Glimmer of hope with Obama appointed SCJ

[HT77]

Originally Posted by markbob45

Thanks HT77. I wasn't sure. I knew Souter was a republican pres appointee but wasn't sure which. Kennedy and O'Conner weren't all I hoped for either.
I agree Bork would have been outstanding. But the dems destroyed him just as they tried to do with Thomas. I remember those hearings. What a disgrace. Gotta give Thomas credit for standing up to them, and hanging in there. Couldn't have been easy. They will stop at nothing to get their way. Personal attacks and trying to ruin someones life are part of the game.

Not only do the Democrats put anti-2A gun haters on the court, they also block Republican Presidents from putting hard core conservatives like Bork on there. Yet I keep reading on here from people who supposedly support the 2A that Obama and the Democrats are no threat to our gun rights.

[markbob45]

Originally Posted by HT77

Not only do the Democrats put anti-2A gun haters on the court, they also block Republican Presidents from putting hard core conservatives like Bork on there. Yet I keep reading on here from people who supposedly support the 2A that Obama and the Democrats are no threat to our gun rights.

Some people refuse to see.
Even though I feel O'Conner and Kennedy were less than ideal, they are probably the best Reagan felt he could get thru the liberal smear machine.

[joedel]

Originally Posted by markbob45

Some people refuse to see.
Even though I feel O'Conner and Kennedy were less than ideal, they are probably the best Reagan felt he could get thru the liberal smear machine.

The real problem is the left-leaning Justices appointed by Democrats always turn out to be far greater ideologues than right-leaning Justices appointed by Republicans.

I can't name a Justice appointed by a Democrat President in my lifetime who has not turned out to be a reliable liberal vote on the Court while there have been a number of Republican appointed Justices who turned out to be liberal (Souter & Stevens) or moderate (O'Connor & Kennedy).

[BDA45]

Originally Posted by markbob45

They will stop at nothing to get their way. Personal attacks and trying to ruin someones life are part of the game.

That has been the tactic since politics began - in this republic and before.

Originally Posted by HT77

Not only do the Democrats put anti-2A gun haters on the court, they also block Republican Presidents from putting hard core conservatives like Bork on there. Yet I keep reading on here from people who supposedly support the 2A that Obama and the Democrats are no threat to our gun rights.

Some people supposedly prefer to wait until a specific issue arises before making sweeping generalizations. What matters is what comes before the court - because only 4 justices need agree to a cert petition.

It would have been interesting to see the range facility and who was present where Kagan shot her first firearm. I wonder if it was at a non-scheduled time so other armed members wouldn't be present? Probably not much chance to see regular gun enthusiasts. As for the hunting limitations - the club I am a member of has By-Laws with Purpose and Objectives that include proper use of firearms - protection of wildlife - understanding about proper use of hunting equipment and so on. Absolutely no mention of defensive use of firearms - training on defense - or any mention of handguns. It has a very conservative membership - but they apparently consulted an attorney before setting up their charter.

[HT77]

Originally Posted by markbob45

Some people refuse to see.
Even though I feel O'Conner and Kennedy were less than ideal, they are probably the best Reagan felt he could get thru the liberal smear machine.

And remember who presided over the Senate Committee that destroyed Bork's nomination with personal attacks and smears? Our beloved Vice President, Slow Joe Biden.

[markbob45]

Your right I forgot about that. What a class act our VP is.

[joedel]

Originally Posted by BDA45

Some people supposedly prefer to wait until a specific issue arises before making sweeping generalizations. What matters is what comes before the court - because only 4 justices need agree to a cert petition.

There may be one for all I know, but could you point to an instance of a Democrat-appointed Supreme Court Justice in the last 40 years voting with the majority on a case that strengthens gun ownership right?

In the two most recent major cases, Heller and McDonald, every vote cast by the Democrat-appointed Justices was against the majority.

Given the recent history and who appointed her, it's not a real stretch to see why people aren't very confident in Kagan's take on the 2nd Amendment.

[joedel]

Originally Posted by markbob45

Your right I forgot about that. What a class act our VP is.

Biden also presided over the disgrace that was the confirmation process of Justice Thomas.

I'll never forget those hearings because they took place during my first semester of law school and one of my classmates was the eldest son of our illustrious Vice President. Between classes we were all watching the hearings in the student lounge and poor Beau Biden was sitting there cringing while his father made a fool himself allowing ridiculous accusations be hurled at Justice Thomas.

[markbob45]

[QUOTE=BDA45;3841781]
It would have been interesting to see the range facility and who was present where Kagan shot her first firearm. I wonder if it was at a non-scheduled time so other armed members wouldn't be present? Probably not much chance to see regular gun enthusiasts.




It would be interesting to know. It would give her a chance to watch and maybe meet some firearm enthusiasts and see we are just regular folks and not the goof balls some seem to think we are. I know the club I belong to is full of good people.

[BDA45]

Originally Posted by joedel

There may be one for all I know, but could you point to an instance of a Democrat-appointed Supreme Court Justice in the last 40 years voting with the majority on a case that strengthens gun ownership right?

In the two most recent major cases, Heller and McDonald, every vote cast by the Democrat-appointed Justices was against the majority.

Given the recent history and who appointed her, it's not a real stretch to see why people aren't very confident in Kagan's take on the 2nd Amendment.

There hasn't been much of anything before the supreme court in the last 40 years on the 2A. Lower courts were all aligned in their decisions - and this included Article III judges appointed by both GOP and DNC presidents. But, with Heller and McDonald (particularly McDonald and the reversals in Stare Decisis) the fight has arisen. This places a fair burden on decisions from what is now viewed as a conservative court - because any problems that arise from any weakness in those decisions can be drug into the court by the remaining four justices - and they can even be only 14th amendment issues. Our disagreement is whether they would choose to do so based upon established law, the interpretation of existing law or just some ingrained hatred of the 2A.

But, I do agree that "it's not a real stretch to see why people aren't very confident in Kagan". There are myriad reasons.

On Bork - 2A was the very least of his woes during confirmation. Dutch chose to have that fight.

[markbob45]

Borks mistake was he answered the questions honestly instead of playing the dodge and weave game they all have played since then.

[joedel]

Originally Posted by BDA45

Our disagreement is whether they would choose to do so based upon established law, the interpretation of existing law or just some ingrained hatred of the 2A.

I think it's mostly the latter but they mask their argument in the former.

Stare Descis and the concept of "Settled Law" only goes so far. Recall that Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law for over half a century before Brown overturned it.

[BDA45]

Originally Posted by joedel

I think it's mostly the latter but they mask their argument in the former.

Stare Descis and the concept of "Settled Law" only goes so far. Recall that Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law for over half a century before Brown overturned it.

Do you think the settled law disturbed was on the order of Plessy vs. Ferguson? And when I say disturbed, I mean subsequent decisions based upon settled law now getting another look - or twist if you believe mostly in the latter.

[joedel]

Originally Posted by BDA45

Do you think the settled law disturbed was on the order of Plessy vs. Ferguson?

In the area Heller and McDonald dealt with, the individual rights protected by the 2nd Amendment, yes it was.

Regardless, the concept is the same, a more recent Court correcting the earlier misinterpretation of the Constitution and its Amendments by a previous Court.

[SteedGun]

Originally Posted by mrsurfboard

I found this encouraging. Maybe she won't be as bad as we thought. Or at least not 100% anti.

http://www.guns.com/justices-scalia-...trip-7352.html

Don't hold your breath.

[chrysanthemum]

Kagan is NOT a friend of the 2A ... unless she proves that she's changed from her fundamental past beliefs and writings.

Sotomayor is hopeless ... a definitely opponent of the 2A.

[Jake Card]

Originally Posted by joedel

There may be one for all I know, but could you point to an instance of a Democrat-appointed Supreme Court Justice in the last 40 years voting with the majority on a case that strengthens gun ownership right?

There is no instance, if the Library of Congress is a credible source, because: "On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution." (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php)




Jake

[HT77]

Originally Posted by chrysanthemum

Kagan is NOT a friend of the 2A ... unless she proves that she's changed from her fundamental past beliefs and writings.

Sotomayor is hopeless ... a definitely opponent of the 2A.

This is the sad truth and the bottom line. Posters that want to argue legal terminology and how these leftists might possibly vote on a particular case in support of the 2A someday appear to have no concept of Kagan and Sotomayor's over all legal and political philosophies which inherently will cause them to vote against guns and private ownership of guns. No legal analysis on their part or precedent is going to change that any more than a legal analysis would cause them to vote against abortion or homosexual marriage issues. They will not vote against their beliefs. Good grief, that is why Obama chose them. People that don't understand this also don't understand who Kagan, Sotomayor and Obama really are.

[ILman]

Well, although it seems that this thread has become largely a place for political name-calling and personal attacks (ironically which some have angrily accused the Democrats of), in which I have no interest in participating, I will say this:

Last night I was fortunate enough to both hear Justice Kagan speak, and meet her one-on-one. A few of the things I learned:

- During her confirmation process, she was asked a lot about the Second Amendment. Being that the Supreme Court hadn't dealt with many gun cases before Heller, Kagan intimated that she "had never really thought about guns much." She didn't feel she had a good answer to their questions, but not because she believed differently than them, but because she hadn't ever had much occasion to consider guns. It seemed to me that this is what, in part, drove her to actually seek out the hunting trip. She wanted to learn more, and actually have some kind of hands-on experience with an issue that she might have to rule on some day. Personally, I think that's fairly commendable.

- She spoke to a room full of largely big-city liberal-type lawyers. She could have easily pulled a few anti-gun jokes off much to the delight of most of the crowd. She didn't, and from all I heard her say both privately and in her speech, she seems fairly willing to keep an open mind.

- Even as a proud libertarian, I'm happy to say that I really enjoyed being able to speak with her. She is an engaging and thoughtful person, and believe it or not, is very close friends with a LOT of pretty conservative judges. I'm not willing to proclaim that she is a 2A defender, but I'm also no longer convinced that she is an automatic threat. Funny how that happens when you go from thinking about some impersonal, distant "other" to actually having met with and experienced a person first hand. My interactions were obviously not too extensive, but I'm a lot less scared than I used to be.

[HT77]

Originally Posted by ILman

Well, although it seems that this thread has become largely a place for political name-calling and personal attacks (ironically which some have angrily accused the Democrats of), in which I have no interest in participating, I will say this:

Last night I was fortunate enough to both hear Justice Kagan speak, and meet her one-on-one. A few of the things I learned:

- During her confirmation process, she was asked a lot about the Second Amendment. Being that the Supreme Court hadn't dealt with many gun cases before Heller, Kagan intimated that she "had never really thought about guns much." She didn't feel she had a good answer to their questions, but not because she believed differently than them, but because she hadn't ever had much occasion to consider guns. It seemed to me that this is what, in part, drove her to actually seek out the hunting trip. She wanted to learn more, and actually have some kind of hands-on experience with an issue that she might have to rule on some day. Personally, I think that's fairly commendable.

- She spoke to a room full of largely big-city liberal-type lawyers. She could have easily pulled a few anti-gun jokes off much to the delight of most of the crowd. She didn't, and from all I heard her say both privately and in her speech, she seems fairly willing to keep an open mind.

- Even as a proud libertarian, I'm happy to say that I really enjoyed being able to speak with her. She is an engaging and thoughtful person, and believe it or not, is very close friends with a LOT of pretty conservative judges. I'm not willing to proclaim that she is a 2A defender, but I'm also no longer convinced that she is an automatic threat. Funny how that happens when you go from thinking about some impersonal, distant "other" to actually having met with and experienced a person first hand. My interactions were obviously not too extensive, but I'm a lot less scared than I used to be.

Based on her record, her general philosophy, and the fact she was selected by Obama, the chances of Kagan ever voting to support a literal interpretation of the 2A are quite slim. The fact that she is personally engaging does not change that at all. By all accounts Obama himself is quite charming in person too. If a gun issue comes before her, this woman will prove to be just what we thought she was, a left wing ideologue who is no friend of the 2A and nothing is going to change that. Wouldn't you be more comfortable, as a 2A supporter, to have Justices on the Supreme Court, that you do not have to hope for a miraculous transformation in order to have them vote on behalf our rights? Vote Romney so hopefully we won't see more Kagans, Sotomayors, Breyers, and Ginsbergs anytime soon.

[ILman]

Originally Posted by HT77

Based on her record, her general philosophy, and the fact she was selected by Obama, the chances of Kagan ever voting to support a literal interpretation of the 2A are quite slim. The fact that she is personally engaging does not change that at all. By all accounts Obama himself is quite charming in person too. If a gun issue comes before her, this woman will prove to be just what we thought she was, a left wing ideologue who is no friend of the 2A and nothing is going to change that. Wouldn't you be more comfortable, as a 2A supporter, to have Justices on the Supreme Court, that you do not have to hope for a miraculous transformation in order to have them vote on behalf our rights? Vote Romney so hopefully we won't see more Kagans, Sotomayors, Breyers, and Ginsbergs anytime soon.

She has no record (as with most judges) on 2A issues. Point to me what in her general philosophy makes you so sure that she will be anti-gun? And sure, she was appointed by Obama, but judges often prove different than their appointers.

No, that she is engaging is not proof that she will be pro-gun. At the same time, having actually spoken with her about this very issue (which is, I'm sure, more than you have done), I am way more comfortable than I was before that she will be open and fair-minded about the issue.

You say she is a left-wing ideologue. Citation? Incidentally, the stalwarts of both wings of the court are blowhard ideologues, whether liberal or conservative. I'm no more comfortable with a conservative ideologue than I am a liberal ideologue. I'd rather have justices who actually think rather than devise ways to reach their desired outcome. It's easy to accuse one side of doing it, while forgetting that the other side does it too.

But you seem like a pretty partisan guy so I'm not going to convince you of anything. I won't be voting Obama, but it's not because I'm terrified of Kagan.

[HT77]

Originally Posted by BDA45

Some people supposedly prefer to wait until a specific issue arises before making sweeping generalizations. .

I suppose its a generalization to predict that if I pick up a rattlesnake it most likely will bite me but like my generalizations about Democrat selected Supreme Court justices, its a generalization that I feel very comfortable making.

[HT77]

Originally Posted by ILman

She has no record (as with most judges) on 2A issues. Point to me what in her general philosophy makes you so sure that she will be anti-gun? And sure, she was appointed by Obama, but judges often prove different than their appointers.

No, that she is engaging is not proof that she will be pro-gun. At the same time, having actually spoken with her about this very issue (which is, I'm sure, more than you have done), I am way more comfortable than I was before that she will be open and fair-minded about the issue.

You say she is a left-wing ideologue. Citation? Incidentally, the stalwarts of both wings of the court are blowhard ideologues, whether liberal or conservative. I'm no more comfortable with a conservative ideologue than I am a liberal ideologue. I'd rather have justices who actually think rather than devise ways to reach their desired outcome. It's easy to accuse one side of doing it, while forgetting that the other side does it too.

But you seem like a pretty partisan guy so I'm not going to convince you of anything. I won't be voting Obama, but it's not because I'm terrified of Kagan.

Here is her general profile:
Born in New York, member of the Democratic Party, Jewish, graduate of Harvard Law School, Oxford University, and Princeton University.

Career highlights: Solicitor general, Department of Justice, 2009-present; Member, Research Advisory Council at the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute, 2005-2008; Dean, Harvard Law School, 2003-2009; Deputy assistant to President Clinton for Domestic Policy, 1997-1999; Associate counsel to President Clinton, 1995-1996; Special counsel to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Joe Biden, 1993; Law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, 1987-1988; Staff member, Dukakis for President Campaign, 1988.

She worked in an administration (Clinton) that was clearly anti-2A. She clerked for a SC Justice that was no friend of the 2A. She previously made anti-2A comments while working for that Justice.

Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was "not sympathetic" toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.

Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man's appeal.

The man's "sole contention is that the District of Columbia's firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,'" Kagan wrote. "I'm not sympathetic."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...amendment.html

Now its your turn. Please give me any reason to believe she is a supporter of the 2A based on either her legal history or her personal background.

[ILman]

Ok, so if I'm understanding you:

1) Her schools, location of birth, and religion make her unlikely to support the Second Amendment? Honestly, that's laughable.

2) She worked for people who are not particularly gun-friendly. So what? So have I. Not everyone makes EVERY decision of their life based on other peoples' 2A views. As a lawyer, I can tell you that if I got an offer to clerk for a Supreme Court justice, ANY Supreme Court justice, I'd be on that faster than the speed of light. Same for working for the President. Some things you just do not turn down.

3) There's little context behind your snippet from '87. Why wasn't she impressed? Additionally, she was probably informing the judge of his own views on that. Clerks don't often change judges' minds wholesale about how they view certain issues. You tell a judge what THEY think about it based on their past jurisprudence. This is at least equally plausible to me, as some innate, mysterious hatred of the word "gun."

I'm not saying she will be pro or anti. I'm saying I believe she will be open-minded, and fair. All I'm saying is that she is not a known enemy. But again, you seem pretty set in your beliefs, so by all means keep beating the war drums.

[HT77]

Originally Posted by ILman

Ok, so if I'm understanding you:

1) Her schools, location of birth, and religion make her unlikely to support the Second Amendment? Honestly, that's laughable.

2) She worked for people who are not particularly gun-friendly. So what? So have I. Not everyone makes EVERY decision of their life based on other peoples' 2A views. As a lawyer, I can tell you that if I got an offer to clerk for a Supreme Court justice, ANY Supreme Court justice, I'd be on that faster than the speed of light. Same for working for the President. Some things you just do not turn down.

3) There's little context behind your snippet from '87. Why wasn't she impressed? Additionally, she was probably informing the judge of his own views on that. Clerks don't often change judges' minds wholesale about how they view certain issues. You tell a judge what THEY think about it based on their past jurisprudence. This is at least equally plausible to me, as some innate, mysterious hatred of the word "gun."

I'm not saying she will be pro or anti. I'm saying I believe she will be open-minded, and fair. All I'm saying is that she is not a known enemy. But again, you seem pretty set in your beliefs, so by all means keep beating the war drums.

In other words, even though I have supplied information that proves that she worked for administrations and judges that were proven to be anti-2A (Not by coincidence. She was CHOSEN by them based on having comparable legal views as those people), you completely dismiss that information. And you have ZERO in terms of supplying reasons to think she might some day see the light and vote on behalf of the 2A. You actually believe that someone with a thorough hard core left wing record is going to be "open minded and fair" regarding 2A issues?