Elana Kagan will be nominated in the morning to the open SCOTUS seat

[terraformer]

All she has ever said on the 2A is below. Note the part in bold. Note heller did not go that far.

"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]

More:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/where-we-go-from-here/
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/9750-words-on-elena-kagan/

 

[Reptile]

Does this mean that the Elana Kagan believes that the Second Amendment is an individual right?

Sounds like it.

 

[AppleSeeds]

At first glance, it seems like it could be worse. I guess we'll see how the confirmation hearings go.

 

[MACGYVR]

So this is a good thing I guess.
That statement there, would mean that my stupid restrictions violate the constitution since I can't carry in case of confrontation.

But it will still take a case in mass with multiple appeals to make it to the supreme court and then for them to choose to hear it.

I am not holding my breath for anything.

 

[depicts]

She will get hastled by the right for "possibly" being gay. That will become the main objection. Then there is the anti-jew crowd, and then the rest of people like me, who just can't stand her because she taught at Harvard.

But if she goes the right way on the 2d Amendment I can live with the rest... at least until the republic falls.

 

[AntiHippie]

She will get hastled by the right for "possibly" being gay. That will become the main objection. Then there is the anti-jew crowd, and then the rest of people like me, who just can't stand her because she taught at Harvard.

But if she goes the right way on the 2d Amendment I can live with the rest... at least until the republic falls.

I hear ya on the Harvard thing, but I couldn't possibly care less if she's gay and/or Jewish. The broad ideals and Judeo-Christian morals that this country was founded upon didn't seek to care, so nor do I. Now, if she's one of those moonbats that would just as soon piss on those ideals and morals, that's another story altogether.

 

[depicts]

I hear ya on the Harvard thing, but I couldn't possibly care less if she's gay and/or Jewish. The broad ideals and Judeo-Christian morals that this country was founded upon didn't seek to care, so nor do I. Now, if she's one of those moonbats that would just as soon piss on those ideals and morals, that's another story altogether.

Funny you should mention "Judeo-Christian morals", when the fact that her appointment sets up a supreme court made up just like that. A Judeo-Christian panel of Judges. I'm with you though. I don't care about her being gay or Jewish. I'm thrilled to hear she might agree with some of us here on personal possession of firearms. That alone tells me a lot about how she thinks.

 

[Jose]

I'm pretty much a single issue voter and her stance on the Second Amendment is, for me, telling about her stance on other issues affecting my freedom from government.

Her religion and sexuality are immaterial even if they are different than mine.

 

[terraformer]

I'm thrilled to hear she might agree with some of us here on personal possession of firearms. That alone tells me a lot about how she thinks.

I wouldn't go that far yet. One statement, a record does not make.

 

[EddieCoyle]

She looks like Nathan Lane.

 

[Fixxah]

Dude!

 

[JackDaniels]

She will get hastled by the right for "possibly" being gay. That will become the main objection. Then there is the anti-jew crowd, and then the rest of people like me, who just can't stand her because she taught at Harvard.

But if she goes the right way on the 2d Amendment I can live with the rest... at least until the republic falls.

The girl looks like a lesbian and she's a jew. But I am so damned sick of the right giving a flying eff about the sex someone has or the religion someone has. That is why conservatives get screwed come election day. I want to know how she feels about the constitution, not about how she feels about religion and sex, so long as those personal views stay out of her rulings as well.

Its not any of our business to tell someone who they should marry or who's book of lies they should believe in anyhow.

Seriously, if conservatives would break on their anti-gay marriage shit which doesn't make a damn difference in the rest of our lives anyway, they'd win over a lot more voters and make a lot more sense to independant Americans who don't want to vote conservative because they're smart enough to respect the social rights of others.

As a matter of fact, this is a hell of an opportunity for Republicans to gain some support for November by not mentioning the lesbian thing or the jew thing at all. That would be the play to make right here.

