meaningful opportunity for Elena Kagan to explain how she plans to make that shift from political strategist to judge. Because she has never been a judge, the hearings will be a chance to learn about what she expects her judicial philosophy and approach will be.

    Every candidate for the Supreme Court has the burden of proof to show they are qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Most nominees have a much longer record, including a record of judicial service, which could help satisfy that burden of proof, but not so in Ms. Kagan's case. Given Ms. Kagan's sparse record, however, the hearings themselves must be particularly substantive.

    In 1995, then-Professor Kagan gave advice in a Law Review article to the U.S. Senate on how to scrutinize a Supreme Court nominee. She wrote that the ``critical inquiry'' must be ``the perspective [the nominee] would add'' and ``the direction in which she would move the institution.''

    I agree. Given Solicitor General Kagan's sparse record and her lack of judicial experience, it is important that the hearings be an opportunity to fill in the blank slate that is Elena Kagan.

    Mr. President, I yield the floor.

    *****************************

    Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I just returned from spending a weekend in Wyoming talking to many people around the Cowboy State who are concerned about our Nation, concerned about the growing debt, concerned about jobs and the economy, and the concern that Washington has taken our eye off the ball.

    They also have considerable concerns and questions specifically about the nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. I heard this when I was in Thermopolis, WY; when I was in Sheridan; when I was in Casper.

    So what I want to do is spend a few minutes discussing and questioning the views on the second amendment of Elena Kagan. The second amendment in Wyoming, as you know, is nothing we take for granted. It is something we hold very dear. We do not take it for granted because our lives depend upon it.

    The second amendment allows us to defend ourselves from harm. It also puts food on our tables. These are the values and the virtues that make this issue so important to Wyoming. I understand next week Ms. Kagan's hearings will begin. It is my hope we will have a clear picture of where she stands on the right to keep and to bear arms.

    The window into her views is small. I hope the hearing will open that window wider for the American people. Her clerkship to Justice Thurgood Marshall and the documents connected to her time in the Clinton White House only crack that window a little bit. I want to hear from her.

    I want to hear why Ms. Kagan recommended to throw out the Sandidge v. the United States case from the Supreme Court. This is a case that involved an individual charged with possession of a handgun and ammunition in the District of Columbia.

    In a one-paragraph recommendation to Justice Marshall, Ms. Kagan wrote:

    The petitioner's sole contention is that the District of Columbia's firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

    She went on to write:

    I am not sympathetic.

    I want to know why she was not sympathetic to Mr. Sandidge. The second amendment explicitly says:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Well, as we know today, the DC gun ban, the law, was clearly unconstitutional. The individual right to keep and bear arms has been affirmed by the Heller case. Mr. Sandidge's rights were violated. Ms. Kagan had the opportunity to recommend that the Court hear the case, but she did not recommend it.

    Was this recommendation a legal opinion or was it a political opinion" The second amendment is pretty clear: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    During the Clinton administration, Ms. Kagan served as associate White House counsel. The role of the White House counsel's office is to provide the President with the best legal advice possible. This is not a political office.

    According to a 1996 memorandum released by the Clinton Library, Ms. Kagan raised concerns that certain organizations would be exempted from liability under the Volunteer Protection Act. This legislation was aimed at providing protections to volunteers, to nonprofit organizations and governmental entities in lawsuits based on the activities of volunteers.

    In a memorandum she wrote, she branded some of these organizations as ``bad guy orgs.'' I assume that is bad guy organizations. The bad guy organizations she was referring to she listed as the Ku Klux Klan and the National Rifle Association. So in her capacity as counsel to the President, I want to know why she was concerned that the NRA, the National Rifle Association, would be covered in the Volunteer Protection Act. I want to know why she grouped a violent racist hate organization with the NRA. The NRA, the national organization and chapters around the country, is very active in Wyoming. It teaches firearm safety. It advocates for second amendment rights. Again, this gets to the question of whether Ms. Kagan is able to separate politics from policy.

    We have seen Ms. Kagan's resume. Now we need to hear from her. Next week I look forward to hearing her testimony. I also look forward to meeting with Ms. Kagan to discuss these issues and the importance of the second amendment.

    I yield the floor.

    ###
    June 23, 2010

    LexisNexis News - Latest News from over 4,000 sources, including newspapers, tv transcripts, wire services, magazines, journals.

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  5. #24
    JSDinTexas Guest
    What part of BO wanted her and picked her is not understood here? As to what anti-US crap she is going to dish out? It will be the same as BO, only she's in it for a LIFETIME.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
    Please tell me you don't believe that garbage that she said. Enough is enough after we start weeding out the garden in 2010 obama will be the next to go in 2012.

  7. #26

    Todays Kagan Alert From Gun Owners Of America... (Action Required)

    Senate Hearings Begin on Radical Anti-gun Pick for Supreme Court
    -- Will yesterday's Chicago ruling hurt Kagan's chances?

