PDA

View Full Version : Kagan Confirmed


Maestro Pistolero
08-05-2010, 12:02 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_go_co/us_kagan_supreme_court

No surprises here. I've said it before, but if there is another Obama SCOTUS nomination (God forbid) it will be one to go to the mat over.

IGOTDIRT4U
08-05-2010, 12:03 PM
Idiots.

NightOwl
08-05-2010, 12:20 PM
It is through his Supreme Court appointments that the true horror Obama is inflicting upon this country will be felt. I sincerely hope that he doesn't get a second term to finish filling SCOTUS with other anti-american justices who don't rule on the Constitution, but rather on what they want the Constitution to be.

gcvt
08-05-2010, 12:21 PM
Let's just hope that's his final nomination. Sad day for liberty loving Americans :(

CCWFacts
08-05-2010, 12:24 PM
Let's just hope that's his final nomination. Sad day for liberty loving Americans :(

Yeah. Let's hope he doesn't get any more opportunities. I personally hope that the next one is nominated by President Palin!!

Cnynrat
08-05-2010, 12:26 PM
No surprise, but not happy about it nevertheless.

Unfortunately, my guess is he'll get to make one more this term, probably Ginsberg. Won't change the balance, but extends the life of the current liberal block.

NightOwl
08-05-2010, 12:29 PM
President Palin!!

Never happen. That woman is dumb as a brick.

EscapeFromCal
08-05-2010, 12:29 PM
how is it possible that our country has come to this?

bballwizard05
08-05-2010, 12:36 PM
Never happen. That woman is dumb as a brick.



DUMBER THAN THE CURRENT BRICK!!!!?????? I THINK NOT!!!


It CAN'T GET any worse than our current DUMB *** BRICK!! At least she has conservative ideals and will put people with conservative ideals in positions of power.

chris
08-05-2010, 12:40 PM
and some people were dumb enough to not believe that the last election was about the Supreme Court and not the President. now will be paying for the last two judges for decades to come.

and i'm not one bit surprised she was confirmed considering the makeup of Congress and the Senate.

Maestro Pistolero
08-05-2010, 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts
President Palin!!
Never happen. That woman is dumb as a brick.

I'll take a purely motivated person of moderate intelligence over an ill-willed genius any day. The former can get advisers to compensate, but the latter won't listen to an anyone that conflicts with his evil plans.

tiki
08-05-2010, 12:43 PM
At least with Palin we'd have two good boobs instead of one bad one.

Maestro Pistolero
08-05-2010, 12:45 PM
At least with Palin we'd have two good boobs instead of one bad one.

Finally we'd have an *** (rhymes with mass) we won't mind looking at for the next four years.

Fate
08-05-2010, 12:51 PM
At least with Palin we'd have two good boobs instead of one bad one.

http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/images/win_button.jpg

a1c
08-05-2010, 12:53 PM
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

dantodd
08-05-2010, 12:57 PM
I'll take a purely motivated person of moderate intelligence over an ill-willed genius any day. The former can get advisers to compensate, but the latter won't listen to an anyone that conflicts with his evil plans.

Were she purely motivated she would have finished her term as governor. No person of pure motives would bail on their constituents like she did.

stix213
08-05-2010, 12:59 PM
Palin will never be elected president, and it would be in everyone's best interest if she wasn't nominated by her party either.

Wherryj
08-05-2010, 12:59 PM
It is through his Supreme Court appointments that the true horror Obama is inflicting upon this country will be felt. I sincerely hope that he doesn't get a second term to finish filling SCOTUS with other anti-american justices who don't rule on the Constitution, but rather on what they want the Constitution to be.

Justice Scalia said it best: http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean? There is no such thing as a moderate interpretation of the text. Would you ask a lawyer, “Draw me a moderate contract?” The only way the word has any meaning is if you are looking for someone to write a law, to write a constitution, rather than to interpret one."

What we are getting with these "Living Constitution" justices are people who want to rewrite the Constitution. They don't seem to remember that writing of laws is reserved for the Legislative branch, interpretation is the job of the judicial branch.

Wherryj
08-05-2010, 1:01 PM
Have those justices who consider the Constitution as a "living document" noticed that it IS a living document-through the AMENDMENT route? If the text needs updating, it MUST be amended, not reinterpreted.

Maestro Pistolero
08-05-2010, 1:04 PM
Were she purely motivated she would have finished her term as governor. No person of pure motives would bail on their constituents like she did.Interesting opinion. A little simple, but mildly interesting nonetheless.

CSDGuy
08-05-2010, 1:06 PM
Never happen. That woman is dumb as a brick.
Palin? Take a Genius, put him on tape for a couple hours, edit out all the intelligent stuff... and the Genius would sound about as dumb as a brick too.

From what I've heard, from people that have actually talked with her, she's quite intelligent. Unless you have some serious financial backing, you do NOT make it very far in politics if you're not very intelligent, at least from the standpoint of reading/interpreting polls and knowing (very, very well) your constituents. Palin knows Alaska. People up there are VERY opinionated about things... or at least so says my source in Fairbanks. Palin has to KNOW a lot about the oil business, and how they do things, to be able to get the oil companies to do things. That takes stuff that Obama doesn't have.

FeuerFrei
08-05-2010, 1:07 PM
This was no surprise to many of us.
We are STILL one vote away from losing our rights.
Look to the last SCOTUS 2A decision and see if I'm wrong.

dantodd
08-05-2010, 1:12 PM
A little simple, but mildly interesting nonetheless.

Are you referring to my opinion or your candidate?

If my opinion I will say that most truths are quite simple. Like don't steal. Sounds simple, and it is. Don't piss on the people who put you into office. Sounds simple, and it is. When you make a commitment live up to it. Sounds simple and it is.

Doheny
08-05-2010, 1:18 PM
From what I've heard, from people that have actually talked with her, she's quite intelligent.

Now you're embarrassing yourself.

Unless you have some serious financial backing, you do NOT make it very far in politics if you're not very intelligent...

Apparently you missed her being the VP nominee...that was her springboard, not her intelligence.

Palin has to KNOW a lot about the oil business, and how they do things, to be able to get the oil companies to do things.

Sorry, that's what staff is for. They write the report and she reads the executive summary. They tell her the best course of action and she is likely to follow it. It's how it's done whether you're a mayor, Gov or the Pres.

TripleT
08-05-2010, 1:19 PM
If one of our conservative Justices get's so much as a cold, we'd better be ready to hire the best Doc our obamacare can buy. Yikes, we really are screwed !!!

stormy_clothing
08-05-2010, 1:25 PM
It is through his Supreme Court appointments that the true horror Obama is inflicting upon this country will be felt. I sincerely hope that he doesn't get a second term to finish filling SCOTUS with other anti-american justices who don't rule on the Constitution, but rather on what they want the Constitution to be.

OIC because Jr. didn't spend 8 years wiping with your freedoms and his prodigy mc cracker wasn't about to either.

Yeah opps forgot about history and your other choice already it seems.

POLICESTATE
08-05-2010, 1:25 PM
Confirmed huh? Guess that puts us one step closer to:

aZFH4wCLVXY

dantodd
08-05-2010, 1:27 PM
OIC because Jr. didn't spend 8 years wiping with your freedoms and his prodigy mc cracker wasn't about to either.

Yeah opps forgot about history and your other choice already it seems.

Even when he was hammering away at President Obama the poster to whom you responded didn't stoop to name calling.

NSR500
08-05-2010, 1:32 PM
What a sad day indeed...

MolonLabe2008
08-05-2010, 1:39 PM
How is Kagan going to rule concerning individual rights in 2nd amendment cases?

The same as her comrade Sotomayor ruled in the "McDonald v. City of Chicago" case.

Both Obama appointees.

I would like to give a shout out to all those people who voted for the anti-gun Obama who then nominated two anti-gun SCOTUS justices. :rolleyes:

Rossi357
08-05-2010, 1:42 PM
The Democrats want the Republicans to run Palin for Pres. That will insure Obama will win a second term.

DavidRSA
08-05-2010, 1:48 PM
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Some gun owners are quite dramatic indeed!

POLICESTATE
08-05-2010, 1:49 PM
How is Kagan going to rule concerning individual rights in 2nd amendment cases?

The same as her comrade Sotomayor ruled in the "McDonald v. City of Chicago" case.

Both Obama appointees.

I would like to give a shout out to all those people who voted for the anti-gun Obama who then nominated two anti-gun SCOTUS justices. :rolleyes:

Doesn't matter, thanks to both the Heller and McDonald cases it is now established that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. We all know how SCOTUS is about overturning their own cases, even ones that are generations old (like Slaughterhouse).

vantec08
08-05-2010, 1:53 PM
It is through his Supreme Court appointments that the true horror Obama is inflicting upon this country will be felt. I sincerely hope that he doesn't get a second term to finish filling SCOTUS with other anti-american justices who don't rule on the Constitution, but rather on what they want the Constitution to be.

Just dont tell him what comes after a trillion.

Doheny
08-05-2010, 1:54 PM
How is Kagan going to rule concerning individual rights in 2nd amendment cases?

The same as her comrade Sotomayor ruled in the "McDonald v. City of Chicago" case.

Both Obama appointees.

I would like to give a shout out to all those people who voted for the anti-gun Obama who then nominated two anti-gun SCOTUS justices. :rolleyes:

There's the MolonLabe2008 we know and love. Welcome! :chris:

vantec08
08-05-2010, 1:56 PM
Never happen. That woman is dumb as a brick.

I will take plain-spoken honesty over spin-shuck-jive-tweak-bull&%@* mealy-mouth lawyer talk any day.

2009_gunner
08-05-2010, 2:08 PM
What a sad day indeed...

Obama doesn't need to pass a new AW ban. He just needs one more judge on the bench. Bradys should be quite pleased.

I think we should all pray for the health of Justices Kennedy and Scalia everyday for the next 2.5 years.

FirstFlight
08-05-2010, 2:13 PM
I will take plain-spoken honesty over spin-shuck-jive-tweak-bull&%@* mealy-mouth lawyer talk any day.

And I agree! In fact I believe our Founding Fathers said the same thing, only of course, in the language of the times.

Vox
08-05-2010, 2:14 PM
DUMBER THAN THE CURRENT BRICK!!!!?????? I THINK NOT!!!


It CAN'T GET any worse than our current DUMB *** BRICK!! At least she has conservative ideals and will put people with conservative ideals in positions of power.

yes... dumber than the current brick,

2009_gunner
08-05-2010, 2:14 PM
I think we should also remember that both of the Justices Obama has appointed have replaced Justices appointed by *Republican* Presidents.

Breyer was appointed by George HW Bush, and Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford.

Heller & McDonald should have been 7-2... let's hope we don't see more turncoats in the future.

Doheny
08-05-2010, 2:17 PM
I would like to give a shout out to all those people who voted for the anti-gun Obama who then nominated two anti-gun SCOTUS justices. :rolleyes:

Don't forget the shout out for the five republicans who voted to confirm her, as well as the nine who voted to confirm Sotomayor.

In the end, five Republicans voted for her (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0721/Supreme-Court-nominee-Elena-Kagan-wins-second-GOP-vote-Richard-Lugar) and one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted against her. Last year, nine Republicans voted to confirm Mr. Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, whose total vote was 68-31.

Article. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0805/Elena-Kagan-confirmed-to-Supreme-Court)

.

Hogxtz
08-05-2010, 2:26 PM
Idiots.

No, not idiots. Actually the current administration is brilliant and they know exactly what they are doing to cause a "fundamental change" to America and to discard the Constitution. Its called socialism.

Santa Cruz Armory
08-05-2010, 2:28 PM
BOOOOO!

IGOTDIRT4U
08-05-2010, 2:58 PM
OIC because Jr. didn't spend 8 years wiping with your freedoms and his prodigy mc cracker wasn't about to either.

Yeah opps forgot about history and your other choice already it seems.

huh? Completely incoherent.

kcbrown
08-05-2010, 2:58 PM
It CAN'T GET any worse than our current DUMB *** BRICK!!

I see you haven't learned from history.

It can always get worse. Always.


Whether it would be worse under Palin than under Obama is a very good question, and probably a lot harder to answer than most people here think.

The Republicans have been overrun by neocons, who wish to expand the power of government to satisfy their own desire to play soldier games in the rest of the world and to satisfy the desires of large private interests.

The Democrats have been overrun by socialists, who wish to expand the power of government to satisfy their own desire to implement socialism.

Both parties desire overwhelming government size and power. That desire is in direct conflict with individual freedom. Both parties will put people on the supreme court whose views will cause them to rule in favor of the expansion of government power, and therefore against individual freedom.

Ever expanding government power is contradictory to the fundamental principles of the Constitution. After all, the founders fought a war in order to get out from underneath that very thing.


This is why I have little hope that the next nominees to the Supreme Court will be inclined to rule in favor of 2A (which is an individual right and therefore an anathema to those who desire ever greater government power) -- the nominees will come from those who are opposed to individual liberty be they Democrat or Republican, since that opposition comes from both parties.

Wherryj
08-05-2010, 2:59 PM
If one of our conservative Justices get's so much as a cold, we'd better be ready to hire the best Doc our obamacare can buy. Yikes, we really are screwed !!!

If a conservative justice DOES get ill during this administration's run, I will PERSONALLY see to it that s/he gets the best possible care-even if the bills are written off.
;)

Wherryj
08-05-2010, 3:04 PM
I see you haven't learned from history.

It can always get worse. Always.


Whether it would be worse under Palin than under Obama is a very good question, and probably a lot harder to answer than most people here think.

The Republicans have been overrun by neocons, who wish to expand the power of government to satisfy their own desire to play soldier games in the rest of the world and to satisfy the desires of large private interests.

The Democrats have been overrun by socialists, who wish to expand the power of government to satisfy their own desire to implement socialism.

Both parties desire overwhelming government size and power. That desire is in direct conflict with individual freedom. Both parties will put people on the supreme court whose views will cause them to rule in favor of the expansion of government power, and therefore against individual freedom.

Ever expanding government power is contradictory to the fundamental principles of the Constitution. After all, the founders fought a war in order to get out from underneath that very thing.


This is why I have little hope that the next nominees to the Supreme Court will be inclined to rule in favor of 2A (which is an individual right and therefore an anathema to those who desire ever greater government power) -- the nominees will come from those who are opposed to individual liberty be they Democrat or Republican, since that opposition comes from both parties.

Unfortunately I think that you are hitting too close to the mark. The only way to protect our interests is to keep the parties relatively balanced such that they must work together to pass anything. Less damage can be done if they are busy cutting each other's throats and can only pass something that will make the voters happy.

Our issue has been giving each party a large majority, only to discover that they abuse it in their own personal way. Then we fickle voters give the opposite party the majority, only to find out how they will screw us over.

BlindRacer
08-05-2010, 3:07 PM
I don't understand some of you guys. You'll say that you are single issue, and use that excuse when you want Brown in Cali, or Reid in NV, but when someone like Palin comes along, someone who is CLEARLY pro 2A, you'll make cracks at her...comments pretty much only made by the liberal media. Palin is intelligent, and she is a strong constitutional conservative - very pro 2A. Yet you bash her, and try to get others to hate her, and claim that the Dem's want her to be the nominee, cause then Obama would get a second term. Everything is so that she doesn't get into office.

I believe that everyone who is making comments along these lines are liberals who are pro 2A. They secretly like that Brown, Reid, Kagan, Sotomayer are all in office, as well as Obama. And they'll forfeit the 2A side of things so that their other political views will be met.

If Palin runs, then she'd be a great candidate, and do wonders for this country. Especially 2A. She is a true conservative republican, not like the fake ones we've had for a while.

steadyrock
08-05-2010, 3:22 PM
If Palin runs, then she'd be a great candidate, and do wonders for this country. Especially 2A. She is a true conservative republican, not like the fake ones we've had for a while.

O rly? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=284105)

She's a pretty face on an ugly establishment. Period.

7x57
08-05-2010, 3:22 PM
I'll take a purely motivated person of moderate intelligence over an ill-willed genius any day.

“I am obliged to confess that I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” -- William F. Buckley, 1963

7x57

Maestro Pistolero
08-05-2010, 3:24 PM
and claim that the Dem's want her to be the nominee, cause then Obama would get a second term. People underestimated Bush II for the same reasons they underestimate Palin. He was a two-termer.

pitchbaby
08-05-2010, 3:26 PM
Never happen. That woman is dumb as a brick.

Whatever dude... she's smarter than you, me and most of us put together... unless your making millions and have hundreds of thousands of people pandering over every sentence uttered from your lips.

We may not like what everything she say's or does... especially not what Obama say's or does... but it is sheer ignorance to call these people dumb.

You might be 100x's smarter, but it makes no difference unless you can effect the kind of change they can just by a flick of the wrist or a comment in the paper.

Doheny
08-05-2010, 3:32 PM
You might be 100x's smarter, but it makes no difference unless you can effect the kind of change they can just by a flick of the wrist or a comment in the paper.

FWIW...the people that follow change created by someone's flick of the wrist or comment in a newspaper are called sheep. The rest of us like to think for ourselves.

tankarian
08-05-2010, 3:38 PM
Let's just hope that's his final nomination. Sad day for liberty loving Americans :(


At 47% is where presidents do not get re-elected. Obama is at 42% for the past two weeks.

It still is a long way to go before 2012 but things are encouraging.

Uxi
08-05-2010, 3:53 PM
Whatever else Dubya might have done, I <3 his SCOTUS justices. We would NOT have had Heller, McDonald or any of the other cases go our way. IOW, we would NOT have a RTKBA. Whatever else Barry might do, I'll detest his.

theoutcast32
08-05-2010, 4:07 PM
lol I can't believe people on this forum are cheering on Palin. Palin = dumb broad who has very little understanding of personal freedoms. Sorry, but I'll take the Pauls, father & son, any day of the week.

nick
08-05-2010, 4:27 PM
how is it possible that our country has come to this?

Apathy, greed for other people's money, and good intentions.

Bhobbs
08-05-2010, 4:40 PM
No surprise and who cares? It's a lib vote for a lib vote. It will be scary if one of the conservative judges leaves.

SkyStorm82
08-05-2010, 4:53 PM
America got the gift that keeps on giving back in 2009.

turbogg
08-05-2010, 4:57 PM
We are sadly in the middle of a total liberal evolution in America. Every year, every day a little more liberal. The fundamental changes occuring in this country are nothing short of breathtaking, and I do not mean that in a good way!

SickofSoCal
08-05-2010, 5:38 PM
Let's just hope that's his final nomination. Sad day for liberty loving Americans :(

Indeed. The PEOPLE have just been stabbed in the back.

Shotgun Man
08-05-2010, 5:45 PM
Sarah Palin resigned from her position of governor.

She lacks personal integrity.

znode
08-05-2010, 5:52 PM
The people who think having Palin or really any unconstitutional neocons known as the Republican party are, well, just fooling themselves.

BOTH parties want to take away your freedoms. BOTH parties want to expand government endlessly. BOTH parties want to control you like subjects.

And the fact that they march on opposite ends of liberty at a time are not a concidence. They strip you away like a dog in different ways so that every time one of them abuses you, everyone will run screaming to the other for mercy, only to be molested again. And so they both march on, taking away your liberties one by one, each one from a different side. Don't like gun control? Well we'll throw your money to the criminal banking cartel instead. Didn't like that? The other side drains your wallets. Don't like being taxed? The other side strips away your privacy and illegally wiretaps you. Don't like that either? Well let's institute 99 weeks of handouts for everyone, and control what you eat or drink. Go to the other side? Well now the other side is in your bedroom telling you what to do.

It's like having a trash compactor, while the sheep run screaming from one wall to the other, while both walls creep ever closer. You will not have freedoms with neither the personal-responsibility-hating socialists, nor the personal-freedom-hating neocons.

Vtgunner
08-05-2010, 6:01 PM
I like Kagan and think she is a brilliant person. I think she can not be any worse for gun rights than the republican sponsored justice she is replacing. In fact I am hoping we we get a pleasant surpise.

advocatusdiaboli
08-05-2010, 6:26 PM
Yeah. Let's hope he doesn't get any more opportunities. I personally hope that the next one is nominated by President Palin!!

OMG no--she's nominate Pat Robertson of the American Taliban. She's dumber than the wolves she shoots from snowmobiles and helicopters. :eek:

Falstaff
08-05-2010, 8:18 PM
Heller & McDonald should have been 7-2... let's hope we don't see more turncoats in the future.

4 republicraps voted for Kagan.

vantec08
08-05-2010, 8:37 PM
I like Kagan and think she is a brilliant person. I think she can not be any worse for gun rights than the republican sponsored justice she is replacing. In fact I am hoping we we get a pleasant surpise.


I dislike Kagan and think she is a politician, not a judge.

rayd7
08-05-2010, 8:46 PM
Yeah, all of you who voted for obama thanks.....on the other hand mccain might have goofed by appointing a liberal activist supreme court judge. We will never know.

Shotgun Man
08-05-2010, 9:07 PM
Yeah, all of you who voted for obama thanks.....on the other hand mccain might have goofed by appointing a liberal activist supreme court judge. We will never know.

Who did McCain appoint for SCOTUS? I thought you had to be prez to appoint SCOTUS justices.

ETA: Oops. I misread your post.

glbtrottr
08-05-2010, 9:24 PM
'So This Is How Liberty Dies...With Thunderous Applause'

the poi
08-05-2010, 9:32 PM
Whatever dude... she's smarter than you, me and most of us put together...