 

[Woodstock]

Her statement about the Heller decision was made during her confirmation hearing for the solicitor general's post. She said what she thought she had to say to get confirmed, and even then, got only nine Republican votes. Given her ultra-liberal track record and her Univ. of Chicago and Harvard Law background, I wouldn't necessarily count her a pro-2A vote on the court. She will have a lifetime appointment, and could as easily vote to reverse Heller as uphold it.

 

[sportycliff]

Not giving a flying crap about her personal life, I find it [STRIKE]hard[/STRIKE] impossible to believe that that left winged libtard in the oval office would knowingly nominate a pro 2A justice to the bench. I say "knowingly" only because these folks don't always do their homework properly.

However, her never having made a (legal) decision in that regard would leave me wondering about her true beliefs on the subject.

 

[strangenh]

Univ. of Chicago

Er, though Obama and Sunstein were there, you do realize it's got some of the most conservative law profs in the USA? Epstein, Posner...?

As to Kagan's statement on the 2A: It's just a nod to stare decisis, representing her view on stare decisis, not on the quality or accuracy of the Heller decision. Once on the Court, she could well decide the Court in Heller was wrong or held over-broadly and limit it. Another famously explicit fan of stare decisis was Justice Souter.

 

[Gonzo]

She looks like Nathan Lane.

I was thinking John Ritter is still alive.

 

[FiremanBob]

Looks more like Zero Mostel than like Nathan Lane.

I view that quote about Heller with skepticism. She has always been a genuine moonbat with a very thin record in either academe or the practice of law. Basically, she is an academic who has published only two law review articles, both trivial. it's hard even to get tenure with such a thin record of work. She threw the military out of HLS after DADT. She got her position through a combination of affirmative action and political alliance. She is unqualified and she is leapfrogging dozens of outstanding federal judges who have real expertise on the Constitution. She will seem very mainstream from today through the confirmation vote but if confirmed watch her sprint to the left and become an eager tool of the Obamunists.

And that's the sugar-coated version.

 

[Pilgrim]

looks more like 'Chaz" Bono to me.

 

[M1911]

So, where are all the folks who were sure that Obama was going to nominate Hillary Clinton?

 

[Titan]

Elena Kagan is a commited liberal progressive who has worked her entire career to advocate for leftist causes.

She clerked for Abner Mikva and Thurgood Marshall, both commited liberals.

She has deliberately limited her public comments and has targeted a spot on the Supreme Court since high school.

All she's done in commenting on Heller was to acknowledge the finding of the court. She never promised to abide by it or to refuse to attempt to take off, and run with, the notion of 'reasonable restrictions'.

The only good thing you can say about her is that she may not be any worse than Stevens.

The worst thing possible is that she solidifies a hard core progressive block on the court and begins to exert enormous progressive influence over other justices.

Remember progressives believe the Constitution needs to evolve and adjust to the demands of achieving social and economic justice. Remember too that though she hasn't served as a judge and had to be bound by the law, she has filled purely political positions defending leftist political viewpoints for two Democrat Presidents.

Elena Kagan is a true believer or would never have received the nomination. She is the person every organization on the left has been rooting for.

 

[basscatfrank]

I think she's Superbad!

 

[terraformer]

Elena Kagan is a true believer or would never have received the nomination. She is the person every organization on the left has been rooting for.

But the left is pissed off she was nominated. Look, I don't know what the answer here is, but it is unconscionable that we are looking at a SCOTUS nominee and have no earthly 'fing clue what they hell she believes. WTF isn't wrong with this picture?

 

[cb1]

Does this mean that the Elana Kagan believes that the Second Amendment is an individual right?

Sounds like it.

Not at all. Notice that she says "after Heller". She is merely saying "this is how the court ruled", and not "this is MY opinion on the Second Amendment". Standard political speak. She can respect precedent all she wants, until she has the opportunity to overturn it.

 

[terraformer]

Not at all. Notice that she says "after Heller". She is merely saying "this is how the court ruled", and not "this is MY opinion on the Second Amendment". Standard political speak. She can respect precedent all she wants, until she has the opportunity to overturn it.

