A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098

    Exclamation A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns

    A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns
    FOXNews.com - A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns
    By John Lott

    Published June 30, 2010

    | FOXNews.com

    AP2010

    Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan

    As the number of President Obama's judicial appointments and nominations continues to grow, it appears pretty clear that he does not care about the individual's right to self-defense. We can tell this by looking at the record of his two Supreme Court picks but also by examining the long list of lower-level judicial appointments. All of these reflect a pattern of favoring person who have written anti-gun opinions.

    Elena Kagan, Obama's newest Supreme Court nominee, fits this mold. The Supreme Court has only been very narrowly supportive of an individual's right to bear arms. For example, there was the 5-4 vote in the Heller decision when it struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in 2008 and a similar 5-4 vote in on Monday in the decision to strike down Chicago’s ban in “McDonald.”

    In the future, Kagan’s opinion could be crucial: If Justice Kennedy or one of the four more conservative members of the court were to retire or die, her vote could easily tip the balance on gun rights.

    Of course, Obama’s judicial nominations go against his 2008 campaign promises about guns. During the presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama, despite his past support for gun bans, assured voters that he had always supported the Second Amendment as an individual right:

    "I have said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on."

    With those words in mind, alarm bells should have gone off during Elena Kagan’s confirmation testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Here’s what Kagan told Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa):

    It has long been thought, starting from the “Miller” case, that the Second Amendment did not protect such a right. . . . Now the Heller decision has marked a very fundamental moment in the court's jurisprudence with respect to the Second Amendment. And as I suggested to Senator Feinstein there is not question going forward that ‘Heller’ is the law, that it is entitled to all the precedent that any decision is entitled to and that is true to the ‘McDonald’ case as well...

    There are two big problems with Kagan’s remarks: she inaccurately describes the 1939 "Miller" case and her claims to follow stare decisis are meaningless.

    The "Miller" decision said that the Second Amendment protected civilian use of firearms that are used in the military and that a sawed off shotgun wasn't a military weapon. But the court went no farther in explaining the right. There was no discussion of the modern liberal view of a “collective right.” The very short opinion didn’t say if there was an individual right to own military weapons. The issues were never addressed.

    However, Kagan’s argument is precisely what Justice Stevens wrote about when he and the other liberal Supreme Court justices opposed “Heller.” They claimed that Miller was the real precedent and that there was no individual right to own a gun. Stevens asserted that “Heller” and “McDonald” were the real aberrations from court precedent.

    Kagan’s statement surely shows that she also believes the “Heller” decision broke with past precedent. Saying that “Heller” and “McDonald” are “entitled to all the precedent that any decision is entitled to” also means that her strained interpretation of Miller is entitled to the same precedent.

    Obama's first Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor, looked no better. For instance, in one of her decisions as an appeals court judge, she argued that the Second Amendment would not block any gun-control laws as long as the politicians passing the laws thought the weapon was "designed primarily as a weapon and has no purpose other than to maim or, in some instances, kill."

    In other words, as long as politicians think that they are doing the right thing, even if totally misguided, these good intentions trump any individual right to bear arms.

    With an interpretation like the one offered by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court would never have struck down Washington, D.C.’s gun ban, let alone any other gun-control law.

    Unfortunately, there is no easy quick-fix: every place in the world that has tried a gun ban -- not just Chicago and Washington, D.C. -- has seen an increase in murder rates.

    But despite her past decisions, Sotomayor clearly promised the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a Supreme Court justice she would follow Heller and accept its decision that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns for self-defense. Here's this example from her 2009 confirmation hearing:

    Senator Patrick Leahy: “. . . you, in fact, recognized the Supreme Court decided in ‘Heller’ that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions. Is that correct?

    Sotomayor: It is.

    Yet, in the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to strike down the Chicago handgun ban, Sotomayor apparently completely forgot her promise last year. She completely signed on to Justice Breyer's claim:

    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.

