PDA

View Full Version : Obama picks Kagan as next US Supreme Court


Ding126
05-09-2010, 7:09 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100510/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticsjusticecourtobama_20100510024833

If confirmed by the White House and later by the US Senate, Kagan will replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Stevens, 90, announced his decision to retire in April.

Kagan's appointment would mark the culmination of a meteoric rise for the former Harvard law professor, who is a close ally of Obama and was only sworn in in March 2009 as the first female solicitor general.

At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder praised Kagan's "intelligence, experience and commitment to the rule of law."

In some ways, Kagan's is a surprise appointment, as Kagan has spent much of her time in academia teaching the law, rather than arguing cases on the courtroom floor.

Her lack of courtroom experience has been somewhat mitigated over the past 14 months in her role defending the government's position on cases before the Supreme Court.

Kagan would be only the fourth woman after Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor to sit on the nation's top court.

Some legal lobby groups had called on Obama to chose someone from outside the judiciary, who might be more in touch than the aspirations of ordinary people, than a candidate who spent years in the legal profession.

A president can put a stamp on American life for years after leaving office with the lifetime appointment of a Supreme Court justice.

Stevens, 90, joined the bench amid the traumatic fallout of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, and will step down after 34 years, with bitter partisanship once again tearing at the fabric of American politics.

Yet his departure announced last month, is unlikely to change the current court's conservative leaning.

Blacktail 8541
05-09-2010, 7:12 PM
Opinions on the Kagan nomination to the Supreme Court?

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 7:12 PM
Is she the first, uh.....you know......???

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 7:13 PM
None that I can express within the rules of the board.

The Director
05-09-2010, 7:14 PM
She looks androgynous?

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 7:14 PM
Is she the first, uh.....you know......???

No, i don't know. The first what?

redneckshootist
05-09-2010, 7:15 PM
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Elena_Kagan#Second_Amendment

Im starting to like her. Its hard to tell though, but she will be better than stevens on the 2nd

SkatinJJ
05-09-2010, 7:16 PM
Is she the first, uh.....you know......???

???

Female? No, Fourth. :rolleyes:

JJ

Dwight K. Schrute
05-09-2010, 7:16 PM
No, i don't know. The first what?

She plays for the other team. Allegedly

How is she on the 2nd?

Window_Seat
05-09-2010, 7:17 PM
I hope anyone can be better than anyone who is as anti as Stevens. I "heard" that Kagen was "bipartisan" on some of the issues. I don't really care, as long as they can count from 1-10 without missing anything in between.

Erik.

BigBamBoo
05-09-2010, 7:18 PM
...........

Dr Rockso
05-09-2010, 7:19 PM
"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."

Steyr_223
05-09-2010, 7:19 PM
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Elena_Kagan#Second_Amendment

Second Amendment

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."[13]

Fourteenth Amendment

In answer to a question from Senator Specter, Ms. Kagan stated that she “view[s] as unjust the exclusion of individuals from basic economic, civic, and political opportunities of our society on the basis of race, nationality, sex, religion, and sexual orientation.”[13]

Ms. Kagan answered several written questions from Senator Grassley regarding the Supreme Court’s abortion doctrine:

* "Under prevailing law, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy, subject to various permissible forms of state regulation. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)."
* "Under prevailing law, the U.S. Constitution does not compel taxpayer funding of abortion. The Court said in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 316 (1980), that ‘it simply does not follow that a woman’s freedom of choice carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices.’ As Solicitor General, I would owe respect to this law, as I would to general principles of stare decisis."
* "Under prevailing law, a particular informed-consent or parental involvement law will meet constitutional standards if it does not impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), upheld informed-consent and parental-consent provisions under this standard. As Solicitor General, I would owe respect to this law, as I would to general principles of stare decisis."[13]

Kagan also responded to a question from Senator Specter regarding whether a constitutional right to abortion funding existed, saying, "...on the assumption that Justice Ginsburg once advocated a constitutional right to funding for abortion, that position has been decisively rejected."[13]

Ms. Kagan discussed the intersection of morality and legislation in answering a question from Senator Sessions, saying, "Many laws are grounded in moral and ethical principles and that those principles can provide a rational basis to support such laws."[13]

In answering a question from Senator Cornyn, Ms. Kagan stated "[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."[13]

In answering a question from Senator Specter, Ms. Kagan also addressed the constitutional aspects of government welfare programs: “The Constitution has never been held to confer a right to a minimum level of welfare . . . .This determination comported with this nation’s traditional understanding that the Constitution generally imposes limitations on government rather than establishes affirmative rights and thus has what might be thought of as a libertarian slant. I fully accept this traditional understanding[.]"[13]

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 7:19 PM
She plays for the other team. Allegedly

How is she on the 2nd?

1) I don't see how that's relevant.
2) If she is, she's somewhat self-loathing if you read her statements that there is no constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage.
3) I don't see how that's relevant.
4) I don't see what it has to do with guns.
5) I don't see how that's relevant.

Did I mention it's irrelevant?


I hate the stupid **** people choose to focus on.

Window_Seat
05-09-2010, 7:22 PM
...

How is she on the 2nd?

From Judgepedia:

Second Amendment

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."

Erik.

dantodd
05-09-2010, 7:23 PM
There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."


vewwwy intewesting...

SkatinJJ
05-09-2010, 7:25 PM
She plays for the other team. Allegedly

How is she on the 2nd?

The other team???

The taliban? Al Queda? The Russians?

Which team?

JJ

Dwight K. Schrute
05-09-2010, 7:25 PM
1) I don't see how that's relevant.
2) If she is, she's somewhat self-loathing if you read her statements that there is no constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage.
3) I don't see how that's relevant.
4) I don't see what it has to do with guns.
5) I don't see how that's relevant.

Did I mention it's irrelevant?


I hate the stupid **** people choose to focus on.

It may be a big landmark. First black judge was important. First female on the court was important. First Latina was important.


Which team?

JJ

The LGBT rights community.

G17GUY
05-09-2010, 7:28 PM
http://rlv.zcache.com/obama_rainbow_pop_bumper_sticker-p128907138952099397trl0_400.jpg

jamesob
05-09-2010, 7:28 PM
by her knock out good looks i was sure she was married ( to a guy ) with kids.

hoffmang
05-09-2010, 7:28 PM
The best guess until she actually starts hearing our issues is that she's about as good as we could realistically get from this administration.

-Gene

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 7:29 PM
1) I don't see how that's relevant.
2) If she is, she's somewhat self-loathing if you read her statements that there is no constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage.
3) I don't see how that's relevant.
4) I don't see what it has to do with guns.
5) I don't see how that's relevant.

Did I mention it's irrelevant?


I hate the stupid **** people choose to focus on.

It has been widely reported that Obama was receiving enormous pressure from the gay community to nominate a homosexual supreme court judge.

A persons sexual preferences should be irrelavant but it isnt. That means its relevant for everyone to raise the issue.

When Alito was nominated the left went crazy about how there are too many cathlics on the bench.

Now we are about to have a Jewish lesbian. Nothing wrong with stating facts.

Dwight K. Schrute
05-09-2010, 7:30 PM
There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

Looks good right?

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 7:31 PM
It may be a big landmark. First black judge was important. First female on the court was important. First Latina was important.



The LGBT rights community.

I don't know, maybe it's just me - but I hate the fact that people focus on that crap. You're either qualified for the job, or you're not. I don't care if you're the first black jew homosexual from south of the mason-dixon line but raised in Boston. You can either do your job, or not. Everything else is a distraction we just don't need.

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 7:32 PM
She is a liberal and will rule that way. Do you really think Harvard would have a anything but an ultra liberal ? Do you really think Obama would have a solicitor general who was anything but ultra liberal ?

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 7:33 PM
It has been widely reported that Obama was receiving enormous pressure from the gay community to nominate a homosexual supreme court judge.

A persons sexual preferences should be irrelavant but it isnt. That means its relevant for everyone to raise the issue.

When Alito was nominated the left went crazy about how there are too many cathlics on the bench.

Now we are about to have a Jewish lesbian. Nothing wrong with stating facts.

So you're saying because some idiot liberals do something stupid - it's okay for everybody else to jump off that bridge?

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 7:34 PM
So you're saying because some idiot liberals do something stupid - it's okay for everybody else to jump off that bridge?

No, but its okay for stupid liberals to jump off bridges.

Dr Rockso
05-09-2010, 7:37 PM
She is a liberal and will rule that way. Do you really think Harvard would have a anything but an ultra liberal ? Do you really think Obama would have a solicitor general who was anything but ultra liberal ?
Well, I guess we'll see, but my understanding is that there were others on the short list who would have been a LOT worse. Merrick Garland and Diane Wood to name two. Heck, even Janet Napolitano's name was getting mentioned...

POLICESTATE
05-09-2010, 7:40 PM
Was hoping there would be discussion on qualifications and positions on issues, especially ones relating to 2A and our basic freedoms, but instead most people seem to be discussing whether she is a lesbian or not.

And so...

http://strang.newtomorrow.org/CGN/IBTL.jpg

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 7:40 PM
We all know that the framers intended that our supreme court should be strictly interpreting the constitution but we also all know that that is no longer the case. Just part of the game now.

Steyr_223
05-09-2010, 7:40 PM
Do you really think Harvard would have a anything but an ultra liberal ?

Yep Harvard produces nothing but losers! LOL!

John Adams, John Quincy Adams,Rutherford B. Hayes,Theodore Roosevelt,Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy,George W. Bush and Barak Obama..

GnarlyMilk
05-09-2010, 7:42 PM
1) I don't see how that's relevant.
2) If she is, she's somewhat self-loathing if you read her statements that there is no constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage.
3) I don't see how that's relevant.
4) I don't see what it has to do with guns.
5) I don't see how that's relevant.

Did I mention it's irrelevant?


I hate the stupid **** people choose to focus on.

Should be irrelevant, but it is not... at any case it was just a simple question. Not sure why you have to get so upset about it...

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 7:43 PM
Her sexual preference IS relevant to the discussion about her qualifications. It has been so widely reported FROM THE LEFT that they wanted Obama to choose a lesbian.

Now that he has we are all supposed to ignore it ?

ColdDeadHands1
05-09-2010, 7:47 PM
Obummer didn't pick her because she is a raving mad liberal, he picked her because she is smokin hot!

http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae273/garandman14/kagan1.jpg

(No, really, this is "her")

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 7:47 PM
Harvard is an ultral liberal school and only allows ultral liberal people to head anything there.

Kagan is ultral liberal.

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 7:48 PM
Was hoping there would be discussion on qualifications and positions on issues, especially ones relating to 2A and our basic freedoms, but instead most people seem to be discussing whether she is a lesbian or not.

And so...

http://strang.newtomorrow.org/CGN/IBTL.jpg

On a total unrelated note:
That's one of the greatest scenes in the whole movie. The best part - which that picture captures perfectly, is his completely ignorant oblivious look when that door opens.

Doheny
05-09-2010, 7:49 PM
DB, you're not Lexy99 and CA Patriot, are you?

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 7:50 PM
Her sexual preference IS relevant to the discussion about her qualifications. It has been so widely reported FROM THE LEFT that they wanted Obama to choose a lesbian.

Now that he has we are all supposed to ignore it ?

The simple answer : Yes.

The longer answer is - let stupid people worry about the stupid crap. While they're worried about stupid crap - focus on what matters. Don't get sucked into ignorant aspects of a debate. It gives that ignorance legitimacy.

orangeusa
05-09-2010, 7:52 PM
Stevens was the 'center' vote. A great man who made his mark on SCOTUS from day 1. Way under-rated in my view for his ability to swing the court to a centrist position based on solid legal arguements.

Kagan appears to be an academic (w/ little practical courtroom background), who I'm guessing will be prone to indecision, no matter what the background. Wow - wait till we hear oral arguments - with her and Thomas not saying a word. Then when she DOES, not sure I want to hear it.

<supreme sarcasm on>
Fantastic.
<supreme sarcasm off>

.

Steyr_223
05-09-2010, 7:52 PM
During her hearings to be confirmed as Solicitor General, the New York Times paraphrases Kagan as saying "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.

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 7:53 PM
Ignoring it allows for it to happen.

Guess what...America just got a secular progressive ultra liberal on the court.

Trust me, she is no friend to the Constitution and she will be no friend to gun rights.

anthonyca
05-09-2010, 7:54 PM
Has she ever had a job that was not in acidemia or government?

Hogxtz
05-09-2010, 7:55 PM
Her sexual preference IS relevant to the discussion about her qualifications. It has been so widely reported FROM THE LEFT that they wanted Obama to choose a lesbian.

Now that he has we are all supposed to ignore it ?

Dam straight its relevant. Ones personal beliefs, background, upbringing, ect all have to do with how a person will stand on certain opinions and beliefs.

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 8:00 PM
Guess what...America just got a secular progressive ultra liberal on the court.

1) what's wrong with being secular?
2) What evidence do you have that she's 'progressive ultra liberal' other then the fact she worked at *gasp* harvard!
3) This:

During her hearings to be confirmed as Solicitor General, the New York Times paraphrases Kagan as saying "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.


not exactly an 'ultra liberal' point of view, now is it?

wildhawker
05-09-2010, 8:04 PM
Kagan is likely an upgrade for us.

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 8:09 PM
1) what's wrong with being secular?


Well, in my opinion being a Christian is better than being someone who isnt.

When someone is in charge of interpreting a document whose framers believed the rights contained therein derived from their Creator, I believe its important for that person to A) believe the same and B) be able to understand why.