    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
    http://gunowners.org

    Tuesday, June 29, 2010

    The hearings on Elena Kagan -- President Obama's radical pick to join the U.S. Supreme Court -- began yesterday.

    This is a VERY IMPORTANT battle that gun owners must fight, as evidenced by the slim victory in the McDonald v. Chicago case that was handed down by the high Court yesterday.

    Kagan doesn't have a record of judicial opinions, but her views on the Second Amendment are no mystery:

    * Kagan drafted a directive in favor of a semi-automatic import ban while serving in the Clinton administration;

    * As a law clerk, she advised against allowing the Supreme Court to hear arguments in Sandidge v. United States that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional;

    * Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows; and

    * Just today, Kagan gave a hint to her true colors. When asked a simple question by Senator Grassley of Iowa -- does the Second Amendment codify a pre-existing right from God or is it a right created by the Constitution? -- Kagan looked like a deer caught in the headlights. After an awkward pause, she said: "I've never considered that question."

    Yikes... the Supreme Court is no place for on-the-job training!

    While two key Republican senators (Kyl and McConnell) had previously indicated that there would not be a filibuster of her nomination, Sen. McConnell seemed to open the door yesterday for such an action.

    That's why all Senators (especially the Republicans!) need to hear from you during this confirmation battle.

    Note: Bill Olson, the Gun Owners Foundation attorney who spearheaded our amicus brief before the Court in the Chicago case, is scheduled to testify before the Judiciary Committee in opposition to Elena Kagan later this week.

    By the way, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation last year should now shed some important light on the Kagan hearings. McDonald v. Chicago is the first Second Amendment case that Sotomayor has dealt with as a Supreme Court Justice.

    It's no surprise that she joined the anti-gun dissenters, but it highlights what a sham the judicial hearings are -- and how Senators should put no stock in a nominee's responses.

    On July 14 of last year, Sotomayor was asked by Sen. Pat Leahy during the confirmation hearings:

    "Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's Decision [in Heller] as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?"

    Sotomayor responded: "Yes, Sir." In other words, she affirmed with her response that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental, individual right.

    But then contrast this to the Chicago case where Sotomayor joined the dissent in stating:

    "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."

    Most people would say she lied to Senator Leahy and said whatever she needed to say to get confirmed... which is why Senators need to HEAVILY LOOK at Kagan's record, not only in what she might say during these hearings.

    ACTION: Please... please... please... contact your Senators and urge them to oppose Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court.

    You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Senators.

    ----- Pre-written letter -----

    Dear Senator:

    I urge you to oppose and FILIBUSTER Elena Kagan's nomination! Not based on what she says during these hearings, but based on what she has already done. Kagan may not have a record of judicial opinions, but her anti-gun views are no mystery:

    * Kagan helped draft a directive in favor of a semi-automatic import ban while serving in the Clinton administration;

    * As a law clerk, she advised against allowing the Supreme Court to hear arguments in Sandidge v. United States that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional; and

    * Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

    This is what she has done. What she might say to earn Senate approval is almost completely irrelevant. Consider that on July 14 of last year, Sonia Sotomayor was asked by Sen. Pat Leahy during the confirmation hearings: "Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's decision [in Heller] as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?"

    Sotomayor responded: "Yes, Sir." In other words, she affirmed with her response that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental, individual right. But in the Chicago ruling from June 28, Sotomayor joined the dissent in stating:

    "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."

    Most people would say she lied to Senator Leahy and said whatever she needed to say to get confirmed... which is why Senators need to LOOK CLOSELY at Kagan's record, not what she might blabber during these hearings.

    Please oppose the Kagan nomination.

    Sincerely,
    your name here

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #27
    I just read through the thread and I really like the title: "Kagan Might Not Be As Anti-Gun As We Thought"

    Just how 'anti-gun' does she have to be to be unacceptable?

    To tell y'all the truth; were she to stand at attention and swear allegiance to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ---











    I'd call her a liar!
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    edge of freedom
    Posts
    424
    I wouldn't trust her if she was holding a bible in one hand and old glory in the other while swimming in holy water with lie detector sharks! Micheal Moore is her living abortion.....freekin scary biotch

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Quote Originally Posted by twogunwilly View Post
    I wouldn't trust her if she was holding a bible in one hand and old glory in the other while swimming in holy water with lie detector sharks! Micheal Moore is her living abortion.....freekin scary biotch
    That goes for all the progressives.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  11. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    I am more inclined to believe she like most liberals/socialists is just real good at telling others what they want to here.
    Bingo!
    Don't take freedom for granted...you could lose it.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. List Of Minnesota Gun Ranges
    By lukem in forum Minnesota Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-13-2016, 10:49 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-01-2010, 01:33 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-16-2010, 08:35 PM
  4. Anti gun editorial in my hometown paper today
    By tattedupboy in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 10:11 AM
  5. Gun Rights Threatened In 2008
    By lukem in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 10:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast