Fight Elena Kagan nomination at SCOTUS

Fight Elena Kagan nomination at SCOTUS

This is a discussion on Fight Elena Kagan nomination at SCOTUS within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; We don't need another Sotomayor; I cannot believe a Supreme Court judge could be that disingenuous !!! Senate Hearings Begin on Radical Anti-gun Pick for ...

Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Fight Elena Kagan nomination at SCOTUS

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array jfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Palm Beach County, FL
    Posts
    1,485

    Fight Elena Kagan nomination at SCOTUS

    We don't need another Sotomayor; I cannot believe a Supreme Court judge could be that disingenuous !!!

    Senate Hearings Begin on Radical Anti-gun Pick for Supreme Court
    -- Will yesterday's Chicago ruling hurt Kagan's chances?

    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
    Gun Owners of America

    Tuesday, June 29, 2010

    The hearings on Elena Kagan -- President Obama's radical pick to join the U.S. Supreme Court -- began yesterday.

    This is a VERY IMPORTANT battle that gun owners must fight, as evidenced by the slim victory in the McDonald v. Chicago case that was handed down by the high Court yesterday.

    Kagan doesn't have a record of judicial opinions, but her views on the Second Amendment are no mystery:

    * Kagan drafted a directive in favor of a semi-automatic import ban while serving in the Clinton administration;

    * As a law clerk, she advised against allowing the Supreme Court to hear arguments in Sandidge v. United States that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional;

    * Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows; and

    * Just today, Kagan gave a hint to her true colors. When asked a simple question by Senator Grassley of Iowa -- does the Second Amendment codify a pre-existing right from God or is it a right created by the Constitution? -- Kagan looked like a deer caught in the headlights. After an awkward pause, she said: "I've never considered that question."

    Yikes... the Supreme Court is no place for on-the-job training!

    While two key Republican senators (Kyl and McConnell) had previously indicated that there would not be a filibuster of her nomination, Sen. McConnell seemed to open the door yesterday for such an action.

    That's why all Senators (especially the Republicans!) need to hear from you during this confirmation battle.

    Note: Bill Olson, the Gun Owners Foundation attorney who spearheaded our amicus brief before the Court in the Chicago case, is scheduled to testify before the Judiciary Committee in opposition to Elena Kagan later this week.

    By the way, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation last year should now shed some important light on the Kagan hearings. McDonald v. Chicago is the first Second Amendment case that Sotomayor has dealt with as a Supreme Court Justice.

    It's no surprise that she joined the anti-gun dissenters, but it highlights what a sham the judicial hearings are -- and how Senators should put no stock in a nominee's responses.

    On July 14 of last year, Sotomayor was asked by Sen. Pat Leahy during the confirmation hearings:

    "Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's Decision [in Heller] as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?"

    Sotomayor responded: "Yes, Sir." In other words, she affirmed with her response that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental, individual right.

    But then contrast this to the Chicago case where Sotomayor joined the dissent in stating:

    "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."

    Most people would say she lied to Senator Leahy and said whatever she needed to say to get confirmed... which is why Senators need to HEAVILY LOOK at Kagan's record, not only in what she might say during these hearings.

    ACTION: Please... please... please... contact your Senators and urge them to oppose Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court.

    You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Senators.

    ----- Pre-written letter -----

    Dear Senator:

    I urge you to oppose and FILIBUSTER Elena Kagan's nomination! Not based on what she says during these hearings, but based on what she has already done. Kagan may not have a record of judicial opinions, but her anti-gun views are no mystery:

    * Kagan helped draft a directive in favor of a semi-automatic import ban while serving in the Clinton administration;

    * As a law clerk, she advised against allowing the Supreme Court to hear arguments in Sandidge v. United States that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional; and

    * Kagan was also part of the Clinton team that pushed the firearms industry to include gun locks with all gun purchases and was in the Clinton administration when the president pushed legislation that would close down gun shows.

    This is what she has done. What she might say to earn Senate approval is almost completely irrelevant. Consider that on July 14 of last year, Sonia Sotomayor was asked by Sen. Pat Leahy during the confirmation hearings: "Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's decision [in Heller] as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?"

    Sotomayor responded: "Yes, Sir." In other words, she affirmed with her response that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental, individual right. But in the Chicago ruling from June 28, Sotomayor joined the dissent in stating:

    "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."

    Most people would say she lied to Senator Leahy and said whatever she needed to say to get confirmed... which is why Senators need to LOOK CLOSELY at Kagan's record, not what she might blabber during these hearings.

    Please oppose the Kagan nomination.

    Sincerely,
    The first rule of a gunfight: "Don't be there !"
    The second rule: "Bring enough gun"

    jfl
    (NRA Life Member/Instructor - GOA - IDPA - GSSF - ex-IHMSA)


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Guns and more's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Fl
    Posts
    2,391
    Give up. Democrats don't care about her qualifications, and republicans don't have the stones to put up a fight.
    See how important the Presidential election is?

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    Im not going to waste my time writing a letter. Ive spent enough time already indicating that by typing this here.

    They dont care PERIOD.

    We have to suck up the appointment. Lindsey Grahm and other republtraitors are going to vote her in as well as every demotraitor.

    We have to take what we are given by force and remove them by force at the polls. A letter is wasted on this if you send one.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post
    Im not going to waste my time writing a letter. Ive spent enough time already indicating that by typing this here.

    They dont care PERIOD.

    We have to suck up the appointment. Lindsey Grahm and other republtraitors are going to vote her in as well as every demotraitor.

    We have to take what we are given by force and remove them by force at the polls. A letter is wasted on this if you send one.
    Absolutely, Let the revolution begin at the polls. Washington needs a good double flushing. Let the sanitizing begin.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    The answer to the senators question is easy as pie, and the answer is part & parcel to the amendment itself.

    All one needs to be able to answer the question _correctly_ is to actually know the verbatim language of the amendment.
    Even if they for some odd reason at her station in life had no other knowledge or historical understanding of it's use & application.

    "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"

    The wording speaks to the 'Right' as though being inherent, shall not be infringed.
    The answer is simple and plain.

    Same is stated among the first as toward speech, assembly and petition of government...

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    The amendments do not enstate said rights, but rather it recognizes said rights as in a manner of being inherent with statement that these rights (as inherent) shall not infringe (2A) nor prohibit or abridge (1A) said rights.

    Inherent by definition means:
    Involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit.
    Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/inherent

    Even if she were not a person to believe in God or any belief system, she still being a person of her life experience and career position should have very easily understood the core meaning of the senators question; Is the 2A a right that is by nature inherent or is a right created by the Constitutional amendment itself (such as the entirety of all the other amendments from the third forward).

    I am not an attorney nor even was a law major, but even I know this.

    It is sad rather than stunning that a person being interviewed toward nomination to become a US Supreme Court justice does not simply know this, muchless have mental capacity to on the fly in real time figure this out requiring no additional reference materials or research support.

    A simple this or that question, to which the correct answer is clear and obvious as the nose on her on face.

    Sad...And disturbing.
    She is supposedly of and among our countrys best & brightest.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  6. #6
    Distinguished Member Array jfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Palm Beach County, FL
    Posts
    1,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Guns and more View Post
    Give up. Democrats don't care about her qualifications, and republicans don't have the stones to put up a fight.
    See how important the Presidential election is?
    "Give up" I don't do that !!!

    "See how important the Presidential election is ?" I agree 100%
    The first rule of a gunfight: "Don't be there !"
    The second rule: "Bring enough gun"

    jfl
    (NRA Life Member/Instructor - GOA - IDPA - GSSF - ex-IHMSA)

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array boscobeans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    upstate new york
    Posts
    1,179
    Done deal..

    Sad but true.

    bosco

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array SpringerXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    2,015
    The fact that she doesn't understand the difference between an inherent right and a right "given" by the Constitution or any other human-drafted document, is indeed a scary thing. It's par for the course, though; these modern leftists portray the Constitution as a "living document," i.e. subject to change at the whims of whoever happens to be in office at a given time.
    "I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."

    -miklcolt45

  9. #9
    Member Array jughead2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    tenn.
    Posts
    79
    me thinks the congress critters are afraid of the man in charge and will do his bidding with just a little political posturing

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array dripster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    619
    What's sad is that some Republicans went on the record saying they will be voting her in. Freaking traitors!
    One more step and it's on!

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array dripster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    619
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXD View Post
    The fact that she doesn't understand the difference between an inherent right and a right "given" by the Constitution or any other human-drafted document, is indeed a scary thing. It's par for the course, though; these modern leftists portray the Constitution as a "living document," i.e. subject to change at the whims of whoever happens to be in office at a given time.
    Doesn't surprise me from a wo(man) who has never held a seat on any court.
    One more step and it's on!