If a person is secular then they will most likely have a different belief than our framers and the importance of rights endowed by a Creator vs rights granted by governments of man.

bwiese
05-09-2010, 8:10 PM
We may actually be indirectly well-served by someone who has a strong scholarly background and seems to honor stare decisis.

Don't let blind dislike of a Harvard-trained possible lesbian cloud gunrights/civil rights issues.

orangeusa
05-09-2010, 8:12 PM
I hate to be the only one who respects Stevens, but at least he had a lot of trial experience, and was able to pull the court to a centrist position. I'm not comfortable with ANYBODY on the Supreme Court w/o trial experience, but what the heck do I know. Just a simple taxpaying guy, who's tired of getting unqualified folks working in the various branches of the government.

But - Congress has to talk about this next. And we'll see how it goes.

.

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 8:17 PM
Well, in my opinion being a Christian is better than being someone who isnt.

Hey - thanks for playing - this is where I bite my tongue and say we just have to agree to disagree.

On second thought - F that - you can bite me right square on the ***.


The rest of your crap isn't even worth reading.
Thanks for showing your ***.

Kestryll
05-09-2010, 8:17 PM
A) It's every bit as relevant as a nominee's religious beliefs which many use as criteria to reject a nominee.

B) It's exactly as relevant as those who choose to use it as a nominating criteria make it. The fact that ANY factor is used to choose a nominee makes that factor relevant and open for discussion.

SHOULD orientation or religious affiliation be relevant?
No.
But as long as either is used as criteria for choosing or rejecting a nominee it WILL be relevant.

Now a few questions for those saying 'ignore it'
Are you as upset that it may have been used as a qualifier as you are that people are discussing it?
Would you be as willing to 'ignore it' if it was as potentially used as a disqualifier?
Are you as willing to 'ignore it' if someone having a specific religious belief were used as qualifier to select a nominee?

Bottom line, if it is used as a requirement to be selected as a nominee it is relevant to the selection process.

Mstrty
05-09-2010, 8:19 PM
Obummer didn't pick her because she is a raving mad liberal, he picked her because she is smokin hot!

http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae273/garandman14/kagan1.jpg

I thought it was Brendan Fraser in drag until you read your quote. Wow! Shes rough.

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 8:20 PM
Hey - thanks for playing - this is where I bite my tongue and say we just have to agree to disagree.

On second thought - F that - you can bite me right square on the ***.


The rest of your crap isn't even worth reading.
Thanks for showing your ***.

I dont understand your post. There are too many stars in it. Can you express yourself without using stars ?

Kestryll
05-09-2010, 8:23 PM
Hey - thanks for playing - this is where I bite my tongue and say we just have to agree to disagree.

On second thought - F that - you can bite me right square on the ***.


The rest of your crap isn't even worth reading.
Thanks for showing your ***.

Oh that was an ill-chosen reply..

You don't have to agree with nor like his opinion, and doesn't have to like or agree with yours, but the rude comments and language will get you bounced to the curb for a bit.

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 8:27 PM
Oh that was an ill-chosen reply..

You don't have to agree with nor like his opinion, and doesn't have to like or agree with yours, but the rude comments and language will get you bounced to the curb for a bit.

Its okay. As a Christian in America I am very accustomed to the hatred of Christians and their beliefs.

The poster who said those things shouldnt be punished by the board moderators in anyway. I can handle opposing views and even mean things being said.

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 8:29 PM
A) It's every bit as relevant as a nominee's religious beliefs which many use as criteria to reject a nominee.
And that's not right either.


Now a few questions for those saying 'ignore it'

Are you as upset that it may have been used as a qualifier as you are that people are discussing it?

It doesn't sit very well with me. Again, if the person is qualified - I see it as no harm no foul. If we were talking about someone getting the nod who wasn't ready - simply because of some other factor - i'd have a huge problem with it. So far, there's no evidence of that.


Would you be as willing to 'ignore it' if it was as potentially used as a disqualifier?

Again - it depends on the situation. If you were talking about someone who was capable, who was being disqualified solely on a factor - leading a lessor candidate to take the position - i'd be a bit peeved.


Are you as willing to 'ignore it' if someone having a specific religious belief were used as qualifier to select a nominee?

See above.


Bottom line, if it is used as a requirement to be selected as a nominee it is relevant to the selection process.
I'm not aware that it was a REQUIREMENT. Some people wanted to see it. Some people want to see a lot of things - good for those people.

I look at it like this. Find the best people for the job. If you have a short list of people, any one of which are as suitable and capable as anyone else - and it comes down to some stupid political decision - well, that's just the game.
I have a problem with it when people focus solely on that stupid political hitch, or when that stupid political hitch overrides other qualifications.

Time will tell if that's the case or not. I think it would be nice if there was diversity in the supreme court that matched the makeup of the population. I think it's a good thing to have people from different backgrounds both personally and professionally, as it gives a greater depth of perspective to the court. But again - having the most competent viewpoints on the bench is far more important then having the most diverse.

If evidence comes out that her sexual preference gave her preference over more qualified candidates - by all means i'll be one of the first people to stand up and say this was a bad move.

Until then however - noone has even confirmed she is in fact a lesbian, and the majority of the focus is on her alleged lesbianism over her qualifications. I'm not saying completely ignore it - but let's at least look at the most important factors first.

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 8:30 PM
Oh that was an ill-chosen reply..

You don't have to agree with nor like his opinion, and doesn't have to like or agree with yours, but the rude comments and language will get you bounced to the curb for a bit.

So an opinion that says 'I'm better then you because i'm Christian and you're not' is cool - but standing up and saying to hell with that is not?

orangeusa
05-09-2010, 8:31 PM
DB and Sinixstar - There are times when you don't have to get the last word. This is about a selection of Supreme Court Justice. sorry, but my 2 cents. prob get me banned.

.

Cool Hand Luke
05-09-2010, 8:31 PM
The longer answer is - let stupid people worry about the stupid crap. While they're worried about stupid crap - focus on what matters. Don't get sucked into ignorant aspects of a debate. It gives that ignorance legitimacy.

You got a lot of anger in you brother. Gun totin' liberal? I'd say if anyone got sucked into the ignorant aspects "of a debate" it's you. A couple of guys made off the cuff curious remarks about her sexuality and you go ballistic.

Kestryll
05-09-2010, 8:31 PM
Its okay. As a Christian in America I am very accustomed to the hatred of Christians and their beliefs.

The poster who said those things shouldnt be punished by the board moderators in anyway. I can handle opposing views and even mean things being said.

Frankly it's not about you nor is it about whether you can handle it.
It's about the rules and the requirement for civility among members.


Oh, and Whoa Nellie/lexy99/Ca Patriot, good bye again.

DB Cooper
05-09-2010, 8:33 PM
So an opinion that says 'I'm better then you because i'm Christian and you're not' is cool - but standing up and saying to hell with that is not?

I dont think it will matter to you but, what I meant to say was that holding Christian beliefs was better than holding seculat beliefs.

NorCalMama
05-09-2010, 8:34 PM
I still haven't figured out why people get so bent out of shape over the issue of sexuality, well, homosexuality? It is something that is relevant because it will (like it or not) in fact sway how she makes her decisions. That's the bottom line. It is NO different than the relevance of her position on abortion regarding right to life cases, her position on the RKBA on 2nd Amendment cases, etc and so on.

However, being that sexuality and the 2nd Amendment are in no way one in the same, I digress...

Kestryll
05-09-2010, 8:36 PM
So an opinion that says 'I'm better then you because i'm Christian and you're not' is cool - but standing up and saying to hell with that is not?

An OPINION, however foolish, that says "Well, in my opinion being a Christian is better than being someone who isnt." (BTW, notice how this DOESN'T say 'I'm better than you' but makes a general statement) is definitely different than telling someone "you can bite me right square on the ***."

The first one may be rather foolish and general but the second is just plain rude and personal.

See the difference?

NorCalMama
05-09-2010, 8:36 PM
Oh, and Whoa Nellie/lexy99/Ca Patriot, good bye again.

:confused: Oh dear, who now?

GoodEyeSniper
05-09-2010, 8:37 PM
Interested to see how this plays out, can't comment on how I feel now. I certainly don't feel it's a bad thing she may be a homosexual, but I do fear that may have had much too strong of a reason in her being appointed, just like Sotomayor being Latina.

Its okay. As a Christian in America I am very accustomed to the hatred of Christians and their beliefs.

The poster who said those things shouldnt be punished by the board moderators in anyway. I can handle opposing views and even mean things being said.

That's strange, as a Christian in America I have very rarely experienced this hatred you speak of. But maybe this is because I generally treat everyone with the same respect, and don't claim to be better than anyone else for believing like I do.

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 8:37 PM
I dont think it will matter to you but, what I meant to say was that holding Christian beliefs was better than holding seculat beliefs.

Considering i'm a pretty secular person - you're right - it doesn't matter. I don't see much difference there.

I have a pretty live-and-let-live attitude. There's lots of people out there who believe in stuff I don't believe in. If it makes them happy - hey, right on man.

The minute you stand there and try telling me that you're better, or your belief system is better, then mine - we're going to have a problem. I don't care how you try to phrase it - you crossed well passed that line.

gregorylucas
05-09-2010, 8:38 PM
Frankly it's not about you nor is it about whether you can handle it.
It's about the rules and the requirement for civility among members.


Oh, and Whoa Nellie/lexy99/Ca Patriot, good bye again.

Kinda OT but what did these folks get big banner for?

-Greg

bwiese
05-09-2010, 8:39 PM
She is a liberal and will rule that way. Do you really think Harvard would have a anything but an ultra liberal?

I always laugh at comments about Harvard by people who probably would never be eligible to get in.

Have you ever heard of Harvard Biz School?

Some of the most capitalistic nonliberals come from there...

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 8:41 PM
An OPINION, however foolish, that says "Well, in my opinion being a Christian is better than being someone who isnt." (BTW, notice how this DOESN'T say 'I'm better than you' but makes a general statement) is definitely different than telling someone "you can bite me right square on the ***."

The first one may be rather foolish and general but the second is just plain rude and personal.

See the difference?

It's a 'general statement' that has a pretty clear implication.

gregorylucas
05-09-2010, 8:43 PM
The minute you stand there and try telling me that your better, or your belief system is better, then mine - we're going to have a problem. I don't care how you try to phrase it - you crossed well passed that line.

You mean kinda like peoples different opinions on gun control?
:hide:

I wouldn't get to torked, most everyone in the world thinks they view the world more clearly than the next person.

-Greg

Kestryll
05-09-2010, 8:43 PM
It's a 'general statement' that has a pretty clear implication.

And from both your misquote of it and his clarification, one you completely misread.

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 8:48 PM
You got a lot of anger in you brother. Gun totin' liberal? I'd say if anyone got sucked into the ignorant aspects "of a debate" it's you. A couple of guys made off the cuff curious remarks about her sexuality and you go ballistic.

You're right - I do get a little angry about it. We're in the "2nd amend. Politics and Laws" forum, on the the website of an organization that is arguably at the forefront of fighting for 2A rights. The topic of a new SCOTUS nominee comes up. Instead of looking at what it means and what impacts it's going to have - we're talking about rumors and speculation about sexuality. It does piss me off a little bit.
I still come on this forum (even though I left CA) because it's one of the few gun-related forums out there where you can actually have serious conversations on the subject without all the BS. Perhaps I was mistaken on thinking that?

hoffmang
05-09-2010, 8:50 PM
Kinda OT but what did these folks get big banner for?

It appears (no inside info) that they're all the same person and violating the rule against creating multiple accounts without permission.

-Gene

gregorylucas
05-09-2010, 8:51 PM
You're right - I do get a little angry about it. We're in the "2nd amend. Politics and Laws" forum, on the the website of an organization that is arguably at the forefront of fighting for 2A rights. The topic of a new SCOTUS nominee comes up. Instead of looking at what it means and what impacts it's going to have - we're talking about rumors and speculation about sexuality. It does piss me off a little bit.
I still come on this forum (even though I left CA) because it's one of the few gun-related forums out there where you can actually have serious conversations on the subject without all the BS. Perhaps I was mistaken on thinking that?

You paint a wide brushstroke of all of us my friend and not a kind one at that.

-Greg

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 8:51 PM
And from both your misquote of it and his clarification, one you completely misread.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. In the context of his statements, I think his view that Christians were superior and everybody else should take a back seat was pretty clear.

You don't see it that way.

And the world goes round...

Kestryll
05-09-2010, 9:04 PM
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. In the context of his statements, I think his view that Christians were superior and everybody else should take a back seat was pretty clear.

You don't see it that way.

And the world goes round...

Try it this way, take the religious component out of it.

"Well, in my opinion being someone who wears T-shirts is better than being someone who doesn't."

While this is rather silly, it is not a personal condemnation.

This however is very personal:
"you can bite me right square on the ***."

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 9:07 PM
Try it this way, take the religious component out of it.

"Well, in my opinion being someone who wears T-shirts is better than being someone who doesn't."

While this is rather silly, it is not a personal condemnation.

This however is very personal:
"you can bite me right square on the ***."


Okay - try it this way.

The guy saying that is wearing a T-Shirt, while the guy he's saying it to is wearing a suit and tie.

Is it still just a generalization? Again - you may think so, I disagree.


And the world still goes 'round...

6172crew
05-09-2010, 9:09 PM
It appears (no inside info) that they're all the same person and violating the rule against creating multiple accounts without permission.

-Gene

Yep, he got banned and then keeps setting up new accounts.

orangeusa
05-09-2010, 9:12 PM
So, do you tug on Supermans cape too?

Let's get back to OP if we can....

Kestryll
05-09-2010, 9:13 PM
What is bad about this, from both sides, is that orientation could play a part in this at all.

What should be being asked is does this mean that this applies only as long as Heller is the law of the land or does she agree with the Heller ruling.
There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

orangeusa
05-09-2010, 9:22 PM
stare decisis or agreement w/ Heller.

What about the apparent lack of trial experience? I worry about that more than most of the other concerns in this thread. And lack of trial experience includes lack of knowledge of her voting/judging record.

.

dantodd
05-09-2010, 9:22 PM
Have you ever heard of Harvard Biz School?

My experience with HBS grads is about 50/50. Lots of bright people, unfortunately also a lot of people looking for the easy way to climb the $ ladder rather than an interest in actually accomplishing something and building a great business/product etc. Some of the biggest knives I've had thrust at my back were wielded by HBSers who would rather submarine half the company than give credit to another for the work they've done. The other 50% are great people who are generally well above the mean in work ethic and intelligence.

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 9:23 PM
Some people have mentioned that she's been more tied up in academics rather than practice. I personally kind of like this. I think it's a good thing to have somebody who's interested in the intellectual argument as much or more then the practical argument.

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

That is the statement of someone who looked at the ruling, and read it with a logical/intellectual interpretation. It's not the reading of a practitioner/operative who's looking for ways to twist the wording around. That's the same clear and pure observation many of us have made. That's a very good thing.

When you have practitioners/operatives in the political realm (and let's face it, SCOTUS is a political body whether we like it or not) - the exercise of an agenda can easily overtake the exercise of intellectual honesty. Having the balance of someone who's dedicated at least part of their life to the intellectual side of the law is a nice thing to have.

383green
05-09-2010, 9:26 PM
Some legal lobby groups had called on Obama to chose someone from outside the judiciary, who might be more in touch than the aspirations of ordinary people, than a candidate who spent years in the legal profession.

Since the topic of things that should be irrelevant (but sadly, aren't) has been broached, I can't help but wonder what the heck "be[ing] more in touch than [sic] the aspirations of ordinary people" has to do with a position that entirely involves interpreting complex and arcane case law. When I go in for a medical procedure, I'd much rather have a doctor who's spent years in the medical profession than a non-doctor who's really in touch with my aspirations.

On the topic of her physical appearance: Grow the #### up! Making fun of her because she doesn't look like a smoking hot cheerleader is childish and rude. It has absolutely nothing to do with her qualifications to perform her newly-appointed job. We can't all be physically beautiful; I'm reminded of that whenever I look in the mirror. In fact, when I moved into my new house which has a large mirror behind the bathtub, I quickly learned to never look in that direction when I'm naked. :eek:

On the topics of her sexual preferences and religion: I'm not touching those grenades with a ten-foot pole.

postal
05-09-2010, 9:29 PM
What was this thread about?


Oh yeah.....

I've read the whole thing besides what Kestryll probably removed. I wish there was more info on her. It seems to me that there is very little to go on. What we have so far seems OK, but more history of her views would help a lot. I guess she hasnt been in a position to give much substance to her views however.

---- this is where I deleted a paragraph on db cooper/sinixster and religion having no place on a gun forum----

We are here because we LIKE GUNS. Go to religion forum if you want to discuss religion.

Simple isnt it?

383green
05-09-2010, 9:35 PM
We are here because we LIKE GUNS. Go to religion forum if you want to discuss religion.

Simple isnt it?


In spite of the risk of being verbally crucified for saying this... :thumbsup:

Dr. Peter Venkman
05-09-2010, 9:39 PM
Glad to see the best members of the CGN really care about the issues and whether or not someone is part of the LGBT community. Is it any wonder why people are hesitant to join this site and get involve with promoting gun rights when they see this kind of **** on this board and other gun sites? ****ing unbelievable.

Werewolf1021
05-09-2010, 9:51 PM
Glad to see the best members of the CGN really care about the issues and whether or not someone is part of the LGBT community. Is it any wonder why people are hesitant to join this site and get involve with promoting gun rights when they see this kind of **** on this board and other gun sites? ****ing unbelievable.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If people can't get past that, they they probably are not a great friend of the 2nd anyway. They would be weak ,at best, if this sort of thing gets their panties in a twist.

"You can have your guns, but voicing your opinion on things is where I draw the line. Screw free speech!"


/voicing his opinion as we speak

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 9:51 PM
Since the topic of things that should be irrelevant (but sadly, aren't) has been broached, I can't help but wonder what the heck "be[ing] more in touch than [sic] the aspirations of ordinary people" has to do with a position that entirely involves interpreting complex and arcane case law.


I think an argument could be made that because you're dealing with such arcane law, that it helps to have a more direct understanding on how those laws actually effect people. That SCOTUS shouldn't be so far removed from people that they deal in sweeping abstracts, and that there should be consideration for what a given set of cases means to the average person's life.

Frankly, i think this is kind of a silly point to make. Not only silly - I think it's borderline dangerous. It comes dangerously close to suggesting that the wants/will of the people should override the rule of established law. I'm not so down with that.

I could see the case being made say for example if SCOTUS was trying to figure out what cases to hear - and a case involving some law governing corporations was heard over a freedom of speech case. that would be an example (I think) of SCOTUS being out of touch with 'aspirations of the american people'. However, I cannot think of such a situation in recent memory.


When I go in for a medical procedure, I'd much rather have a doctor who's spent years in the medical profession than a non-doctor who's really in touch with my aspirations.


I look at it more like this:
I'm a software engineer. I have a crapload of experience, but not much formal education. Does that make me a better programmer then somebody who's been working in research at a university for as long as I've been working in the field? Not at all. It just means we're coming at it from different perspectives. I might know some practical tips and tricks from the field the other guy doesn't, but he might know some really low-level obscure technical knowledge that I lack. If you can have both points of view on the same project, that's just good stuff.

redneckshootist
05-09-2010, 9:54 PM
man I just dont get it. Why would someones sexuality have any barring on a job or position? If they are qualified why deos it matter who they is sleeping with. All I care about is how she interprets the constitution and if she is qualified for the job. and by what Ive read so far I will welcome and support her.

Also Im christian, but not just any christian Im mormon:eek: I have lots of friends that are gay, bi, and lesbian, and I dont judge them for it. Im only attracted to women though. I could care less what people do in the bedroom.

when it comes to religion I still dont judge i could care less what religion you are in my shop I have a jewish guy working for me, and athiest people working for me. who cares about all that the 1A has freedom of religion in it.......

bottom line is how she will interpret the constitution ;)

bwiese
05-09-2010, 9:55 PM
man I just dont get it. Why would someones sexuality have any barring on a job or position? If they are qualified why deos it matter who they is sleeping with. All I care about is how she interprets the constitution and if she is qualified for the job. and by what Ive read so far I will welcome and support her.

Also Im christian, but not just any christian Im mormon:eek: I have lots of friends that are gay, bi, and lesbian, and I dont judge them for it. Im only attracted to women though. I could care less what people do in the bedroom.

when it comes to religion I still dont judge i could care less what religion you are in my shop I have a jewish guy working for me, and athiest people working for me. who cares about all that the 1A has freedom of religion in it.......

bottom line is how she will interpret the constitution ;)


I love you. Hold it, you're supposed to be a redneck, go take back what you said :)

nicki
05-09-2010, 9:56 PM
Hopefully the nomination can be stalled till after the MacDonald case is out.

We will see how wise a certain "Latina" is and that will effect this nomination.

If I was to question her, I would ask her oponion on the "Raich case", a "Commerce Clause" case involving "Home Grown Medical Marijuana" which IMHO the SCOTUS ruled wrong as well as her opinion on Heller and MacDonald.

The Raich case will influence future gun cases regarding Federal jurisdiction, like it or not, all rights are interdependent.

Hopefully if she gets confirmed, she will view all of our listed rights in the bill of rights as interdependent on each other and give all of them strict scrutiny protection.

Obama is not going to nominate a Conservative, so we have our work cut out for us.

Dr. Peter Venkman
05-09-2010, 9:57 PM
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If people can't get past that, they they probably are not a great friend of the 2nd anyway. They would be weak ,at best, if this sort of thing gets their panties in a twist.

"You can have your guns, but voicing your opinion on things is where I draw the line. Screw free speech!"


/voicing his opinion as we speak

Yeah, LGBT's should just "suck it up" when it comes to all of the bigotry and tough it out. :rolleyes:

dantodd
05-09-2010, 10:03 PM
SCOTUS is unlike any other court in the land. I don't feel that being a trial judge is a necessary prerequisite for being a good justice. I also don't agree that somehow having a "more direct understanding on how those laws actually effect people" is a value. I didn't like that assertion when it was couched as a "wise Latina" and I don't much like it in its general form either.

This is one of the few places where those who "live in an Ivory Tower" are the people I want making the decisions. Academics who have no idea about "the real world" are much more likely to rule based purely on the intent and original meaning of the law than someone who gives significant weight to the effects on individuals. This may sound like a bad thing but it isn't. By limiting themselves to interpreting the intent and meaning of the laws as written it puts onus on the legislators and people to write the laws to decide what laws to pass and how they will effect individuals. To have a court making decisions based on the impact rather than the intent is to invite legislation from the bench. I do not want SCOTUS justices to "feel my pain" I want them to interpret the law as written.

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 10:04 PM
Hopefully the nomination can be stalled till after the MacDonald case is out.


I don't think it would really make a difference one way or the other, would it?
Regardless, I don't think she can be nominated until there's an official vacancy - which isn't until the end of the current session when Stevens official retires. Can't nominate somebody for a position that isn't open yet.

Hell all of this could get turned on it's head if Stevens decides he changed his mind and is going to stick it out for a few years.

redneckshootist
05-09-2010, 10:06 PM
I love you. Hold it, you're supposed to be a redneck, go take back what you said :)

HAHAHA Im as redneck as they come:D and I cant take back what I said;)

Werewolf1021
05-09-2010, 10:08 PM
Yeah, LGBT's should just "suck it up" when it comes to all of the bigotry and tough it out. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: That is not what I said. I said that if a matter of opinion difference that is not even remotely related to the promotion of the 2A stops you from supporting said 2A then you probably didn't have much support to begin with. Be the better person, as getting bent out of shape over something you really cannot control only raises your blood pressure. Counter with facts, not running home and whining to mom how your feelings got hurt.

Taken from Bwiese: Freedom comes with the burden of having to tolerate things you might not like.

VW*Mike
05-09-2010, 10:09 PM
Personally I could give F&^%all if she has horns growing out of her head and likes to sacrifice goats while listening to Donnie and Marie albums on friday nights. As long as she sticks to the constitution, as the framers saw it, thats her job, thats all that matters and all anyone should care about.

dantodd
05-09-2010, 10:10 PM
I don't think it would really make a difference one way or the other, would it?

The outcome of McDonald could make a dramatic difference in filling Stevens' seat. If we get screwed completely, or if Sotomayor is simply way out of the mainstream, it could get southern democrats a bit riled up and concerned enough about gun rights to take force Obama into nominating a more moderate to conservative justice. If we get "the golden ticket" of PorI that many here want it could upset the far right and might cause enough of a stir to bring greater general scrutiny to the nomination than it has had to date.

Sinixstar
05-09-2010, 10:28 PM
The outcome of McDonald could make a dramatic difference in filling Stevens' seat. If we get screwed completely, or if Sotomayor is simply way out of the mainstream, it could get southern democrats a bit riled up and concerned enough about gun rights to take force Obama into nominating a more moderate to conservative justice. If we get "the golden ticket" of PorI that many here want it could upset the far right and might cause enough of a stir to bring greater general scrutiny to the nomination than it has had to date.

Eh - I don't know, I think that's a bit of a stretch. I can't really see any president trying to blatantly stack the deck on an issue before the court. The political backlash would be so incredible it's not even funny. SCOTUS nominations have become a major political lightening rod over the years. I think everybody treads very carefully on the subject these days.

Nevermind that you kind of invalidate your own point. If the McDonald ruling could have such an influence over the nominee - I would think we'd want to have the nomination take place BEFORE the ruling is issued, to avoid any potential political pressure that could bite us in the rear on it later. She seems to have a firm grasp on the 2nd, and doesn't seem like a horrible choice for our cause. Certainly we could do a lot worse - so why not get her in before Brady and Co has a fit?

hollabillz
05-09-2010, 10:29 PM
some people are too darn sensitive :sleeping:

dantodd
05-09-2010, 10:51 PM
Eh - I don't know, I think that's a bit of a stretch. I can't really see any president trying to blatantly stack the deck on an issue before the court. The political backlash would be so incredible it's not even funny. SCOTUS nominations have become a major political lightening rod over the years. I think everybody treads very carefully on the subject these days.


You are putting words into my mouth. I NEVER said or inferred that the President was trying to stack the deck on a particular issue. Of course he is trying to "stack the deck" as far as choosing a justice who shares a similar view on how the Constitution should be interpreted.


Nevermind that you kind of invalidate your own point. If the McDonald ruling could have such an influence over the nominee - I would think we'd want to have the nomination take place BEFORE the ruling is issued, to avoid any potential political pressure that could bite us in the rear on it later. She seems to have a firm grasp on the 2nd, and doesn't seem like a horrible choice for our cause. Certainly we could do a lot worse - so why not get her in before Brady and Co has a fit?

Since you completely misattributed a point to me which I never made I could not possibly have invalidated it. What ruling do you see coming from McDonald that would be in any way unexpected and might "bite us in the rear" as it regards this nomination? I agree, Kagan does seem to be willing to follow stare decisis wrt Heller, which is a good thing. I also saw her quote in which she expressed her opinion that not only is McDonald a correct ruling but that it would, in her mind, extend beyond possession to carrying a firearm. I simply do not see any backlash from any McDonald decision that would cause the anti-gun groups to call for her withdrawal. Also, the anti-gun groups have very little pull left.

As far as I can see, the only thing that would be a negative surprise to the antis from McDonald is if we get broad strict scrutiny protection defined. General consensus seem to be that there will be some guidance suggesting strict scrutiny should be followed in self-defense related 2A cases and the antis have already started to accept this likelihood. Getting guidance that strict scrutiny might also apply to sporting purposes is unlikely as McDonald has nothing to do with sporting uses and is really not a scrutiny case generally. Level of scrutiny in likely to come up in some fashion because many feel that at least one of the dissents will involved the assertion that 2A be incorporated but with a different level of protection from state interference than we enjoy from federal interference. A good majority opinion would address that dissent and in so doing will likely give at least some guidance wrt the question at hand which is a self-defense question.

Saym14
05-09-2010, 10:56 PM
Obummer didn't pick her because she is a raving mad liberal, he picked her because she is smokin hot!

http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae273/garandman14/kagan1.jpg

(No, really, this is "her")

Fred Flinstone with earings?

postal
05-09-2010, 10:59 PM
I find it tiresome how bent out of shape some members are getting because of the discussion of sexual orientation.

It was pointed out that activists were crying out to be represented by a member of the LGBT community. So it is kind of open for discussion because of that. Though I dont see anything (not much to see) but dont see anything as far as how that would affect her judgement. (except that she stated same sex marriage was not protected by the constitution- And her orientation has been argued to death already.

I *DO* see however, a number of LGBT members here on this board, and am familiar with the group known as the "Pink Pistols".

I think this is a good thing. And would encourage pro gun members of that community to make their voices heard by her.

Or am I stoopud?

a1c
05-09-2010, 11:00 PM
I think her name was floated early to see what the right would say, and nothing really negative came back, except from the knee-jerk anti-Obama crowd who likes to paint everything as "us vs. them."

So they kept her as the front runner. A good centrist pick that should satisfy both the moderate left and the moderate conservatives. There'll be some whining on the far left and the far right, but they're not the ones who really have the most influence on those who will confirm her.

Dr. Peter Venkman
05-09-2010, 11:04 PM
:rolleyes: That is not what I said. I said that if a matter of opinion difference that is not even remotely related to the promotion of the 2A stops you from supporting said 2A then you probably didn't have much support to begin with. Be the better person, as getting bent out of shape over something you really cannot control only raises your blood pressure. Counter with facts, not running home and whining to mom how your feelings got hurt.

Taken from Bweise: Freedom comes with the burden of having to tolerate things you might not like.

You'll be hard pressed to find people who are willing to work with people for one specific right who on the other hand are doing their very best to undermine one of their own. It's not a friendly atmosphere and it's not conducive to any kind of goal that requires volunteer team work. This doesn't even address your fallacious reasoning that somehow someone doesn't want to be around a hostile environment means they "don't have much support to begin with."

And another thing, well, two. If you are going to quote Bwiese, at least spell his username right. Two, when it comes to supporting bigotry under the 2nd Amendment umbrella, I highly doubt he'd be agreeable to it.

bwiese
05-09-2010, 11:44 PM
I think her name was floated early to see what the right would say, and nothing really negative came back, except from the knee-jerk anti-Obama crowd who likes to paint everything as "us vs. them."

So they kept her as the front runner. A good centrist pick that should satisfy both the moderate left and the moderate conservatives. There'll be some whining on the far left and the far right, but they're not the ones who really have the most influence on those who will confirm her.

True. Given that Kagan is likely the best of the lot, I'd've hoped she'd be kept in reserve so a first nominee that got "Kimba Wood-ized" as just procedural party politics could move aside and let her drop in.

Werewolf1021
05-10-2010, 12:01 AM
You'll be hard pressed to find people who are willing to work with people for one specific right who on the other hand are doing their very best to undermine one of their own. It's not a friendly atmosphere and it's not conducive to any kind of goal that requires volunteer team work. This doesn't even address your fallacious reasoning that somehow someone doesn't want to be around a hostile environment means they "don't have much support to begin with."

And another thing, well, two. If you are going to quote Bwiese, at least spell his username right. Two, when it comes to supporting bigotry under the 2nd Amendment umbrella, I highly doubt he'd be agreeable to it.

I am SO sorry.:rolleyes: Geeze, seriously, go to hell. You obviously have a bone to pick and I am tired of trying to explain it to you.

Apocalypsenerd
05-10-2010, 12:06 AM
My take:

1) Her responses during prior senate hearings were actually forthcoming to her personal points of view. This is refreshing in comparison to most other confirmation hearings, including the conservatives Bush nominated.

2) Her opinion on 2A looks a LOT better on paper than Stevens' did.

3) The 2A part of her quote "in case of a confrontation." is OK i guess. It appears she leaves out the original intention of the 2A which is to give the people a final recourse against a tyrannical government. This is STILL better than Stevens, however.

For all you guys going back and forth on the LGBT topic:

The rhetoric sounds pretty poor. The "you did it", "nooooo, you did it" flavor of the discussion detracts from the legitimacy of discussion on this board. Generally the tone and intelligence on this forum is a bit superior, in my opinion, to that of other venues. That kind of discussion, however, does not put a good face on gun owners.

To the LGBT people who might be reading this: You are the last, oppressed-by-law minority in this nation. Keep fighting for your rights.

Sinixstar
05-10-2010, 12:09 AM
You are putting words into my mouth. I NEVER said or inferred that the President was trying to stack the deck on a particular issue. Of course he is trying to "stack the deck" as far as choosing a justice who shares a similar view on how the Constitution should be interpreted.

I'm not saying you're suggesting that. What i'm saying is in light of this


If we get screwed completely, or if Sotomayor is simply way out of the mainstream, it could get southern democrats a bit riled up and concerned enough about gun rights to take force Obama into nominating a more moderate to conservative justice.


It would be viewed as stacking the deck if he caved on pressure regarding the singular issue of the McDonald ruling. I'm not saying you're suggesting he stack the deck. I'm saying if your suggested course of events played out - that's how it would be viewed.
Why do I think that? Because for one the 'southern democrats' you speak of don't really exist. As far as 'southern democrats' that care about gun issues - there's about 6 of them, and they probably won't be around come November. They're not likely to have any say on anything.
They were soft dems that were run in predominantly Red districts in 2006. That was part of (coincidently) Rahm Emanuel's plan to take the congress in '06. They were run specifically to take advantage of anti-bush/anti-war sentiment at the time. They were 'democrats' that republicans could hold their nose and vote for - ONCE. Dems got the majority they wanted in '06, so they have served their purpose. With the anti-incumbent sentiment, and the fact that they're D's in R districts - they are toast.


Since you completely misattributed a point to me which I never made I could not possibly have invalidated it. What ruling do you see coming from McDonald that would be in any way unexpected and might "bite us in the rear" as it regards this nomination?


The one thing that could bite us in the rear is if when the McDonald ruling comes down (likely in our favor) the more rabid left wing of the democratic party puts pressure to nominate a more anti-2nd Justice. The likely hood of anyone convincing Obama to nominate a more pro2a candidate is virtually nil. The only direction possible for him to go (I think) is someone with a more narrow view. He's certainly not going to run to the right with this nomination. What incentive would he have for that?

when you say As far as I can see, the only thing that would be a negative surprise to the antis from McDonald

I'm not sure if you understand exactly how black and white an issue this is for some of these people. When Gillibrand took over for Clinton in NY - McCarthy literally had a heart attack over the fact that she didn't get a flat "F" rating from the NRA. That heart attack eventually riled a good portion of the democratic party. Schumer had to come in and smooth things over, and Gillibrand had to issue a statement backing off her 2nd position.

That said, any ruling other then the flat out banning of all guns across the board will cause people like her (McCarthy) to completely go on a rampage. Now, how much influence they have is certainly up for debate - but if anyone is going to influence a nomination based on gun rights issues - it will be this group of very very vocal people. Not southern democrats, not conservatives (who are getting something they want).
When you look at it in that light, your analysis of the details of the ruling are irrelevant. If they (the McCarthy's of the world) take up the issue (they likely will try) they're not going to care about the details. They will simply be pushing for Obama to stack the deck in their favor. My point was that I think he is highly unlikely to do that.

My point was also that if there is/was some way to get that nomination in before the McDonald ruling - it makes it virtually impossible for the more rabid members like McCarthy to sac the nomination in favor of a more anti-nominee.

make sense now?

Zhukov
05-10-2010, 12:13 AM
I'd say a Tyrannical government would sure lead to one hell of a "confrontation" :P

My take:

3) The 2A part of her quote "in case of a confrontation." is OK i guess. It appears she leaves out the original intention of the 2A which is to give the people a final recourse against a tyrannical government. This is STILL better than Stevens, however.

Maestro Pistolero
05-10-2010, 12:23 AM
Regarding her trial experience: I don't see why every justice on the court needs to have the same areas of strengths and experience. I can see a benefit to having a more academic grounding, as long as it isn't accompanied by typical liberal bias often found in academia.

Remember how Justice Scalia bristled at P or I as the vehicle to 2A incorporation in McDonald oral arguments? He claimed P or I to be the "darling of the professorate" or something to that effect. So if you agree that P or I would be the most powerful means of incorporating the 2nd, then a little academic legal thinking might have gotten us further down the road. Of course the McDonald will be a done deal by the time Kagan would take her seat. Some academics are actually more attached to originalist points of view than lawyers with more practical experience.

As to her 'orientation' . . . meh.

CalNRA
05-10-2010, 12:33 AM
meh. As long as the next nominee is friendly to the Bill of Rights, it can be a trans-gender midget for all I care, still more valuable than Stevens.

D-Man
05-10-2010, 5:54 AM
stare decisis or agreement w/ Heller.

What about the apparent lack of trial experience? I worry about that more than most of the other concerns in this thread. And lack of trial experience includes lack of knowledge of her voting/judging record.

.

The lack of trial experience does worry me as well. This administration is full of those that are from academia and have no real world experience.

hill billy
05-10-2010, 6:11 AM
I don't care that she's gay. I do care that that will cloud her judgment. I do care that she may have been nominated specifically to push an agenda. I doubt sincerely that she will be a friend to gun owners. I hope I'm wrong as certainly there are folks in this thread a lot more knowledgeable than me.

bondmid003
05-10-2010, 6:33 AM
She looks like Nathan Lane in my opinion but thats completely irrelevant to how she'll do as a justice. Only time will tell

kellito
05-10-2010, 6:40 AM
I'm not saying you're suggesting that. What i'm saying is in light of this



It would be viewed as stacking the deck if he caved on pressure regarding the singular issue of the McDonald ruling. I'm not saying you're suggesting he stack the deck. I'm saying if your suggested course of events played out - that's how it would be viewed.
Why do I think that? Because for one the 'southern democrats' you speak of don't really exist. As far as 'southern democrats' that care about gun issues - there's about 6 of them, and they probably won't be around come November. They're not likely to have any say on anything.
They were soft dems that were run in predominantly Red districts in 2006. That was part of (coincidently) Rahm Emanuel's plan to take the congress in '06. They were run specifically to take advantage of anti-bush/anti-war sentiment at the time. They were 'democrats' that republicans could hold their nose and vote for - ONCE. Dems got the majority they wanted in '06, so they have served their purpose. With the anti-incumbent sentiment, and the fact that they're D's in R districts - they are toast.



The one thing that could bite us in the rear is if when the McDonald ruling comes down (likely in our favor) the more rabid left wing of the democratic party puts pressure to nominate a more anti-2nd Justice. The likely hood of anyone convincing Obama to nominate a more pro2a candidate is virtually nil. The only direction possible for him to go (I think) is someone with a more narrow view. He's certainly not going to run to the right with this nomination. What incentive would he have for that?

when you say

I'm not sure if you understand exactly how black and white an issue this is for some of these people. When Gillibrand took over for Clinton in NY - McCarthy literally had a heart attack over the fact that she didn't get a flat "F" rating from the NRA. That heart attack eventually riled a good portion of the democratic party. Schumer had to come in and smooth things over, and Gillibrand had to issue a statement backing off her 2nd position.

That said, any ruling other then the flat out banning of all guns across the board will cause people like her (McCarthy) to completely go on a rampage. Now, how much influence they have is certainly up for debate - but if anyone is going to influence a nomination based on gun rights issues - it will be this group of very very vocal people. Not southern democrats, not conservatives (who are getting something they want).
When you look at it in that light, your analysis of the details of the ruling are irrelevant. If they (the McCarthy's of the world) take up the issue (they likely will try) they're not going to care about the details. They will simply be pushing for Obama to stack the deck in their favor. My point was that I think he is highly unlikely to do that.

My point was also that if there is/was some way to get that nomination in before the McDonald ruling - it makes it virtually impossible for the more rabid members like McCarthy to sac the nomination in favor of a more anti-nominee.

make sense now?

I get what you are saying BUT, the goal IS to stack the deck in your party's favor.

spencerhut
05-10-2010, 6:43 AM
In spite of the risk of being verbally crucified for saying this... :thumbsup:

Not by me . . .:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Pro, neutral or anti, is all I care to know these days.

OleCuss
05-10-2010, 6:53 AM
I agree with the sentiment that she is likely as good as we can hope for out of the Obama White House.

Frankly, I hope she pretty much sails through so to that we can spend our time on other things about which we can be more relevant. Take her down and Obama will likely nominate someone likely to be much worse.

JBBenson
05-10-2010, 6:57 AM
There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons
in case of confrontation."

This is the modifier I don't really understand. What does "confrontation" mean in this respect?