Can I refudiate that?

kcbrown
08-05-2010, 9:50 PM
Originally Posted by pitchbaby http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4733800#post4733800)
Whatever dude... she's smarter than you, me and most of us put together...


Can I refudiate that?

Umm..."refudiate" it?

Please tell me you said it that way intentionally!

:rofl2:

Maestro Pistolero
08-05-2010, 10:01 PM
Umm..."refudiate" it?

Please tell me you said it that way intentionally!It's referring to a word 'coined' by Palin on a tweet. It was big news a week or so ago.

nick
08-05-2010, 10:18 PM
I see you haven't learned from history.

It can always get worse. Always.


Whether it would be worse under Palin than under Obama is a very good question, and probably a lot harder to answer than most people here think.

The Republicans have been overrun by neocons, who wish to expand the power of government to satisfy their own desire to play soldier games in the rest of the world and to satisfy the desires of large private interests.

The Democrats have been overrun by socialists, who wish to expand the power of government to satisfy their own desire to implement socialism.

Both parties desire overwhelming government size and power. That desire is in direct conflict with individual freedom. Both parties will put people on the supreme court whose views will cause them to rule in favor of the expansion of government power, and therefore against individual freedom.

Ever expanding government power is contradictory to the fundamental principles of the Constitution. After all, the founders fought a war in order to get out from underneath that very thing.


This is why I have little hope that the next nominees to the Supreme Court will be inclined to rule in favor of 2A (which is an individual right and therefore an anathema to those who desire ever greater government power) -- the nominees will come from those who are opposed to individual liberty be they Democrat or Republican, since that opposition comes from both parties.

Yup, listen to this man.

a1c
08-05-2010, 10:29 PM
“I am obliged to confess that I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” -- William F. Buckley, 1963

7x57

That's just spite coming from a Yale graduate. :D

nick
08-05-2010, 10:59 PM
“I am obliged to confess that I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” -- William F. Buckley, 1963

7x57

Why would he want to live in a society governed by anyone from MA? :confused:

FirstFlight
08-06-2010, 9:06 AM
Statement on Elena Kagan’s Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association & Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action



Thursday, August 05, 2010


Today, the U.S. Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to the highest Court in the land. To NRA members and gun owners nationwide, Ms. Kagan presents a clear and present danger to the right to keep and bear arms. Her political record reveals that she does not believe the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and, in her recent testimony, she refused to acknowledge respect for the God-given right of self-defense. That is why, more than a month ago, the NRA announced its strong opposition to Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court. In that announcement, it was made very clear that this vote matters and will be considered in the NRA's candidate evaluations.

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right that applies to all law-abiding Americans. Nonetheless, during the hearings Ms. Kagan refused to state her support for the Second Amendment, saying only that the matter was "settled law." When asked about the Heller decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor used the phrase "settled law" repeatedly during her confirmation hearings to win support. Justice Sotomayor then worked to destroy the Second Amendment in the McDonald case. We have no doubt that Ms. Kagan shares the same view of the Second Amendment.

Since she has no judicial record, we have only her political record to examine. And that political record demonstrates a clear hostility to our right to keep and bear arms. As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Ms. Kagan said she was "not sympathetic" to a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s ban on firearms. As a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as "immersed" in Clinton’s aggressive assaults on the Second Amendment. As U.S. Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark McDonald case, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the states was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government.

The expansive support that self-defense laws, the decisions in the historic Heller and McDonald cases, and the Second Amendment enjoy from the American public is a clear indication that Elena Kagan’s radical views are out of the mainstream. Any nominee, that far out-of-step with the American people, should not be on the Supreme Court.

The nomination and confirmation of two justices with an inherent bias against the Second Amendment is a direct assault on our treasured freedom. The fate of our Second Amendment hangs perilously - by one vote. The need for eternal vigilance on the part of every American has never been greater.








Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy

FirstFlight
08-06-2010, 11:33 AM
I see where Senator Harry Reid of Nevada voted YES for Kagan's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The NRA's recommendation was a NO vote.

The NRA said "It was made very clear that this vote matters and will be considered in the NRA's candidate evaluations."

So I wonder.....if this vote is going to put good old boy Harry Reid on the NRA's s**t list ???

dixieD
08-06-2010, 11:49 AM
Unfortunately I think that you are hitting too close to the mark. The only way to protect our interests is to keep the parties relatively balanced such that they must work together to pass anything. Less damage can be done if they are busy cutting each other's throats and can only pass something that will make the voters happy.