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198
    Another loser courtesy of Osama.
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

  13. #13
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    I don't usually make a habit of referring to Hollywood movie's but recent politics has put me in mind of a movie that I saw recently where a "stoner" wakes up after a drug induced coma and finds he is in the future and is the smartest man on earth. This seems to be the direction we are heading. What does it say about politico's who have graduated from Harvard and similar elitist universities? They must have really lowered their standards. Is there any questions on exams that test for evidence of common sense?

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array bsnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,258
    This appointment is but one more of a long line of pushing his (their) agenda to take this country down piece by piece. Will the majority of voters come around in this years elections and 2012? Oh how I pray they do. This administration is killing the USA!
    Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. PSALM 144:1

    I CLING to my guns and my Bible.

  15. #15
    Member Array merischino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southern Florida
    Posts
    301

    Playing Poker...

    i haven't been following the appointment news beyond what i've read on this site today. It certainly appears that this appointment is a scary and potentially deadly one for the status of 2a rights in America today.

    That said... this whole issue brings to mind the confirmation hearings for Justice Roberts, where the world surrounding me at the time was filled with persons hating him and hating the appointment and screaming for his removal from consideration. whereas I, knowing nothing about the process or the related news at the time, recall only hearing some of those hearings where obviously antagonistic folk were endlessly harrassing him with carefully worded questions which would corrall him into a career of living by those answers. Hearing that particular portion of the confirmation hearings, I recall internally cheering him when he would, as often as required, reply by simply stating that if he hasn't ruled on it yet, he wasn't going to answer.

    If you were playing a poker game, would you respond to any player (or bystander) who asks, with stakes on the table between you that are real, with the definitive answer of what cards you hold?

    Now, if you are a poker player playing Texas Hold'em, and three cards are on the table and two are in your hands, any bystander and any player knows what's already on the table. But if there are (and there are) 2 cards left unrevealed in your hands, will you give that away simply because someone, however publicly, rudely or nicely, asks you?

    I think that the answer that Roberts gave at that time was meritorious, and potentially applies to this situation. If she has not gone on record as FOR or AGAINST 2a issues (which she has not), doing so right now for the first time during this process will inevitably result in only heartache for her and the US populace down the line, while she (we hope!) attempts to rule justly and in an unbiased manner on the issue however it does, ultimately, cross her court.

    I do not know whether or not the statements made against her based on a non-court career where admittedly she has not voiced FOR the 2a constitutes a legitimate argument for her elimination. Having not read anything further than the actual PR release by the NRA, I am still tempted to believe that she would not be my first choice simply based on my beliefs that the NRA does its due diligence where the 2nd amendment is concerned, and correspondingly that the basically single-paragraph statement of her non-court career indicates that she is no friend to the 2nd amendment.

    All I'm trying to say here is, if some angry person who had decided to pre-hate you asked you a question in such a way as to paint you into a corner for your entire career, how would you respond? If you were a judge and being asked by the US government to serve on the supreme court, where for precisely the entirety of the rest of your life, your ability to make unbiased and appropriately "judgely" decisions on any topic could depend upon how you respond (or do not) to questions of this nature, would you cave in to the pressure and commit yourself too early to a strategy which could ultimately either a) force your hand later when attempting to do the "right" thing or b) force the hands of all the many, many others who are fighting the "good" fight along with you, who are relying on you to represent them *when it's time to stop calling shots and take a stand*. I want my Justices to be the ones making the DECISIONS. Not participating in pre-flight layups and such. If she hasn't publicly committed to any particular issue, to do so now would, in my estimation (and apparently, that of Justice Roberts) a wrong move potentially severely hampering the actual business of meting out Justice in America.

    ---
    And I still don't like her. Cus, I believe the NRA has my best interests at heart.
    And, I still like Justice Roberts. I think he's the real deal.
    People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.
    - Abraham Lincoln

    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    - Winston Churchill

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Elena Kagan at gun range???
    By DaveH in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 25th, 2010, 09:34 PM
  2. Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2010, 04:14 PM
  3. We Are Still A Few Votes Short Of Killing The Kagan Nomination
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 14th, 2010, 08:51 PM
  4. NRA Issues Gag Order to Its Board Members on Anti-Gun Elena Kagan Hearings
    By Sgt Z Squad in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 30th, 2010, 09:53 PM