Could it mean as part of an active "militia"? As part of one's job, i.e. cop? Only when on active duty in one of the Services? Only when hunting? Only inside one's own house, when someone is actively breaking in?

In other words, without this "confrontation", there is no RKBA?

What is the "confrontation"?

mastadonn
05-10-2010, 7:00 AM
IMO,

This nomination is Obama sticking another sharp stick in the eye of the Supreme Court Justices, similar to his State of the Union comment about United Citizens.

From what I heard, just about a month ago in the Animal Cruelty Video case, which SCOTUS overturned ona 8-1 vote, there was an informal rebuke from the Court to Solicitor General Kagan.

To paraphrase,

If she actually read the government's brief that she signed her name to, she should be embarrassed by her lack of understanding of constitutional jurisprudence.

I don't know if she will be better or worse that Stevens on 2A issues, but I doubt she will be welcomed with open arms at the Court. Not that they have to like each other.

Since she is only 50, and absent health issues, she will be helping make SCOTUS decisions for a long tiime to come.

Hoop
05-10-2010, 7:03 AM
I don't think she's that bad, but only time will tell.


Oh, and Whoa Nellie/lexy99/Ca Patriot, good bye again.

HAHAHAHA

ChuckBooty
05-10-2010, 7:09 AM
http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/129153172115160380.jpg

tiki
05-10-2010, 7:33 AM
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Elena_Kagan#Second_Amendment

Second Amendment

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."[13]


Translation: Yeah, the court ruled that it's an individual right, and, I'll keep saying that it is, but, we can restrict that right so much that the infringement the founding fathers sough to prevent will be realized anyway.

Doheny
05-10-2010, 7:36 AM
DB, you're not Lexy99 and CA Patriot, are you?

Oh, and Whoa Nellie/lexy99/Ca Patriot, good bye again.

Gee, I guess I called that one...can't you ban someone by IP address?

not-fishing
05-10-2010, 7:48 AM
SCOTUS is unlike any other court in the land. I don't feel that being a trial judge is a necessary prerequisite for being a good justice. I also don't agree that somehow having a "more direct understanding on how those laws actually effect people" is a value. I didn't like that assertion when it was couched as a "wise Latina" and I don't much like it in its general form either.

This is one of the few places where those who "live in an Ivory Tower" are the people I want making the decisions. Academics who have no idea about "the real world" are much more likely to rule based purely on the intent and original meaning of the law than someone who gives significant weight to the effects on individuals. This may sound like a bad thing but it isn't. By limiting themselves to interpreting the intent and meaning of the laws as written it puts onus on the legislators and people to write the laws to decide what laws to pass and how they will effect individuals. To have a court making decisions based on the impact rather than the intent is to invite legislation from the bench. I do not want SCOTUS justices to "feel my pain" I want them to interpret the law as written.

This is were we agree to disagree.

Ivory Towers are to dangerous to me, I've seen to many really bad people come out of Ivory Towers.

Ivory Towers have shown me little reality -- I've seen to many really screwed up buildings/bridges what-have-you designed in Ivory Towers that do not work but are "pretty ideas" (I work in Construction).

Ivory Towers do have people of questionable skills. I know of to many "Respected University Deans" who tried and couldn't make it doing what they taught.

I guess I just have more faith in the "common man".

Please forgive me for wanting a Carpenter/Rodbuster/Cement Mason who actually has built a bridge over which my family travels rather than a "Respected Dean of Engineering" who has never had their design actually tested.

Her appointment smells to much of political payoff to a certain fund raising group to me. Well at least it's not Cass Sunstein.

Billy Jack
05-10-2010, 7:51 AM
Billy Jack is appalled that anyone would post such a tasteless post stating Brandan Fraser looked like SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan in drag. Where is your sense of civility and propriety?

I have tremendous respect for Mr. Fraser and feel he is due an apology.

If anything, Ms. Kagan is far too attractive and far too left to be considered for the court.


Billy Jack



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Aegis
05-10-2010, 7:59 AM
Her lack of experience as a judge does not bother me.

Her lack of a record on how she is likely to vote does.

As far as her statements on maybe being 2A friendly, are only statements. Obama, Biden and John Kerry all have made statements that they support the 2A, and we know that is a lie.

Sinixstar
05-10-2010, 7:59 AM
I get what you are saying BUT, the goal IS to stack the deck in your party's favor.

That's just where we disagree. I don't want ideologues in the supreme court. I want people who are going to leave personal issues at the door, and look at the case in front of them on it's legal merits alone.

Luieburger
05-10-2010, 8:05 AM
Don't let blind dislike of a Harvard-trained possible lesbian cloud gunrights/civil rights issues.

Agreed! +1

Skidmark
05-10-2010, 8:08 AM
I think she's a shoo-in for confirmation. Not only is she fairly Conservative, and not only are several key Republicans on record in support of her, the best the RNC under Michael Steele can come up with to attack her is to question her 1987 quote of Thurgood Marshall, who opined that the Constitution, as originally conceived and drafted, was defective.

:rolleyes:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/96909-gop-uses-thurgood-marshall-to-attack-kagan

IrishPirate
05-10-2010, 8:10 AM
I love how something so monumental as a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States of America isn't as important as someone getting the next clever statement about religion, sexual orientation, or physical attractiveness in. Great to be back in the 9th grade......


From what I've gathered this morning when I started researching Elena Kagan, she will be an upgrade when it comes to 2A rights. Of course, time will tell if McDonald leaves the necessity for SCOTUS to even hear anymore 2A cases, but if that indeed becomes the case...having Kagan on the bench is likely better than still having Justice Stevens.

It's still unclear to me where she leans in regards to other topics, but that's because I spent the morning looking for her stance on 2A related issues. I know that someone posted her comment about there not being a constitutional right to same sex marriage....that's because there isn't. It's not the same as her saying i don't believe in it, or there shouldn't be the right, she's just stating the facts that the constitution doesn't yet protect it. Only time and future cases will tell what her true feelings are about such issues.

And rememeber....she's only been nominated. There's a decent sized road ahead of her before she gets to sit on the bench.

OK, you can all go back out to recess now.....

Sinixstar
05-10-2010, 8:11 AM
This is the modifier I don't really understand. What does "confrontation" mean in this respect?

Could it mean as part of an active "militia"? As part of one's job, i.e. cop? Only when on active duty in one of the Services? Only when hunting? Only inside one's own house, when someone is actively breaking in?

In other words, without this "confrontation", there is no RKBA?

What is the "confrontation"?

I have to say i'm a little confused.
What is the point of carrying a gun if not to protect yourself in case of a confrontation? I don't carry a gun in case the ice cream man drives by too fast. I don't carry a gun in case I decide I want chicken for dinner. I carry a gun in case some criminal decides he wants to attack me (aka, a confrontation).
If she was saying a confrontation was required to exercise that right, I could see an uproar. It seems like a case of simply stating the obvious to me.

It's like saying, "I have a car, in case I need to drive somewhere". Well, duh...

AEC1
05-10-2010, 8:14 AM
Yeah, LGBT's should just "suck it up" when it comes to all of the bigotry and tough it out. :rolleyes:

I hate this. It is a choice. You make it, you live with it.

scc1909
05-10-2010, 8:15 AM
This is the modifier I don't really understand. What does "confrontation" mean in this respect?

Could it mean as part of an active "militia"? As part of one's job, i.e. cop? Only when on active duty in one of the Services? Only when hunting? Only inside one's own house, when someone is actively breaking in?

In other words, without this "confrontation", there is no RKBA?

What is the "confrontation"?

This is one of the parts that caught my attention, as well. IOW, why did she specify "confrontation", and what does that word mean in her context? Even the most cursory review of the history of the 2nd during the summer of 1789 shows that the House and Senate were preoccupied with securing the right of the People to resist tyranny in its many forms. (For a quick review, scroll down to the "Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights" section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )

Hunting and self-protection from criminals were such fundamental, i.e., prior-existing, rights that the Congress felt no need to address them. Their sole preoccupation was with the right of the People to individually and collectively defend themselves from the tyranny of government.

Like others here, I too wonder if Ms Kagan's support for Heller is genuine, or was just an obvious and tactically prudent answer to a potentially inflamatory question. In any case, it will hardly encumber her in future deliberations. Furthermore, she could hardly be less sympathetic to the 2nd than Stevens, who outright rejects the individual right aspect of the 2nd.

Since so many 2A cases are likely to come before her in the years to come, we will gain clearer insights into her position re 2A in the next few years.

Maestro Pistolero
05-10-2010, 8:22 AM
It's from Heller, in answer to a question about Heller, so that's the context:
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guaran-
tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely under-
stood that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.”

vantec08
05-10-2010, 8:22 AM
I couldn't care less if she does chickens, lights candles, plays weird music, and chants karmic stuff under a full moon (as long as it isn't my chickens). Since this nominee, if approved, will take the bench after Heller and McDonald, the chance of her being a constitutional stealth-creativeist are remote at most. I will take plain-spoken talk from a hands-on, real-world person over "perfessers" and intellectuals any day, but they seem to be in short supply.

GrizzlyGuy
05-10-2010, 8:32 AM
The best guess until she actually starts hearing our issues is that she's about as good as we could realistically get from this administration.

Yes, exactly. I'm sticking to what I said a month ago (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4100278&postcount=3):


She acknowledges the fundamental nature of the right (same status as other individual rights) and she included the word "carry" along with possess. That doesn't sound too bad given that it is coming from a potential Obama nominee.

bwiese
05-10-2010, 8:35 AM
1.) Whining is useless. Kagan replaces Stevens. Even if she
turns out to be as bad as Stevens no net change on the Heller
5 occurs. Given her comments, I think she may be better than
Stevens esp on Heller derivatives.

2.) At Harvard law, Kagan was known to be equal-handed, and
hired/promoted on basis of quality and not ideology: quite a few
"conservative" staff were hired or received favorable/balanced
treatment. That's somewhat unusual.

3.) Kagan is about as good as we will do considering some of the
others in the field/pipeline.

4.) There's a real risk Republicans can screw this up and turn
on their rejection machine - and then we likely up with someone
worse. Repubs have just enough power in Congress to screw up
one pass of confirmation; they'll scream like a 3yr old just to try
to look relevant. And yet Lindsey Graham will fold up like an
auditorium chair when a Kagan successor nominee comes along.

5.) Kagan's nomination reflects an Obama thinking about keeping
other priorities glued together - and not wanting (or attempting
to not have) a fight. Kinda like how he didn't fight CCW issues
'cuz he wanted his credit card bill to go thru.


Remember, don't confuse gun rights with "right wing".

The Volokh Conspiracy website (generally tiliting libertarian-rightish) Ilya Somin treats her favorably:

http://volokh.com/2010/05/10/preliminary-reflections-on-the-kagan-nomination

GrizzlyGuy
05-10-2010, 8:45 AM
man I just dont get it. Why would someones sexuality have any barring on a job or position? If they are qualified why deos it matter who they is sleeping with. All I care about is how she interprets the constitution and if she is qualified for the job. and by what Ive read so far I will welcome and support her.

Also Im christian, but not just any christian Im mormon:eek: I have lots of friends that are gay, bi, and lesbian, and I dont judge them for it. Im only attracted to women though. I could care less what people do in the bedroom.

when it comes to religion I still dont judge i could care less what religion you are in my shop I have a jewish guy working for me, and athiest people working for me. who cares about all that the 1A has freedom of religion in it.......

bottom line is how she will interpret the constitution ;)

I love you. Hold it, you're supposed to be a redneck, go take back what you said :)

Count me in on the love fest. Please don't take that the wrong way redneckshootist, I'm straight and happily married. I'd be happy to swap ammo with you but not spit. Or wives. :)

It's about Liberty baby, Liberty For All.

scc1909
05-10-2010, 8:46 AM
It's from Heller, in answer to a question about Heller, so that's the context:
Thanks for the clarification, but it only raises the matter higher in my mind. Does confrontation in this context include resistance to government tyranny, or just to criminals?

I think I know the answer, of course, since the Feds have been making it a point to round up militia members lately, but I am curious where this leads.

GutPunch
05-10-2010, 8:49 AM
I couldn't care less if she does chickens, lights candles, plays weird music, and chants karmic stuff under a full moon (as long as it isn't my chickens). Since this nominee, if approved, will take the bench after Heller and McDonald, the chance of her being a constitutional stealth-creativeist are remote at most. I will take plain-spoken talk from a hands-on, real-world person over "perfessers" and intellectuals any day, but they seem to be in short supply.

I care about her religion, sexuality, and other personal choices becauses they reflect her moral fiber and the decision matrix that she uses in everyday life and that will be used as a member of SCOTUS. When you get that public and have that much power NOTHING you say, do, or choose can be ignored.

That, in my opinion, is just as important as her voting record - which she does not have.

And lets not forget who is nominating her. The POTUS isn't a friend of the constitution. We can expect anyone he recommends to be just as screwed up. What you are saying is that given the choice between shooting yourself in the head and getting cancer that will kill in 20 years. One has a dramatic and certain effect. The other is just a compromise that gets you to the same spot but you live in misery the whole time.

vantec08
05-10-2010, 9:06 AM
The least destructive or creative, is the best we get nowdays. That is reality, Gut. Ken Klukowski explains in depth that O.Bammy selected her specifically cause she is a liberal without a paper trail. Which of course would make her a stealth-lib. Its worth a read.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/10/ken-klukowski-obama-nominate-elena-kagan-harvard-law-school/

Sinixstar
05-10-2010, 9:18 AM
The least destructive or creative, is the best we get nowdays. That is reality, Gut. Ken Klukowski explains in depth that O.Bammy selected her specifically cause she is a liberal without a paper trail. Which of course would make her a stealth-lib. Its worth a read.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/10/ken-klukowski-obama-nominate-elena-kagan-harvard-law-school/

Thanks - that's five minutes of my life I can never get back.

