Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 67

Thread: President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post


    “There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’”

    Solicitor general confirmation hearing, 2009



  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    I couldn't find much on her position on the 2nd ammendment, however I did find something close to what you posted. Yet I can only hope that she sticks to her word, and wasn't changed by her time in the Obama administration.





    From March 09: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20283.html

    "Regarding gun laws, Kagan says she has “no reason to believe that the court’s analysis was faulty” in the 2008 Supreme Court case striking down the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control laws. And she added that her office would likely “continue to defend” against constitutional challenges on various federal regulations concerning firearms."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    BJA wrote:
    I couldn't find much on her position on the 2nd ammendment, however I did find something close to what you posted. Yet I can only hope that she sticks to her word, and wasn't changed by her time in the Obama administration.





    From March 09: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20283.html

    "Regarding gun laws, Kagan says she has “no reason to believe that the court’s analysis was faulty” in the 2008 Supreme Court case striking down the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control laws. And she added that her office would likely “continue to defend” against constitutional challenges on various federal regulations concerning firearms."
    I can respect that... as it's her office's job to do such things.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Doesn't that mean she would defend D.C.'s and other federalgun regulations? Against those who claim it unconstitutional? Or am I looking at that wrong.


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Doesn't that mean she would defend D.C.'s and other federalgun regulations? Against those who claim it unconstitutional? Or am I looking at that wrong.

    As Solicitor General, of course. As Darthmord said, "It's her job.". Whenever a plaintiff sues the US Gov't because they believe a (federal)law is unconstitutional, it's the Solicitor General's job to defend the government (and its law). Doesn't matter what her personal beliefs are. As a lawyer, her 1st duty is to her client.

    As a justice, however, it'sa very different issue, because she'll be rendering opinions.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Solicitor General has no discretion? I am not doubting you guys just am tired of public servants who defend the gov. against the public with the publics money.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Solicitor General has no discretion? I am not doubting you guys just am tired of public servants who defend the gov. against the public with the publics money.
    Discretion to choose not to take the case, no, but plenty of discretion as to how to proceed. The postion takenor arguments made don't say much about the individual's personal beliefs, but the degree of diligence and tenacity speak volumes about their integrity.

    Public servants (Solicitors General, Attys General, etc) don't defend the gov't against the public with the public's money, they defend the gov't (mostly) against private parties with the public's money (e.g. Heller v DC). It's true that the plaintiff can be a government entity (e.g. a state), but generallynot another federal entity.

    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  8. #8
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Solicitor General has no discretion? I am not doubting you guys just am tired of public servants who defend the gov. against the public with the publics money.
    Discretion to choose not to take the case, no, but plenty of discretion as to how to proceed. The postion takenor arguments made don't say much about the individual's personal beliefs, but the degree of diligence and tenacity speak volumes about their integrity.

    Public servants (Solicitors General, Attys General, etc) don't defend the gov't against the public with the public's money, they defend the gov't (mostly) against private parties with the public's money (e.g. Heller v DC). It's true that the plaintiff can be a government entity (e.g. a state), but generallynot another federal entity.

    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    The simple fact is that this woman has virtually no record on guns. Hot air provided in a confirmation hearing is worse than useless, it reveals nothing of the true bias of the candidate but it gives those who would support her on ideological or partisan lines something flashy to point at.

    The only information that matters, previous actions of record where those actions really count for something, is non-existent here.

    TFred


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    BJA wrote:
    I couldn't find much on her position on the 2nd ammendment, however I did find something close to what you posted. Yet I can only hope that she sticks to her word, and wasn't changed by her time in the Obama administration.





    From March 09: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20283.html

    "Regarding gun laws, Kagan says she has “no reason to believe that the court’s analysis was faulty” in the 2008 Supreme Court case striking down the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control laws. And she added that her office would likely “continue to defend” against constitutional challenges on various federal regulations concerning firearms."

    You mean you hope she does not allow guns in more national areas like parks or what negative measure has the current POTUS taken to limit 2A rights?

    I suppose if you just make stuff up some people will believe it...

    V/R






  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    PointofView wrote:
    You mean you hope she does not allow guns in more national areas like parks or what negative measure has the current POTUS taken to limit 2A rights?

    I suppose if you just make stuff up some people will believe it...

    V/R
    If you think that the President signing a very high profile Credit Card Reform bill, in spite of its added, unrelated, and almost unknown provision for National Park Carry is a significant indicator, then you are either living in fantasy-land, or you are a part of the problem.

    With all due respect.

    TFred

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    PointofView wrote:
    You mean you hope she does not allow guns in more national areas like parks or what negative measure has the current POTUS taken to limit 2A rights?

    I suppose if you just make stuff up some people will believe it...

