1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Glimmer of hope with Obama appointed SCJ

8K views 68 replies 19 participants last post by  HT77 
#1 ·
#2 ·
You don't get it. The ruling class never want to ban anything for them selves. They just want to protect the poor, unwashed, unsophisticated, ignorant public from hurting themselves.
 
#3 ·
There are plenty of "Fudds" out there who believe that only classic hunting firearms should be allowed in the hands of the citizen.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting...

But I AM glad that she went.
 
#5 ·
There are plenty of "Fudds" out there who believe that only classic hunting firearms should be allowed in the hands of the citizen.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting...

But I AM glad that she went.
Agreed. With that said, I am not impressed. Reminds me of the posturing Kerry did. Unfortunately too many folks will fall for this.

Regards,
 
#9 ·
Why anybody would deduce that Kagan's joining Scalia on this adventure has anything to do with her vision of the 2nd is beyond me. I wouldn't read anything more into this than it was just a social outing for the Justices. ;)
 
#11 ·
Agreed.

I give kudo's to Scalia but I am highly suspect of any true change as far as Kagan and her already published position on the 2A.
 
#13 ·
In my opinion, the people who think guns are fine for hunting but nothing else are an equal threat (or perhaps a greater threat) to our true gun rights than those who wish to outright repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Dozens and dozens of "pro-hunting" politicians (John Kerry and Harry Reid for example) voted to approve the assault weapons ban and the ban on hi-cap magazines (and would do so again) because they deemed it a "common sense" gun control measure.
 
#17 ·
Rachel Maddow is another good example, she apparently takes her friends down to the range to shoot for fun, including AR-15's shotguns, etc, but doesn't believe people should own them that they're simply toys for entertainment and completely supports banning their ownship

Turns out she was really good with the shotgun and I was really good with the AR-15. And you know, despite my gun politics, I'm perfectly happy with shooting at a gun club and then leaving the weapons there and driving home
Here's a link to the interview
(I had to use the google cache link because the regular NPR site doesn't want to work for me so I can't find the exact page the quote's on, if anyone can get it tell me and replace the link)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ws/Books/148611615+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

I read about another quote from her during an interview where she described the AR-15 and possibly all guns for that matter as being like a roller-coaster, something that is just for fun but you don't own yourself (even though some people do own them, it's mostly just size, complexity, cost and local zoning laws that restrict ownership).
 
#19 ·
Didnt Mitt Romney sign some heinous gun control while he was in office in MA ? now hes a life member of the NRA ?

Even Saint Ron Reagan passed the 1986 FOPA which included the import ban while in office, which made the price of legal machine guns become basically unobtainable even if you live in a free state
 
#25 ·
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.
 
#26 ·
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.
 
#33 ·
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.
 
#41 ·
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.
 
#43 ·
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.
 
#44 ·
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.
 
#45 ·
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.
 
#49 ·
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.
 
#50 ·
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? :biglaugh:
 
#57 ·
There is nothing in Kagan's background to indicate a positive interest in, and support for, firearms owners and the 2A.

Without anything positive and only a vague suggestion that Kagan may be open-minded, this provides as much reassurance as when Neville Chamberlain returned from a meeting with Adolph Hitler and told the British people that his meeting and the related agreement "guaranteed peace for our lifetime".

Yes, it would be great if Kagan proves to be positive toward the 2A ... but there is little such positive evidence. I guess this comes down to how much "hope" does one have; and whether someone prefers "hope" over strong positive evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top