If i wanted to listen to a rant by someone try to push their own merchandise, i'd pay attention Glenn Beck.

vantec08
05-10-2010, 9:24 AM
yawwwwwwnnnnnnnnn

dilligaffrn
05-10-2010, 9:30 AM
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.

So if she sees THE 2nd as referring to individual rights (refer to the rights of individuals, in contrast with group rights).

Let us hope she gets the "shall not be infringed" part as she probably would with an individuals sexual preference (and in this way her being Gay might help our cause).

Seems like it may be the best choice for our cause given the alternatives.

JMHO

Texas Boy
05-10-2010, 9:40 AM
Bill makes some excellent points in post #139 above. And frankly, her statement on Heller and 2A is about as strong a statement as could be made. Picking apart the "in case of confrontation" phrase is silly and paranoia in my book.

We aren't going to change the fact that Obama gets to pick the nominee - and he is obviously going to try and pick someone that appeals (in some way) to his party and his ideals - so get over it. Kagan is about as good a pick from Obama as we could ever hope for. I seriously hope she sails through the process and the Republicans don't reject her just because they can.

Remember - justices sometimes surprise. Liberal presidents have picked justices that turned out conservative and conservative presidents have picked justices that later became liberal. At this point in time the tea leaves say we should be grateful.

n2k
05-10-2010, 9:46 AM
http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/129153172115160380.jpg

I think this one is more accurate:

http://i621.photobucket.com/albums/tt297/n2kphotos/0510-kevin-james.jpg

dfletcher
05-10-2010, 10:16 AM
Heck...I thought it was Brendon Frasier in drag!?!?!


http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/9614/kagan11006320.jpg (http://img706.imageshack.us/i/kagan11006320.jpg/)




Mason Reese?

Actually she could be OK - we've often mentioned how the Republican choices seem to go sideways once they're on the court, perhaps that can happen here with a Democratic choice. If she is actually middle of the road, why did the President choose her? Is the intent to present himself as middle of the road for the upcoming mid term elections?

Big E
05-10-2010, 10:32 AM
I think this is a very calculated appointment by the President. When appointed, Kagan will represent something different on the Court (hmmm….Change?) and from this President Obama will have as a legacy from his time in office. I think every modern day President wants to be able to make at least one SCJ nomination during their term (I think Carter was the only one not given the chance). However, they don’t want to be remembered as the President who had their nominations rejected. Reagan was the last President to have his rejected by the Senate (Bork - based on his views). G.W. Bush had two nominations (Roberts & Miers) withdrawn; so they count as nominations, but they weren’t rejected by the Senate. So let’s look back, 158 nominations for 124 vacancies. For a total of 36 not confirmed (only 31 different names and 6 of which were re-nominated and confirmed). That leaves 25 who never made it, not counting 8 who were confirmed and either declined or died prior to service. So now with the numbers in front of you, does anyone really think that she won’t press through the confirmation hearings and get appointed? They can’t ask her about her sexuality, her race, her religion, or previous cases she has ruled on (she has never been a judge). They can ask about the “several high-profile cases” she has presented before the SCOTUS, but in those instances she was representing one side of a two-sided argument (which can be referred to as “doing her job”). Most importantly, they can ask her position on certain issues and this will be the bulk of the confirmation hearings.

So let’s hear from those who think she won’t get the appointment and why; or if the nomination will be withdrawn and why.

PS – Sorry about all the numbers, but I hate talking about issues without presenting the specifics. The report to Congress can be found here http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31171.pdf

berto
05-10-2010, 10:46 AM
She'll sail through. Kagan is about as good as republicans can realistically hope for and is a relatively moderate pick replacing the Court's liberal stalwart.

orangeusa
05-10-2010, 11:08 AM
She'll sail through. Kagan is about as good as republicans can realistically hope for and is a relatively moderate pick replacing the Court's liberal stalwart.

Is this one of those times where we should be careful what we wish for?
i.e. I get your points about if Republicans reject her, there are more in the wings that are much worse. Kinda like this thread?

My vote for "most bi-polar thread" this year... so far.

CnCFunFactory
05-10-2010, 11:44 AM
None that I can express within the rules of the board.

yep this^^^ sums it up nicely :censored:

berto
05-10-2010, 12:05 PM
Is this one of those times where we should be careful what we wish for?
i.e. I get your points about if Republicans reject her, there are more in the wings that are much worse. Kinda like this thread?

Yep. Kagan is somewhat of an unknown. No doubt to the left of any republican nominee (at least at the time of their nominations) but likely not near as left as many on the left would like. Look at some of the other names floated, not necessarily the three finalists of sorts, and you'll see a list of names that are far worse.

The real fight comes if Obama gets to replace one of the five conservative justices. Blowing all the ammo on a fight with no net change is foolhardy.

Those lathered up about Kagan's sexual preference might hit the wayback machine to several years ago and another SCOTUS nominee.

CCWFacts
05-10-2010, 12:39 PM
Obama received strong support from the LBGT community, and after he won, they felt betrayed by him because they feel that he has done little or nothing for them.

I'm not surprised. His background and culture are violently homophobic. I can't figure out how gay rights activists could overlook that.

But anyway, he may have picked her to appease them on that.

For me (and, judging by the posts, most people here), her sexual orientation is as relevant as her shoe size, Zodiac sign, or her dog's name.

I have a feeling she'll be alright on the 2A issues.

My worry about her is that she will not see the need for any limits at all on the power of the executive branch.

Skidmark
05-10-2010, 1:07 PM
My worry about her is that she will not see the need for any limits at all on the power of the executive branch.

She wrote this encouraging bit in 2005:

In a 2005 letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Kagan and three other deans of major American law schools wrote to oppose legislation proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to strip the courts of the power to review the detention practices, treatment and adjudications of guilt and punishment for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"To put this most pointedly," the letter said, "were the Graham amendment to become law, a person suspected of being a member of al-Qaeda could be arrested, transferred to Guantanamo, detained indefinitely ... subjected to inhumane treatment, tried before a military commission and sentenced to death without any express authorization from Congress and without review by any independent federal court. The American form of government was established precisely to prevent this kind of unreviewable exercise of power over the lives of individuals."

"When dictatorships have passed" similar laws, said the deans, "our government has rightly challenged such acts as fundamentally lawless. The same standard should apply to our own government."

More at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126611113

CCWFacts
05-10-2010, 1:16 PM
She wrote this encouraging bit in 2007:

Huh, well, that is encouraging. I like the way she puts it.

mtptwo
05-10-2010, 1:32 PM
I hate this. It is a choice. You make it, you live with it.

lol. Are you saying that you could turn gay if you wanted to? After all, you just claimed that sexual preference is a choice?

loather
05-10-2010, 1:35 PM
The more I read about her, the more I find myself liking her. This is one of Obama's appointments? Seriously?

Nice.

bwiese
05-10-2010, 1:37 PM
The more I read about her, the more I find myself liking her. This is one of Obama's appointments? Seriously?

Nice.

Like I wrote above, I think he has bigger problems than this and is seeking expediencies/trying to avoid fights.

I'm betting he'd like to put this to bed and move on -- kinda like allowing CCWs in Nat'l Parks just to get his credit card bill thru.

Ed_in_Sac
05-10-2010, 1:47 PM
The best guess until she actually starts hearing our issues is that she's about as good as we could realistically get from this administration.

-Gene

Good point. At first I thought the master was sending a centralist message. Then I was reminded that two more SC appointments may not be long off.

Zomgie
05-10-2010, 1:54 PM
I hate this. It is a choice. You make it, you live with it.

Wow. That's a gem.

Seriously? You think there's a mass conspiracy of people and animals "choosing" to like the same sex? And some of those people are just putting on a charade of trying to turn straight, to the point where they seek counseling, force themselves into 'corrective camps' or commit suicide?

epic4444
05-10-2010, 1:57 PM
http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/129153172115160380.jpg

That is almost to amusing, and btw i dont like the fact she barely cares for her own self image, overweight and ugly with a short haircut is not the image america should be accepting, even the supreme court should look like well dress and groomed people.

Zomgie
05-10-2010, 1:59 PM
That is almost to amusing, and btw i dont like the fact she barely cares for her own self image, overweight and ugly with a short haircut is not the image america should be accepting, even the supreme court should look like well dress and groomed people.

Overweight she has control over, ugly not so much ;)

Come on, you don't like chicks with short hair? It can be hot! (can be, I said, can be)

a1c
05-10-2010, 2:02 PM
That is almost to amusing, and btw i dont like the fact she barely cares for her own self image, overweight and ugly with a short haircut is not the image america should be accepting, even the supreme court should look like well dress and groomed people.

Are you serious?

What are you saying? That overweight people shouldn't be on the Supreme Court? Have you taken a look at the Justices lately? That all women should only have long hair? What is this, 1955? And ugly people, well, they can't help being ugly. She doesn't strike me as a slob. She is just unfortunate-looking. That's not her fault.

Who gives a **** about people's good looks? I want competent justices, not a daytime drama cast. You have weird priorities.

Post of pic of yourself and let us be judge. This could be fun.

ColdDeadHands1
05-10-2010, 2:08 PM
And ugly people, well, they can't help being ugly. She doesn't strike me as a slob. She is just unfortunate-looking. That's not her fault.

Awesome new signature material.

Doheny
05-10-2010, 2:10 PM
That is almost to amusing, and btw i dont like the fact she barely cares for her own self image, overweight and ugly with a short haircut is not the image america should be accepting, even the supreme court should look like well dress and groomed people.

What the?

OK, post your pic so we can take a shot...

tombinghamthegreat
05-10-2010, 2:16 PM
her jurisprudence is unpredictable mostly because she has not had a lot of court experience. Then again no one expected the rulings that came from Warren.

Steyr_223
05-10-2010, 2:17 PM
That is almost to amusing, and btw i dont like the fact she barely cares for her own self image, overweight and ugly with a short haircut is not the image america should be accepting, even the supreme court should look like well dress and groomed people.


William Howard Taft. 27th President of the United States. 10th Chief Justice of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft


http://mexfiles.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/william_howard_taft.jpg
http://lifetussle.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/williamhowardtaft.jpg?w=432&h=324

loather
05-10-2010, 2:18 PM
christ. Derailed again?

ENOUGH.

Let's try to keep this on topic. This is actually a *very* important topic. Comments about weight/hair/ugly/whatever aren't productive and make us all look like a bunch of raving jackasses.

bwiese
05-10-2010, 2:20 PM
That is almost to amusing, and btw i dont like the fact she barely cares for her own self image, overweight and ugly with a short haircut

Hell, that sounds like you're talking about me or 500 other dudes here.

If you're saying she's a slob that doesn't wipe her arse, you're way off the mark.

Some people are larger, some people have certain facial structures. It's the way the world is.

dfletcher
05-10-2010, 2:22 PM
She is just unfortunate-looking. That's not her fault.



You won't know when or how often, but I'm going to use this many times and take credit for it ...... :p

POLICESTATE
05-10-2010, 2:23 PM
170 posts later and still a lot of comment on appearances? Appearances of the members of SCOTUS are not going to help us with 2A and other freedoms.

woodguy
05-10-2010, 2:30 PM
If Kagan is added to SCOTUS, here's what the law school breakdown on the court would be:

Harvard:
Ginsburg (later transfered to Columbia)
Scalia
Kennedy
Breyer
Roberts
Kagan

Yale:
Thomas
Alito
Sotomayor

I wouldn't really say that the Harvard grads are all ultra-libral

The site below has an article with a good breakdown of the current justices with age, appointed by, years on the court, law school and religion.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2010/Senate/Maps/May10-s.html#1


Of the 109 justices who have served on SCOTUS, 40 had no prior judicial experience. (37%)

List of all justices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_Unite d_States

List of justices with no prior judicial experience: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

All 9 current justices have prior judicial experience, so is currently far out of line with it's historic balance of 2/3 prior judges and 1/3 non judges. Historically, the non-judges seem to be split between lawyers and politicians.

The last justice without prior judicial experiance was William Rehnquist.

OleCuss
05-10-2010, 2:38 PM
I still think Kagan is as good as we can hope for - and maybe even better than that. So far it sounds like she cares about what the Constitution says and really means. More Liberals/fascists are upset about her than conservatives.

I think she got nominated because Obama can't afford a big fight right now and so he picks someone more conservative than his base will tolerate so that the Republicans won't fight it and who is homosexual so that his base will have to support her.

Obama wins and we may as well.

And no, this is not saying she is ever going to be mistaken for a conservative, but she might be more Libertarian than many would expect.

b.faust
05-10-2010, 2:52 PM
Justice Stevens is a complete fanatic when it comes to anti-2a.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/how-justice-stevens-may-h_b_537412.html)

By putting the Heller majority on the defensive with his implicit charge of judicial activism, prompting the language of Part III, Justice Stevens may well have saved countless lifesaving gun laws against attack.

I don't care what Kagan does on her own time, who she hangs out with, or what websites she cruises.

Even if she is half the constitutional scholar she's touted to be, there is no way she can be as bad as Justice Stevens.

Aldemar
05-10-2010, 2:55 PM
The other team???

The taliban? Al Queda? The Russians?

Which team?