    Breyer’s dissent provides a clear warning: the Supreme Court is just one vote away from totally reversing “Heller” and “McDonald” and declaring that the government can completely ban gun ownership.

    With Kagan on the Supreme Court, there will continue to be four (out of nine justices) who support the government’s decision to completely ban gun ownership.

    No Senator can seriously claim that he strongly supports gun ownership and still vote for Kagan’s confirmation.

    John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime."(University of Chicago Press, 2010), the third edition of which was published in May."
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    A vote for any left-wing, progressive liberal, socialist supporter is a step closer to having any one of our God given rights controlled or restricted.

    The game is being played. They (progressive left wing socialist liberals) believe that the cards can be stacked against the conservative right wing Americans. They believe that they can control what we do and say. They have no idea how angry we can become. They believe civil unrest in this country, in this day and age would be unheard of...

    I’m not willing to allow any control or infringement on any of my God given rights.

    Peace…
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  4. #3
    Here's what you get when you put left-wing liberal socialist ********** on the bench:

    I wouldn't trust her with my 2A rights on a bet.

    Shannen Coffin was a deputy attorney general during the Bush administration, and was charged with defending the federal partial-birth abortion act in court. At National Review, he writes that documents released by the Clinton White House show Elena Kagan's "willingness to manipulate medical science to fit the Democratic party's political agenda on the hot-button issue of abortion." The account, if it is true, is a shocking one.

    A key event in the politics of partial-birth abortion was a report by a "select panel" of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians' organization. That report included this statement, which the Supreme Court found highly persuasive in striking down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban:

    ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method.

    Here is the shocking part: the ACOG report, as originally drafted, said almost exactly the opposite. The initial draft said that the ACOG panel "could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." That language horrified the rabidly pro-abortion Elena Kagan, then a deputy assistant to President Clinton for domestic policy. This is what Kagan wrote in a memo to her superiors in the Clinton White House:

    Todd Stern just discovered that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is thinking about issuing a statement (attached) that includes the following sentence: "[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." This, of course, would be disaster -- not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation. It is unclear whether ACOG will issue the statement; even if it does not, there is obviously a chance that the draft will become public.

    So Kagan took matters into her own hands: incredibly, she herself appears to have written the key language that eventually appeared in the ACOG report. Coffin writes:

    So Kagan set about solving the problem. Her notes, produced by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee, show that she herself drafted the critical language hedging ACOG's position. On a document [PDF] captioned "Suggested Options" -- which she apparently faxed to the legislative director at ACOG -- Kagan proposed that ACOG include the following language: "An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman."

    Kagan's language was copied verbatim by the ACOG executive board into its final statement, where it then became one of the greatest evidentiary hurdles faced by Justice Department lawyers (of whom I was one) in defending the federal ban. (Kagan's role was never disclosed to the courts.)

    This is an image of Kagan's "suggested options" note; click to enlarge:



    The note does appear to be in Kagan's handwriting; you can see a sample of her writing here.

    Unless there is some other interpretation of these documents that does not occur to me, it appears that Elena Kagan participated in a gigantic scientific deception. On behalf of the Clinton White House, she deliberately subverted what was supposed to be an objective scientific process. The ACOG report was certainly seen in that light by the federal courts. Federal Judge Richard Kopf was deeply impressed by the scientific integrity of the report; he wrote:

    "Before and during the task force meeting," he concluded, "neither ACOG nor the task force members conversed with other individuals or organizations, including congressmen and doctors who provided congressional testimony, concerning the topics addressed" in the ACOG statement.

    This statement was obviously false. The federal courts were victimized by a gross deception and a perversion of both the scientific process and the judicial process, carried out, the evidence appears to show, by Elena Kagan.