Our issue has been giving each party a large majority, only to discover that they abuse it in their own personal way. Then we fickle voters give the opposite party the majority, only to find out how they will screw us over.

I agree. Given the false choice of this two party system the only solution working within the system, short of a 3rd party breakout, is gridlock. With gridlock only the most obvious beneficial and least damaging laws would pass everything else would hit the wall.

2009_gunner
08-06-2010, 11:57 AM
I see where Senator Harry Reid of Nevada voted YES for Kagan's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The NRA's recommendation was a NO vote.

The NRA said "It was made very clear that this vote matters and will be considered in the NRA's candidate evaluations."

So I wonder.....if this vote is going to put good old boy Harry Reid on the NRA's s**t list ???

My impression is that NRA support of Harry Reid is mostly an anti-Chuck Schumer as majority leader position (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer#Gun_control).

Scott Connors
08-06-2010, 1:43 PM
The Democrats want the Republicans to run Palin for Pres. That will insure Obama will win a second term.

Just like all the Republicans who rooted for Obama in the primaries so Hillary wouldn't be the nominee. Worked out really well, didn't it? :puke:

Scott Connors
08-06-2010, 1:57 PM
Never happen. That woman is dumb as a brick.

Just to add my two cents to the dogpile:

A large part of Palin's appeal derives from the perception that she is not a member of the elites, but is indeed a "regular person," an everyman (or everywoman, to be pedantic), who actually relates to what the non-elites are experiencing. When Palin is called a moron or otherwise lacking in intellectual ability (as opposed to intellectual pretensions), the unspoken subtext is that all of us in flyover country are also morons and thus unable to take care of ourselves, which of course is why we can't be trusted with firearms.

MolonLabe2008
08-06-2010, 3:10 PM
Don't forget the shout out for the five republicans who voted to confirm her, as well as the nine who voted to confirm Sotomayor.


If the anti-gun Obama didn't nominate the two anti-gun justices, those Republicans wouldn't have been able to vote for them.

Nice try trying to shift blame.

ja308
08-06-2010, 3:14 PM
Hey --give the "Nightowl" some slack --he heard Palin is dumb on his Television ---
hahahahahaha
JA

safewaysecurity
08-06-2010, 3:16 PM
Think we all need to just get behind Ron Paul guarantee he would make the BEST appointments to the courts.

ja308
08-06-2010, 3:20 PM
Molon Labe -- wow 5 rino's voted for Kagan !
Think I will now vote for a democrat ! or better yet 3rd party -- which is identical to voteing democrat .
I know ,I stuck us with anti gun Clinton. (perot) which got us GINSBURG!+ Breyer .
JA
How about we work in the primaries for pro rights candidates

ja308
08-06-2010, 3:24 PM
Think we all need to just get behind Ron Paul guarantee he would make the BEST appointments to the courts.
I am happy with Alito,Roberts + Thomas ---
all GW Bush appointess
BTW --what party is Ron Paul?
JA 308

safewaysecurity
08-06-2010, 3:25 PM
I am happy with Alito,Roberts + Thomas ---
all GW Bush appointess
BTW --what party is Ron Paul?
JA 308

he is Republican but he is a STRONG libertarian. He has an A+ from the Gun Owners of America.

zman
08-06-2010, 3:28 PM
Does this mean we won't see any more The Mummy sequels? :43:

http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2008/08/brendan_fraser_star_of_the_mummy_movies_greets_gue _4892e31a02.JPG

http://images.b105.com.au/2009/03/27/156376/bald-celebrities-brendan-fraser-01-600x400-600x400.jpg

http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/129187997015947547.jpg

ja308
08-06-2010, 3:36 PM
I think we should also remember that both of the Justices Obama has appointed have replaced Justices appointed by *Republican* Presidents.

Breyer was appointed by George HW Bush, and Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford.

Heller & McDonald should have been 7-2... let's hope we don't see more turncoats in the future.

Steven G. Breyer
Nominated by Pres. Clinton 1994
born 8/15/38 San Francisco ,ca: LLB Harvard University 1964
married joanna.
Stevens was appointed Non elected Ford in 1975
resectfully
JA308

ja308
08-06-2010, 3:42 PM
[QUOTE=safewaysecurity;4739153]he is Republican but he is a STRONG libertarian. He has an A+ from the Gun Owners of America.[/

TY for your reply -- I have always admired Dr. Paul ... HR 1146 had 70 co sponsors last time , all republicans .
Personally Im really proud to be a Republican .
JA308

PressCheck
08-06-2010, 4:12 PM
Just replacing one Extreme Lib with another Extreme Lib.