JJ

If you don't ask, I won't tell:43:

Sobriquet
05-10-2010, 3:10 PM
I don't care if she was an albino midget with a lazy eye. What I care about is that she's not a joke candidate like Harriet Miers, seems to place more emphasis on merit than partisanship, and (intentionally or not) indicated a belief that carry is an implicit part of the Second Amendment right even though Heller doesn't demand it.

misterjake
05-10-2010, 3:19 PM
She is a liberal and will rule that way. Do you really think Harvard would have a anything but an ultra liberal ?

Well, Harvard law published this gem.

Doesn't look very ultra liberal to me, actually, it's a very pro gun paper published a few years ago. Give it a read:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

AEC1
05-10-2010, 3:19 PM
Wow. That's a gem.

Seriously? You think there's a mass conspiracy of people and animals "choosing" to like the same sex? And some of those people are just putting on a charade of trying to turn straight, to the point where they seek counseling, force themselves into 'corrective camps' or commit suicide?

In MY humble opinion yes it is a choice. Of course I feel women who CHOOSE to have abortions are murderers as well. And also that a literal God created the earth in a literal 6 days, about 5,000 literal years ago as well.

So I guess I am a literal minority here. That is ok with me, I am used to it. However I have the right to those beliefs, and the right to share them. I do not have the right to threaten, harm, or discriminate based on those beliefs.

I do feel that it is a lifestyle choice. I do not feel that that choice is a good thing or a bad thing, it is just your choice. You should receive no special privileges or protections based on that choice.

Of topic but I feel the same about those ugly ***** Prius's. Why the hell do they get the privilege of the carpool lane and tax breaks. That is crap....

a1c
05-10-2010, 3:29 PM
In MY humble opinion yes it is a choice. Of course I feel women who CHOOSE to have abortions are murderers as well. And also that a literal God created the earth in a literal 6 days, about 5,000 literal years ago as well.

So I guess I am a literal minority here. That is ok with me, I am used to it. However I have the right to those beliefs, and the right to share them. I do not have the right to threaten, harm, or discriminate based on those beliefs.

I do feel that it is a lifestyle choice. I do not feel that that choice is a good thing or a bad thing, it is just your choice. You should receive no special privileges or protections based on that choice.

See, this is where you lose everybody who is either gay, or who knows someone who is, and enough to know that it's not a choice.

Weird belief you have there. If it's a choice, I wonder why those kids and outed gays like Haggard need special programs and camps to be reeducated into being straight, when all they would have to do is to choose being straight.

tacticalcity
05-10-2010, 3:29 PM
The real question, and I am ashamed to say I do not know the answer to this, is just how liberal is the Justice she is replacing? Sure she served as a member of the Clinton Administration, and she is a progressive, but when compared directly to her predecessor is she any further to the left? If not, then it is not a big deal and could even be a plus for us. Even if she is a tad further to left, its not a huge left if the justice she is replacing already voted that way.

It is not like she is filling a vacant seat and adding an additional liberal vote. She is simply replacing a retiring judge who I assume is liberal. Liberal judges tend to retire under liberal presidents and vice versa. This ensures they will be replaced by someone who shares their views and helps preserve their legacy. So I would be very surprised to learn the justice she is replacing is anything other than a liberal since traditionally a conservative justice would wait for a conservative president to be in the white house before retiring.

huck
05-10-2010, 3:30 PM
I'm sure there are many people qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Obama appointed this person SPECIFICALLY because she is a Jewish Lesbian women. He has probably managed to appease (at least) two factions in the liberal community with this choice.

Most judges are chose, not for their qualifications, but to show different factions in the country that they have some semblance of representation. It was probably true with Reagan's choice of Sandra Day O'Connor. She wasn't THE most qualified person for the job. I think he just thought it was time a woman sat on the Supreme Court.

bulgron
05-10-2010, 3:39 PM
Just think, if more conservatives had held their nose and voted for McCain in the last election, maybe we wouldn't have to be subjected to threads like this one.

Sobriquet
05-10-2010, 3:43 PM
I'm sure there are many people qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Obama appointed this person SPECIFICALLY because she is a Jewish Lesbian women. He has probably managed to appease (at least) two factions in the liberal community with this choice.

Have you read something I haven't, Huck? The woman was a highly regarded dean of arguably the finest law school in the country. She has a reputation for working well with people of disparate ideology - something that would be beneficial on a divided Court. She's the current solicitor general, so Obama is probably intimately familiar with her personality and her jurisprudential philosophy. Furthermore, President Obama and Ms. Kagan were both professors at the University of Chicago Law School at the same time. Yeah, sure. It must just be because she's lesbian and Jewish.

This isn't directed at Huck, but some of you guys should take more care with the way you use the word Jewish and lesbian. They're not insults. As for her appearance: (1) who cares?; and (2) have you seen Scalia lately?

AEC1
05-10-2010, 3:49 PM
See, this is where you lose everybody who is either gay, or who knows someone who is, and enough to know that it's not a choice.

Weird belief you have there. If it's a choice, I wonder why those kids and outed gays like Haggard need special programs and camps to be reeducated into being straight, when all they would have to do is to choose being straight.

Funny thing is, my sisters in law (yes 2) thought they were straight untill they deployed on the USNS Mercy and were taught that they wre gay, I gues there are lots of arguments on both sides...

Sobriquet
05-10-2010, 3:51 PM
Funny thing is, my sisters in law (yes 2) thought they were straight untill they deployed on the USNS Mercy and were taught that they wre gay, I gues there are lots of arguments on both sides...

Respectfully, AEC, this isn't the place for a debate on nature versus nurture.

cmaynes
05-10-2010, 3:53 PM
If I can trust her with the 2nd Amendment, I am willing to trust her with the others.

a1c
05-10-2010, 3:58 PM
Funny thing is, my sisters in law (yes 2) thought they were straight untill they deployed on the USNS Mercy and were taught that they wre gay, I gues there are lots of arguments on both sides...

Somehow I'm pretty sure there is a lot more to that story.

CCWFacts
05-10-2010, 4:04 PM
As for her looks, please, that shouldn't even be mentioned. Her appearance is professional and authoritative, and it shouldn't be discussed.

huck
05-10-2010, 4:11 PM
Have you read something I haven't, Huck? The woman was a highly regarded dean of arguably the finest law school in the country. She has a reputation for working well with people of disparate ideology - something that would be beneficial on a divided Court. She's the current solicitor general, so Obama is probably intimately familiar with her personality and her jurisprudential philosophy. Furthermore, President Obama and Ms. Kagan were both professors at the University of Chicago Law School at the same time. Yeah, sure. It must just be because she's lesbian and Jewish.

This isn't directed at Huck, but some of you guys should take more care with the way you use the word Jewish and lesbian. They're not insults. As for her appearance: (1) who cares?; and (2) have you seen Scalia lately?

...and no insult whatsoever was intended. I have Jewish friends and colleagues and a lesbian woman is one of my very best and most trusted friends.

I'm merely pointing out that of the hundreds of people qualified for a post on the supreme court, she was chosen BECAUSE of who she is. I don't find any fault with it just as I didn't find fault when Reagan chose O'Connor.

Scratch705
05-10-2010, 4:26 PM
Funny thing is, my sisters in law (yes 2) thought they were straight untill they deployed on the USNS Mercy and were taught that they wre gay, I gues there are lots of arguments on both sides...

no, they were gay from the start. and they used the deployment as an excuse to "come out". just like that one guy a year back where he was rear-ended in an accident, and then he claimed to be gay after the accident.


as for kagen. on paper she doesn't look bad. and imo the justices don't need to all have previous judging experience. iirc there was a few SC judges that weren't judges either that served and it didn't bring about doom.

navyinrwanda
05-10-2010, 4:29 PM
Here is a more complete transcript of Elena Kagan's answers to questions involving the Second Amendment that were posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearings in February 2009 for the post of Solicitor General:


Question: Would you ever give weight to other nations’ restrictions on gun rights when interpreting the Second Amendment?
Answer: This set of questions appears different when viewed from the perspective of an advocate than when viewed from the perspective of a judge. At least some members of the Court find foreign law relevant in at least some contexts. When this is the case, I think the Solicitor General’s office should offer reasonable foreign law arguments to attract these Justices’ support for the positions that the office is taking. Even the Justices most sympathetic to the use of foreign law would agree that the degree of its relevance depends on the constitutional provision at issue. A number of the Justices have considered foreign law in the Eighth Amendment context, where the Court’s inquiry often focuses on “evolving standards of decency” and then on the level of consensus favoring or disfavoring certain practices. By contrast, none of the Justices relied on other nations’ restrictions on gun rights in their opinions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), and the grounded historical approach adopted in that case (and echoed even in the dissents) would grant no relevance to arguments from comparative law in defining the scope of the Second Amendment

Question: Do you believe that the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was rightly decided?
Answer: As noted earlier, the Solicitor General owes important responsibilities to the Court, one of which is respect for its precedents and for the general principle of stare decisis. I do not think it would comport with this responsibility to state my own views of whether particular Supreme Court decisions were rightly decided. All of these cases are now settled law, and as such, are entitled to my respect as the nominee for Solicitor General. In that position, I would not frequently or lightly ask the Court to reverse one of its precedents, and I certainly would not do so because I thought the case wrongly decided.

Question: This past year, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Heller case that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, regardless of their participation in a “well regulated militia.” President-elect Obama stated that he supported an individual’s right to possess a firearm and signaled his support for the Heller decision. What is your personal opinion of the rights afforded by the Second Amendment?
Answer: 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. 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. I can say, however, that 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.”

Question: What is your personal opinion of the Heller case?
Answer: Please see my answer to [the] question above.

Question: If you are confirmed, will you commit to protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm?
Answer: If I am confirmed, I will commit to show Heller and the principles articulated in it the full measure of respect that is due to all constitutional decisions of the Court. Only highly unusual circumstances can justify the Solicitor General’s office in asking the Court to reconsider a decision, especially one as thoroughly considered as Heller. Once again, 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.

Question: Please discuss your view of the Second Amendment, in light of the recent Heller decision. I would like to better understand the lens through which you view this right, as you will surely be faced with related legislation as Solicitor General.
Answer: 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. In light of this right, the Court invalidated a ban on handgun possession in the home. At the same time, the Court stated that “some measures regulating” firearms would comport with this constitutional right. Essentially, the Court made clear that the Second Amendment right to bear arms should be treated like any other constitutional right – the Court, for example, offered an analogy to the First Amendment – providing strong but not unlimited protection. As I indicated at my confirmation hearing, my concept of the Solicitor General’s role includes respect for Supreme Court precedents such as Heller and for the principle of stare decisis generally.


Understanding that the Solicitor General has a somewhat different obligation to respect stare decisis as compared with a Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan is probably the most Second Amendment-friendly nominee that we could hope for given the current President and Senate.

Wherryj
05-10-2010, 4:37 PM
Heck...I thought it was Brendon Frasier in drag!?!?!


http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/9614/kagan11006320.jpg (http://img706.imageshack.us/i/kagan11006320.jpg/)


http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/3995/brendanfraser320x24030k.jpg (http://img686.imageshack.us/i/brendanfraser320x24030k.jpg/)

I was thinking Mike Meyers.

Maestro Pistolero
05-10-2010, 4:58 PM
Republicans should stand up and applaud this appointment as if it was their own. The perception of the 'party of no" could be diluted a bit with a diligent, yet respectful and speedy confirmation. If the Republicans speak with a unified voice on this nominee, vocally thank the president for his choice, it may restore some credibility with those who feel they were somewhat obstructionist vis-a-vi health care. ( I don't personally believe that, but some do). Let's take this as a relative win and move on. My two cents.

five.five-six
05-10-2010, 5:05 PM
???

Female? No, Fourth. :rolleyes:

JJ

no, LPGA candidate

AEC1
05-10-2010, 5:08 PM
regardless of the hyperbole about her choice of partners, if she is pro constitution then I am all for it.

Sobriquet
05-10-2010, 5:17 PM
regardless of the hyperbole about her choice of partners, if she is pro constitution then I am all for it.

... and hopefully everyone here can agree with that sentiment. Can it be kumbaya time now?

five.five-six
05-10-2010, 5:18 PM
1) I don't see how that's relevant.
2) If she is, she's somewhat self-loathing if you read her statements that there is no constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage.
3) I don't see how that's relevant.
4) I don't see what it has to do with guns.
5) I don't see how that's relevant.

Did I mention it's irrelevant?


I hate the stupid **** people choose to focus on.

I h8 stupid #### naive people that choose to ignore the obvious


anyone knows that

http://www.advocate.com/uploadedImages/Kagan.jpg


is retributions for


http://hiscrivener.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/obama-and-rick-warren.jpg

Dr Rockso
05-10-2010, 5:25 PM
no, LPGA candidate

Hmm, she doesn't look like a golfer...

huck
05-10-2010, 6:48 PM
Hmm, she doesn't look like a golfer...

That's funny. I thought right off: Bet she's got a wicked driver.

JustLegalInformation
05-10-2010, 8:15 PM
Opinions on the Kagan nomination to the Supreme Court?

If you look at her academic research and talk to those who have had her in law school, she has a VERY DEEP and CORRECT understanding of the 14th Amendment. Keep in mind the Roe v. Wade Judges expanded rights, and recognized the Second Amendment as an indivdividual right, her veiws would be more in line with a Warren type court, than a Stevens. She is no Stevens!!! I don't think a Warren court would have found in favor of Affirmative Action -- and neither would have Dr. King -- Affirmative Action was the tool of the con artists and extortionist like Jesse Jackson.

Always take a judge who is willing to expand Constitutional rights, not dimish them like what is happening with the 4th. I personally think she will be a swing voter in favor of individual rights. Of course, this is all pure speculation -- with a touch of factual basis.