    Ms. Kagan has a great deal of explaining to do. Unless she can come up with an innocent explanation for these documents, she should not be confirmed.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns
    FOXNews.com - A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns
    By John Lott

    Published June 30, 2010

    | FOXNews.com

    AP2010

    Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan

    As the number of President Obama's judicial appointments and nominations continues to grow, it appears pretty clear that he does not care about the individual's right to self-defense. We can tell this by looking at the record of his two Supreme Court picks but also by examining the long list of lower-level judicial appointments. All of these reflect a pattern of favoring person who have written anti-gun opinions.

    Elena Kagan, Obama's newest Supreme Court nominee, fits this mold. The Supreme Court has only been very narrowly supportive of an individual's right to bear arms. For example, there was the 5-4 vote in the Heller decision when it struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in 2008 and a similar 5-4 vote in on Monday in the decision to strike down Chicago’s ban in “McDonald.”

    In the future, Kagan’s opinion could be crucial: If Justice Kennedy or one of the four more conservative members of the court were to retire or die, her vote could easily tip the balance on gun rights.

    Of course, Obama’s judicial nominations go against his 2008 campaign promises about guns. During the presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama, despite his past support for gun bans, assured voters that he had always supported the Second Amendment as an individual right:

    "I have said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on."

    With those words in mind, alarm bells should have gone off during Elena Kagan’s confirmation testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Here’s what Kagan told Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa):

    It has long been thought, starting from the “Miller” case, that the Second Amendment did not protect such a right. . . . Now the Heller decision has marked a very fundamental moment in the court's jurisprudence with respect to the Second Amendment. And as I suggested to Senator Feinstein there is not question going forward that ‘Heller’ is the law, that it is entitled to all the precedent that any decision is entitled to and that is true to the ‘McDonald’ case as well...

    There are two big problems with Kagan’s remarks: she inaccurately describes the 1939 "Miller" case and her claims to follow stare decisis are meaningless.

    The "Miller" decision said that the Second Amendment protected civilian use of firearms that are used in the military and that a sawed off shotgun wasn't a military weapon. But the court went no farther in explaining the right. There was no discussion of the modern liberal view of a “collective right.” The very short opinion didn’t say if there was an individual right to own military weapons. The issues were never addressed.

    However, Kagan’s argument is precisely what Justice Stevens wrote about when he and the other liberal Supreme Court justices opposed “Heller.” They claimed that Miller was the real precedent and that there was no individual right to own a gun. Stevens asserted that “Heller” and “McDonald” were the real aberrations from court precedent.

    Kagan’s statement surely shows that she also believes the “Heller” decision broke with past precedent. Saying that “Heller” and “McDonald” are “entitled to all the precedent that any decision is entitled to” also means that her strained interpretation of Miller is entitled to the same precedent.

    Obama's first Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor, looked no better. For instance, in one of her decisions as an appeals court judge, she argued that the Second Amendment would not block any gun-control laws as long as the politicians passing the laws thought the weapon was "designed primarily as a weapon and has no purpose other than to maim or, in some instances, kill."

    In other words, as long as politicians think that they are doing the right thing, even if totally misguided, these good intentions trump any individual right to bear arms.

    With an interpretation like the one offered by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court would never have struck down Washington, D.C.’s gun ban, let alone any other gun-control law.

    Unfortunately, there is no easy quick-fix: every place in the world that has tried a gun ban -- not just Chicago and Washington, D.C. -- has seen an increase in murder rates.

    But despite her past decisions, Sotomayor clearly promised the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a Supreme Court justice she would follow Heller and accept its decision that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns for self-defense. Here's this example from her 2009 confirmation hearing:

    Senator Patrick Leahy: “. . . you, in fact, recognized the Supreme Court decided in ‘Heller’ that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions. Is that correct?

    Sotomayor: It is.

    Yet, in the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to strike down the Chicago handgun ban, Sotomayor apparently completely forgot her promise last year. She completely signed on to Justice Breyer's claim:

    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.

    Breyer’s dissent provides a clear warning: the Supreme Court is just one vote away from totally reversing “Heller” and “McDonald” and declaring that the government can completely ban gun ownership.