Well no, she went well beyond what heller called for in her statement to the judiciary committee. If she was to have sykes (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/in...ry-denial-of-right-to-bear-arms-in-california) in front of her at the SCOTUS, and she voted against it, then she would be violating both the letter and the spirit of her testimony to the judiciary committee.

 

[not new guy]

She looks like Nathan Lane.

...or...

 

[twogunwilly]

Anybody[B BHO picks will be an ultra Libretard

 

[Admin]

DO NOT HOTLINK. Remove space after the dot to find the page.

DU's take on her.

democraticunderground. com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4374699

They don't like Roberts either.

 

[M1911]

I do enjoy reading the lamentations of those women over on DU.

 

[Mike S]

Follow the money here people. Obama/Joyce Foundation to Harvard Law (Kagan), Kagan to Supreme Court. It's no secret that the Joyce Foundation donates hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly to Harvard Law.

Disturbing.

Joyce Foundation, Obama, and Heller v. D.C.
Summary
The Obama campaign now seeks to portray him as a supporter of an
individual rights reading of the Second Amendment. The campaign webpage
proclaims, “Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual
right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.”
In 1998-2001, while Barack Obama sat on the board1 of the $750,000,000
Joyce Foundation, the Foundation formed a plan to use millions to influence the
outcome of a future Second Amendment Supreme Court case. The plan involved
using its assets to buy up legal and historical academia, and even universities and
their foundations.
Joyce Foundation realized (1) a future Second Amendment Supreme Court
case was probable; (2) the Court would consult legal scholarship, i.e. books and
law reviews; (3) that scholarship had overwhelming concluded that the Second
Amendment reflected an individual right, a result Joyce Foundation did not want.
The solution was simple: Joyce would lavish money on cash-starved law
reviews and Universities, provided that they published only results acceptable to
Joyce. In some cases, Joyce pressured the institutions to reject articles, and even to
cancel academic presentations, that were contrary to its desires. Joyce also poured
millions into creating shell organizations to support its views.
What we see today in the briefs in District of Columbia v. Heller, the DC
gun case, is largely the product of that plan. Several amici who filed briefs are
entirely the creation of Joyce’s money, and their briefs rely upon articles that Joyce
paid to have written.
To analogize: suppose that the effectiveness of a prescription drug were at
issue in the Supreme Court, and it was discovered that the drug’s maker had
• Paid the Journal of the American Medical Association to run an issue
with articles praising its product, and rejecting any critical ones;
• Itself paid the authors for their writing;
• Created a Medication Research Center at a University, with the
understanding all its results would favor the donor’s products; and
• Paid millions to fund fake medical consumer groups, which then
would cite all the above results in amicus briefs to the Court.
1 And, according to the Oct. 12, 2007 Boston Globe, in 2000 considered becoming the CEO.

Full story

Remember, On April 11th 2008, Obama addressed a private fundraiser in San Francisco and claims that people in the Midwest cling to guns and God. In 1971, Saul Alinsky’s, in his last book “Rules for Radicals”, postures that people ‘cling to fixed illusionary points that they feel are meaningful- clinging to guns and religion, a false patriotism.’ Once again we see the specter of Karl Marx when he said, in 1842, “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes” and is often referred to as “religion is the opiate of the masses.” Further - “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. In the words of Norman Thomas, Socialist, Pacifist and six time presidential candidate, “The American People will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name ‘Liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist Program until one day America will be a Socialist Nation without knowing what happened.’

 

[terraformer]

Nice theory and all, but is there any proof that O had anything to do with it? Joyce being anti gun is not a revelation. Their moves excluding other voices is, although a violation of academic rules, not surprising. I don't see the connection to the other two though. Being on a board is completely ceremonial in a lot of these orgs. Is Joyce different in this case? Kagan has clearly been grooming herself for federal service. Everything this woman has done has be singularly focused on it. But I am not seeing the grand conspiracy yet. Is one possible? Well, sure, same with Bush's nominations like Roberts. He had a lot of unknowns behind him too.