In conclusion, 1 being the worst appointment for the Second Amendment/14th and 10 being the best, i would have to say 7 - she is no Scalia, but she is not even close to Stevens either. I would liken her closer to a Kennedy or a Sandra Day O'Connor.

dfletcher
05-10-2010, 8:41 PM
Has the 2nd gone mainstream, so to speak? That supporting it is no longer the domain of the right but of the middle?

berto
05-10-2010, 8:46 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/us/politics/11nominees.html?hp

Nomination of Kagan Leaves Some Longing on the Left

By PETER BAKER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/peter_baker/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON — The selection of Solicitor General Elena Kagan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/kagan_elena/index.html?inline=nyt-per) to be the nation’s 112th justice extends a quarter-century pattern in which Republican presidents generally install strong conservatives on the Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) while Democratic presidents pick candidates who often disappoint their liberal base.
Ms. Kagan is certainly too liberal for conservatives, who quickly criticized her nomination on Monday as a radical threat. But much like every other Democratic nominee since the 1960s, she does not fit the profile sought by the left, which hungers for a full-throated counterweight to the court’s conservative leader, Justice Antonin Scalia (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/antonin_scalia/index.html?inline=nyt-per).

In many ways, this reflects how much the nation’s long war over the judiciary has evolved since Ms. Kagan was a child. While the American left back then used the Supreme Court to promote social change in areas like religion, race and abortion, today it looks at it more as a backstop to defend those rulings. The right, on the other hand, remains aggrieved and has waged an energetic campaign to make the court an agent of change reversing some of those holdings.

Along the way, conservatives have largely succeeded in framing the debate, putting liberals on the defensive. Sonia Sotomayor (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/sonia_sotomayor/index.html?inline=nyt-per) echoed conservatives in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings last year by rejecting the idea of a “living” Constitution that evolves, and even President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) recently said the court had gone too far in the past. While conservatives have played a powerful role in influencing Republican nominations, liberals have not been as potent in Democratic selections.

In that vein, then, no Democratic nominee since Thurgood Marshall (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/thurgood_marshall/index.html?inline=nyt-per) in 1967 has been the sort of outspoken liberal champion that the left craves, while Justice Scalia has been joined by three other solid conservatives in Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/john_g_jr_roberts/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Justices Clarence Thomas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/clarence_thomas/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Samuel A. Alito Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/samuel_a_alito_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per) By all accounts, Mr. Obama did not even consider the candidates favored most by the left, like Harold Hongju Koh, his State Department legal adviser, or Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor.

“Why do the conservatives always get the conservatives, but we don’t get to get the liberals?” Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, asked the Web site Politico recently, voicing the frustration of the left when Ms. Kagan was considered a front-runner but was not yet Mr. Obama’s selection. “What the hell is that all about?”

Ms. Kagan addressed the point herself 15 years ago in the University of Chicago Law Review: “Herein lies one of the mysteries of modern confirmation politics: given that the Republican Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has an ambitious judicial agenda and the Democratic Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has next to none, why is the former labeled the party of judicial restraint and the latter the party of judicial activism?”

Conservatives reject the notion that what they seek amounts to activism, saying they want justices who do not interpret the Constitution and laws to promote a policy agenda. But they said the public has come around to their view that the courts have overreached, and they have made the issue a potential liability for Democrats.

“What does President Obama gain by putting forward an unabashed progressive, liberal judicial activist?” asked Leonard A. Leo, a conservative leader who helped President George W. Bush (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/george_w_bush/index.html?inline=nyt-per) confirm Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. “Polling suggests that’s not something that adds a lot of value to his own immediate political objectives.”

The ground began shifting on Supreme Court politics in President Ronald Reagan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/ronald_wilson_reagan/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s second term when conservatives pushed for candidates who would reverse what they saw as the excesses of the court under Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren E. Burger.

In 1986, Mr. Reagan appointed Justice Scalia and elevated Justice William H. Rehnquist (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/william_h_rehnquist/index.html?inline=nyt-per) to replace Chief Justice Burger. But Mr. Reagan’s nomination of Robert H. Bork (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/robert_h_bork/index.html?inline=nyt-per) a year later was rejected by the Senate after an ideological clash. Only after that vote and another nominee withdrew did Mr. Reagan finally pick Anthony M. Kennedy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/anthony_m_kennedy/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a more moderate conservative.

Leery of another such showdown, President George Bush picked a so-called stealth candidate in David H. Souter (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/david_h_souter/index.html?inline=nyt-per) in 1990, a move conservatives considered a betrayal after he turned out to be more liberal than expected. A year later, Mr. Bush appointed Justice Thomas, who was a favorite of the right, as were the second President Bush’s choices, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. The 2005 nomination of Harriet E. Miers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/harriet_e_miers/index.html?inline=nyt-per), on the other hand, collapsed amid a revolt by conservatives who feared another Justice Souter.
Liberals have had Scalia envy for nearly a quarter-century, only to be let down. They considered President Bill Clinton’s selections of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/ruth_bader_ginsburg/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Stephen G. Breyer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/stephen_g_breyer/index.html?inline=nyt-per) to be satisfactory but not satisfying, much like the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor last year. While Justice Ginsburg came closest to what they were looking for, given her record of advocacy for women’s rights, she does not go far enough for them on capital punishment and other issues.

Richard Primus, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said conservatives did more to influence Republican nominations because the energy on court advocacy is on the right, which still resents rulings that barred school-sponsored prayer, legalized abortion and upheld some affirmative action programs. “It still lives off of that anger, and nothing of that sort of fire has really taken hold on the other side,” Professor Primus said.

The left, by contrast, focuses on guarding the status quo, a less animating mission. “The quote-unquote liberals are defending the New Deal and Warren court inheritances,” said Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional scholar at Yale Law School.

A 2009 study provided some fodder for Mr. Harkin’s argument that today’s conservative justices lean more to the right than the liberals lean to the left.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/05/11/us/politics/11nominee-graphic.html?ref=politics

Richard A. Posner, a conservative appeals court judge in Chicago, and William M. Landes, his colleague from the University of Chicago law school, ranked all 43 justices from 1937 to 2006 by ideology and found that four of the five most conservative ones are on the current court. Even the moderate swing vote, Justice Kennedy, was the 10th most conservative over that period. By contrast, none of the current justices ranks among the five most liberal members, and only Justice Ginsburg is in the top 10.
Where exactly Ms. Kagan would fall on that scale is unclear since she has never been a judge. She has been a forceful critic of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, but has argued for strong executive power, a hot issue since the Sept. 11 attacks. Some analysts even say Ms. Kagan would actually shift the court somewhat to the right when compared with Justice John Paul Stevens (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/john_paul_stevens/index.html?inline=nyt-per).

Ronald A. Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and a longtime friend, said “she is more of the progressive mold than not” but has a “pragmatic lawyer’s approach to legal questions.”

Mr. Leo said he assumed she would be a reliable liberal but not a Scalia for the left. “Kagan’s probably a vote,” he said, “but probably not the full package.”

five.five-six
05-10-2010, 8:57 PM
That's funny. I thought right off: Bet she's got a wicked driver.

precisely

JustLegalInformation
05-10-2010, 9:09 PM
Hey, the NYtimes agrees with me. LOL

Dr.Lou
05-10-2010, 9:23 PM
I thought it was Brendan Fraser in drag until you read your quote. Wow! Shes rough.

She looks like Kevin James.

Sobriquet
05-10-2010, 10:08 PM
Has the 2nd gone mainstream, so to speak? That supporting it is no longer the domain of the right but of the middle?

Heller knocked down the lie hoplophobes chanted to themselves like a mantra: that the Second Amendment was a group militia right and had no place in modern society. There is simply no longer an intellectually honest basis for banning guns the way LCAV or Brady craves. The reason the other side had such a tough time at the McDonald oral arguments is that their position no longer holds water. They've been forced to surrender the moral high ground.


Always take a judge who is willing to expand Constitutional rights, not dimish them like what is happening with the 4th.

Given what I said above, I hope jurists of all political persuasions start to realize that fundamental rights are not something to be prioritized or bartered away. If you love the Constitution, you have to love and defend all of it.

In that vein, then, no Democratic nominee since Thurgood Marshall in 1967 has been the sort of outspoken liberal champion that the left craves, while Justice Scalia has been joined by three other solid conservatives in Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

It's interesting to note that Ms. Kagan was a law clerk for Justice Marshall. Time will tell whether she'll follow in his footsteps or whether she'll chart a more moderate tack. Perhaps it's unfounded optimism, but I think she may be that elusive Justice that supports both the 2nd and 4th Amendments with equal fervor.

nicki
05-11-2010, 1:58 AM
Does anyone know if the confirmation hearing will be before or after MacDonald as well as other cases?

By the end of June we will see how "Wise" a certain Latina is by her court rulings. This should make for some interesting Senate Hearings.

Nicki

sniper5
05-11-2010, 2:22 AM
Wouldn't it be great if after her appointment it was found she is/was a member of the "Pink Pistols"? That would be like slipping Heston into the court under the radar.

yellowfin
05-11-2010, 2:39 AM
^ or JPFO.

JustLegalInformation
05-11-2010, 4:19 AM
She is a big fan of Stare Decisis too -- which would obviously mean Heller will stand for a very long time.

Fyathyrio
05-11-2010, 7:19 AM
I'm not seeing any support for the 2nd from her quotes here, I'm seeing support for the courts previous decisions...different in my book. She's been very careful to not state a personal opinion. Based on what' I've seen, we still don't know how she feels on the topic. I suppose that her willingness to respect stare decisis is the best we can hope for.

a1c
05-11-2010, 7:46 AM
There is research surfacing that during her work in the Clinton administration, she worked on the AW ban and the safety lock requirements.

While that doesn't necessarily sound great at first, further reading seems to indicate that she worked with the NRA and the firearms industry to get this done. Seems to confirm her profile as someone who can work with people of different ideologies.

Big E
05-11-2010, 7:50 AM
She is a big fan of Stare Decisis too -- which would obviously mean Heller will stand for a very long time.

Not necessarily, not if she saw a flaw in the Heller ruling. As Solicitor General, she wouldn't rock this boat but as a SCJ she would get a chance to chime in (big difference). She avoided providing her personal option on the Heller case on purpose. Looks to me like she has been eyeballing a SCJ seat for a long time.

I'm not seeing any support for the 2nd from her quotes here, I'm seeing support for the courts previous decisions...different in my book. She's been very careful to not state a personal opinion. Based on what' I've seen, we still don't know how she feels on the topic. I suppose that her willingness to respect stare decisis is the best we can hope for.

Exactly, but stare decisis only matters if there are no constitutional challenges. If there are, and depending the issue is being changed, precedence wouldn't matter. I guess we’ll have to wait until then to see how much she respects the concept of stare decisis.

huck
05-11-2010, 8:04 AM
Hey, the NYtimes agrees with me. LOL

That's typically not something to be proud of.

Full Clip
05-11-2010, 8:06 AM
BTW, what's the dif between Kagan and Harriet Miers, the obviously under-qualified W nominee who at least had the good sense to politely decline the offer after doing poorly in the early phases of the interview process? (Background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers )
I hope Kagan will do the same if she starts floundering.

Luieburger
05-11-2010, 8:15 AM
Has the 2nd gone mainstream, so to speak? That supporting it is no longer the domain of the right but of the middle?

I sure hope so. About two years ago I had no opinion on firearms. I grew up shooting, but could care less if they were legal or illegal. Thankfully my friends educated me and now I'm able to count from 1 to 10 without skipping 2. :) The best thing you can do is educate people.

berto
05-11-2010, 9:32 AM
BTW, what's the dif between Kagan and Harriet Miers, the obviously under-qualified W nominee who at least had the good sense to politely decline the offer after doing poorly in the early phases of the interview process? (Background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers )
I hope Kagan will do the same if she starts floundering.

Kagan went to Harvard, clerked for Thurgood Marshall at SCOTUS, was law prof. at Chicago and prof. and Dean at Harvard, and is Solicitor General. Her resume passes the sniff test while Miers' resume was lacking. The Miers nomination was a head scratcher from the start, Kagan has been on the short list since before Obama's election. The real move against Miers came from the right as she wasn't up to snuff.

If Kagan is forced out and Obama sticks with a non sitting judge candidate the list will include Kathleen Sullivan, Pamela Karlan, Harold Koh, Cass Sunstein, and Elizabeth Warren. Those are some scary names. Some really scary names.

Maestro Pistolero
05-11-2010, 10:02 AM
I don't think we will do better from this administration. If the Republicans shoot down this nominee, I don't think we will much like what's behind door number two.

Look at who she will replace. Justice Steven's is a 2A nightmare, worsened by his possible cognitive difficulty due to age. His Heller dissent was a discredit to the bench, IMO.

She has made the relatively unequivocal statement that Heller says individuals can CARRY arms in case of confrontation. I don't think we can expect more than that at this time. If Republican try to torpedo this nominee, it will not help them in the next election. They should certainly do their diligence in the confirmation hearings. But barring any legitimate, insurmountable obstacles, should graciously wave her through, and commend the President for such a wise, thoughtful nomination. :rolleyes:

anthonyca
05-11-2010, 10:26 PM
My take on this.

Scenario 1. A nomination was made and the nominee believes in limited government and original intent. Said nominee happens to be, lesbian, Jewish. I am fine with that nomination.

scenario 2. A nomination was made BECAUSE the nominee was, lesbian, Jewish. (or any other pre determined traits). I am not fine with that nomination.

Well in this case we know this president does not believe in original intent, or limited government. We can only hope that in his search for a Jewish lesbian he didn't go through the full vetting process and she will disappoint him. I'm not holding my breath.