Kagan makes it....

[ruger44]

I think the lefties are going to get us with this one.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[tangoseal]

Well there is a point where a supreme court ruling can as well be unconstitutional and can be repealed or revolted.

I pray a revolt never has to happen. But then again last time I checked 'My God" gave me my right to a gun so good luck taking them supremies....

Good luck...

MOLON LABE BABY!!!!

[GlockLobster]

If there's a reality-based IQ test, you just failed it.

Also, it's important to note that per Senate tradition, the President gets his Supreme Court picks. It's a perk of office. Nominees are not subject to popular vote, they do not have to be popular, they are not American Idol contestants. It doesn't matter if you like them or not. The only criteria is that they pass scrutiny for fitness. In very rare cases, like that of Robert Bork or Harriet Miers, the candidate is so grossly unfit that the Senate must block the appointment. In other rare occurrences, an inept and unqualified disaster like Clarence Thomas gets through. Kagan falls squarely in the category of qualified and was a shoo-in for confirmation.

Spot on! It's funny that most fail to mention that there's been more pro gun legislation in the last 2 years compared to zero in all of Bush's 8 years.

[emeraldmx5]

Honestly, I think the anti-2A sentiment is overstated. Obama has enough problems, and he's too smart to touch gun control with a ten foot pole.
Don't get me wrong, the people have to remain vigilant. I just don't think the threat is there right now, but promoting it is a good fund raising tactic.

[Guns and more]

it's important to note that per Senate tradition, the President gets his Supreme Court picks. It's a perk of office.

Really? How's Justice Bork working out? Probably the most qualified legal scholar in recent history.
And Justice Thomas had to go through having his life trampled by fake accusations.

(Anita Hill moved on to a position at the Institute for the Study of Social Change at University of California, Berkeley in January 1997. Where she'd fit right in.)

[tangoseal]

Honestly, I think the anti-2A sentiment is overstated. Obama has enough problems, and he's too smart to touch gun control with a ten foot pole.
Don't get me wrong, the people have to remain vigilant. I just don't think the threat is there right now, but promoting it is a good fund raising tactic.

Im not sure about that ... study Cloward and Pivon (spelling?).

They teach a system of slowly placing ideal candidates to enact a slow poisonous death to the American system of Capitalism and freedom. It is a matter of time to where you look back and you are like wow it didnt happen overnight it took decades and it is happening now.

It is starting to overload as we speak and when it goes critical... oh boy say good bye to the republic or what little bit exist.

[DoctorBob]

If there's a reality-based IQ test, you just failed it.

Also, it's important to note that per Senate tradition, the President gets his Supreme Court picks. It's a perk of office. Nominees are not subject to popular vote, they do not have to be popular, they are not American Idol contestants. It doesn't matter if you like them or not. The only criteria is that they pass scrutiny for fitness. In very rare cases, like that of Robert Bork or Harriet Miers, the candidate is so grossly unfit that the Senate must block the appointment. In other rare occurrences, an inept and unqualified disaster like Clarence Thomas gets through. Kagan falls squarely in the category of qualified and was a shoo-in for confirmation.

I agree. I think we should stop the sanctimonious two-faced espousal of "They just follow the law, not politics..." line and recognize the simple fact that you can absolutely predict with incredible accuracy how Thomas, Scalia, Robert and Alito will vote on any given issue. You have a bit more difficulty with Kennedy.

More importantly, we should be worried about the right wingnuts like Zach Wamp, a Tennessee congressman, considering secession, or GOP candidates in the midwest and southern states who want nullification rights over federal law, or the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada who wants to do away with Social Security and mused over a "Second ammendment solution...", or people who want to abolish the 1st (one candidate in Tennessee - see a trend here?- who thinks the 1st A does not apply to Muslims), 5th, 10th, 14th and 17th amendments.

Dude, you've got problems a lot bigger than Kahgan!

[Guns and more]

The words of the great William F. Buckley Jr. ring in my ears...........

I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

[tangoseal]

The words of the great William F. Buckley Jr. ring in my ears...........

HAHA

Tell me about it!!!

Anyways that is exactly what the founding fathers wanted.

[Sig 210]

Yep, Kagan got confirmed with the help of five of those wonderful con-servatives who constantly tell us how much they love our 2nd Amendment rights.

[OldVet]

Since my US Senator accepted her vague and ambiguous answers to 2A and SD rights questions, I emailed him to let him know I no longer trusted him to protect my rights and would be voting for his opponent next time and would encourage all I knew to do the same.

Chip-chip-chip. The sounds of 2A being chipped away.

[OldVet]

If there's a reality-based IQ test, you just failed it.

Also, it's important to note that per Senate tradition, the President gets his Supreme Court picks. It's a perk of office. Nominees are not subject to popular vote, they do not have to be popular, they are not American Idol contestants. It doesn't matter if you like them or not. The only criteria is that they pass scrutiny for fitness. In very rare cases, like that of Robert Bork or Harriet Miers, the candidate is so grossly unfit that the Senate must block the appointment. In other rare occurrences, an inept and unqualified disaster like Clarence Thomas gets through. Kagan falls squarely in the category of qualified and was a shoo-in for confirmation.

You might want to reconsider your view of Justice Thomas in light of his opinion in McDonald Vs Chicago.