Let's just hope that he does not get to appoint another one before the 2012 elections

Aegis
08-07-2010, 7:17 AM
Bush was not a great president, but at least he appointed SC justices who believe in the constitution. Obama has appointed a couple of zealots who believe in judicial activism. Sotomayor said she would interpret the constitution, and look how she voted in McDonald. You can bet the next 2A case in front of SCOTUS, Kagen will vote against the 2A.

Doheny
08-07-2010, 7:27 AM
If the anti-gun Obama didn't nominate the two anti-gun justices, those Republicans wouldn't have been able to vote for them.

Nice try trying to shift blame.

Nice try. You're outta practice. ;)

Now your blaming Obama for who the Republicans voted for?

The other R's couldn't keep those five (and nine) in order?

BluNorthern
08-07-2010, 8:26 AM
Sarah Palin resigned from her position of governor.

She lacks personal integrity.
That's my problem with her, and it's enough that I'll never take her seriously. She quit an elected office, in my mind, to make herself a boatload of money. I have no use for her at all. No integrity and self-serving.

Maestro Pistolero
08-07-2010, 8:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolonLabe2008
If the anti-gun Obama didn't nominate the two anti-gun justices, those Republicans wouldn't have been able to vote for them.

Nice try trying to shift blame.
Nice try. You're outta practice.

Now your blaming Obama for who the Republicans voted for?

What a ridiculous argument. Aren't both equally responsible?

Uxi
08-07-2010, 8:30 AM
Blame Barry for nominating her.
Blame the Dems who voted for her.
Blame the Reps who voted for her.

CalBear
08-07-2010, 9:17 AM
It's truly sad that people are driven to vote for president around Supreme Court nominations. The nomination process shouldn't be politically driven in any way. The justices should be the ultimate protectors of the constitution. Instead, many seem to favor their own beliefs and discretion over that of the founders.

Ultimately, what saddens me most is how this country has divided into two sides who seem to be playing a game against one another. Logic and intelligence don't seem to be in the rules anymore. It's just one side pitted against another, each team wallowing in stupidity. We're becoming (rather, largely are) a nation of sheeple.

Liberals are supposed to support civil liberties, yet they have chosen to reject certain fundamental rights that don't jive with their agenda. They also support a large and controlling central government. Republicans tout their small government ideology, and yet they gladly strip away personal privacy and due process -- in fact both sides have a nasty hand in this. Things become much clearer when you realize that neither "team" is out to protect the people... they are both out to protect their party. It's all about political control these days. The good of the people means little to nothing.

I'm a Constitutionalist / Libertarian who supports gay rights, gun rights, and all other kinds of rights. I don't think I can bring myself to voting for another democrat or republican for president ever again -- unless I see a CLEAR standout who supports my ideals. The cycle of brutal party control in this country, marked by wild swings in policy, with an endless march toward more government power has to be stopped. Party members will try to sway me by saying a vote for a 3rd party is pointless, but I say the only hope we have is getting voters to think independently, one voter at a time.

abusalim81
08-08-2010, 12:12 AM
Great! Just what we need, a marxist socialist in the supreme court... She has to be one of the most ugly toads out there!

ErikTheRed
08-08-2010, 2:40 AM
Sarah Palin Presidential material? Probably not. But "dumb as a brick"? Only someone highly influenced by media spin would be of that opinion, which certainly removes from that person the authority to classify others as being "dumb as a brick".

Sarah Palin is not my choice for President. I like her, alot, but for a host of reasons I think she is out-qualified by too many others. Even still, she would be LEAPS AND BOUNDS ahead of the current occupier. At least Palin actually believes in freedom, liberty, limited govenment, capitalism, the US Constitution, and isn't a naked socialist. (although I wouldn't mind too much if she were actually naked.)

Mofo-Kang
08-08-2010, 1:34 PM
No, not idiots. Actually the current administration is brilliant and they know exactly what they are doing to cause a "fundamental change" to America and to discard the Constitution. Its called socialism.

Yet another person who doesn't have the foggiest idea what "socialism" means...

vantec08
08-09-2010, 1:49 AM
Yet another person who doesn't have the foggiest idea what "socialism" means...


Then substitute the word "destructive."