    With Kagan on the Supreme Court, there will continue to be four (out of nine justices) who support the government’s decision to completely ban gun ownership.

    No Senator can seriously claim that he strongly supports gun ownership and still vote for Kagan’s confirmation.

    John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime."(University of Chicago Press, 2010), the third edition of which was published in May."
    To me it does not matter what laws they dream up and what the supereme court may interpet that law to be. I will not comply I will be a non law abiding citizen.

    "When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by bigrebnc1861 View Post
    To me it does not matter what laws they dream up and what the supereme court may interpet that law to be. I will not comply I will be a non law abiding citizen.

    "When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"
    Ayup.
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  7. #6
    What do you want to bet she is a slam dunk?
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  8. #7
    mojo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    What do you want to bet she is a slam dunk?
    The republicans have already said they will not philibuster...........she is a liberal replacing a liberal in their minds, so why bother!?
    She is by her own words a lifelong democrat/progressive. the 2nd is only one problem we will have, she and the others will continue to try to rewrite the constitution and turn the US into a socialists dream, a nightmare for anyone with functioning grey matter.

  9. #8

    Kagan LIES like a mattress on a bed...

    ... recently it became public knowledge that when the Supreme Court was asked in 1987 to decide if the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional (the same law that the Court eventually struck down in Heller) when Kagan was clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan’s analysis to Marshall was that she was “not sympathetic” toward the argument that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow D.C. to completely ban all guns.

    ...The man contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol in D.C. ...

    Kagan 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.” - Elena Kagan 1989

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

    -- -- -- Will Chicago ruling hurt Kagan's chances?

    Tuesday, June 29, 2010

    The hearings on Elena Kagan -- President Obama's radical pick to join the

    U.S. Supreme Court -- began this week...

    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.

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

    Kagan Opposes Second Amendment Gun Rights - Big Government

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

  10. #9
    There are a few threads ongoing about this Lady nominated to SCOTUS. So I guess, this thread will work for now.
    Copy of what I sent to Michigan's nosodynamic duo:


    Over the last couple days, The cable/media has had the Senate hearings for SCOTUS Nomination of Solicitor General (SG) Elena Kagan. I have seen E-Mails from The NRA, GOA and many others opposing the appointment of Ms Kagan to the SCOTUS. From What I have read, seen and heard, I Have to agree that Ms Kagan is a poor choice for this position.
    • Possesses limited judicial experience - she has never decided a single case and, since serving as SG, she has only argued six cases before the Supreme Court.
    • Excluded military recruiters from Harvard Law School - and they continue to be banned to this day.
    • Ms 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.
    • Joined a brief submitted to the Supreme Court that attempted to obtain a constitutional right for schools to exclude military recruiters.
    • Openly supports the use of foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.
    • Donated to radical pro-abortion feminist groups with ties to pro-choice PAC Emily's List.
    • Has strong ties to abortion-advocacy organizations and has expressed admiration for activist judges who have worked to advance social policy rather than to impartially interpret the law. President Obama said, just weeks before appointing Kagan, that he was looking for someone who would be a "strong advocate for women's rights." As "women's rights" is code for "abortion rights," Elena Kagan fits the bill.
    • Condemned the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy as "a profound wrong, a moral injustice of the first order."
    • Failed to seek a Supreme Court review of a rogue Ninth Circuit ruling that threatened "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and that subjected the military to burdensome litigation.
    Ms Kagan is not qualified to hold the Position and I urge a No Vote for her nomination.
    Semper Fi

  11. #10
    JSDinTexas Guest
    I would at least like someone in there that has tried a case or two.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Guns for Butter?
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-15-2010, 11:46 AM
  2. Gun Rights in South Africa
    By utimmer43 in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-21-2010, 07:44 PM
  3. SHTF Advice...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-03-2010, 10:49 AM
  4. Americans stick to their guns
    By ricbak in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 10:39 PM
  5. One man and his guns, guns and more guns
    By lukem in forum Nevada Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 10:34 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