    V/R
    If you think that the President signing a very high profile Credit Card Reform bill, in spite of its added, unrelated, and almost unknown provision for National Park Carry is a significant indicator, then you are either living in fantasy-land, or you are a part of the problem.

    With all due respect.

    TFred
    So... what negative action has been taken as President? Sore losers make up alllllll this speculative junk about the current administration being anti when in fact the previous guy who had support of the NRA was the one who did the damage.

    V/R


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783

    Post imported post

    Mmm, speaking of the "kool aid" This president we have now has been on the wrong side of the Constutution ever since he changed his name from Barry. It doesnt take a genius to see that, just look at his voting record. What specifically has our previouse pres. doen to hurt the 2a? I tell you one thing, he didnt bow to anybody including the UN. So you see, I have used the ole noodle.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    wethepeople wrote:
    Mmm, speaking of the "kool aid" This president we have now has been on the wrong side of the Constutution ever since he changed his name from Barry. It doesnt take a genius to see that, just look at his voting record. What specifically has our previouse pres. doen to hurt the 2a? I tell you one thing, he didnt bow to anybody including the UN. So you see, I have used the ole noodle.
    Simply due to his interpretation being different on some issues, that is ultimately up to the supreme court to decide he has done nothing wrong.

    Also being that I go and fight wars and miss much of my children's youth due to war, being out on our own and alienating the UN and its forces sure does not sit well with me. I will take any support we can get from other countries and gladly serve next to those individuals in the field.

    And the previous POTUS used the Constitution for toilet paper (see The Patriot Act), ran the most secretive white house in history and alienated all of our allies. How are those good things?

    The UN is sooooo far from perfect but politics is give and take and in order to get things you often have to give things.

    I disagree about you using your noodle, but you avoided the intent of my first post about alienating people who are like minded in regards to 2a.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    I think she's a nice looking lady. Not a real looker, but she'll do okay up there. She seems calm and collected; very balanced- that's what I like to see. She speaks well enough. What troubles me is the completely lack of judicial experience. This hasn't happened in a very long time; 50 years or so. The rest of the justices have been appointed with previous judicial experience. Talk about on the job training.. She's been in the judge's chambers. She's done the meet and greet. She's a lawyer- and knows how to work the system and the judge- to win a case.

    I say she will have trouble being unbiased. I think this will be in internal struggle and not anything we see on the outside. She will find it hard to distinguish the difference between having an opinion and interpreting law. Her job, of course, is the latter by definition.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    I think she's a nice looking lady. Not a real looker, but she'll do okay up there. She seems calm and collected; very balanced- that's what I like to see. She speaks well enough. What troubles me is the completely lack of judicial experience. This hasn't happened in a very long time; 50 years or so. The rest of the justices have been appointed with previous judicial experience. Talk about on the job training.. She's been in the judge's chambers. She's done the meet and greet. She's a lawyer- and knows how to work the system and the judge- to win a case.

    I say she will have trouble being unbiased. I think this will be in internal struggle and not anything we see on the outside. She will find it hard to distinguish the difference between having an opinion and interpreting law. Her job, of course, is the latter by definition.
    She was a judicial clerk for a couple of years, including a Supreme Court clerkship.

    As a former clerk myself, I think you learn the difference between personal opinions and interpreting the law pretty quick in that kind of athmosphere.

  17. #17
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    cscitney87 wrote:
    I think she's a nice looking lady. Not a real looker, but she'll do okay up there. She seems calm and collected; very balanced- that's what I like to see. She speaks well enough. What troubles me is the completely lack of judicial experience. This hasn't happened in a very long time; 50 years or so. The rest of the justices have been appointed with previous judicial experience. Talk about on the job training.. She's been in the judge's chambers. She's done the meet and greet. She's a lawyer- and knows how to work the system and the judge- to win a case.

    I say she will have trouble being unbiased. I think this will be in internal struggle and not anything we see on the outside. She will find it hard to distinguish the difference between having an opinion and interpreting law. Her job, of course, is the latter by definition.
    She was a judicial clerk for a couple of years, including a Supreme Court clerkship.

    As a former clerk myself, I think you learn the difference between personal opinions and interpreting the law pretty quick in that kind of athmosphere.
    The fact that we have so many 5-4 decisions, split along ideological lines would seem to indicate quite the opposite. It should be as you say, but I don't think it's been that way for quite some time.

    Although... they probably do know the difference, but it would seem that once they reach that ivory tower, some choose to ignore it.

    TFred

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    The real deal for all the non history types is that Reinquist appointed by Nixon had 0 years experience as a Judge. He later was appointed Chief Justice by Reagan.

    Between 1780-1850 25% of all supreme court appointees had no judicial experience.

    Between 1851-1880 50% of all supreme court appointees had no judicial experience.

    Between 1881-1952 45% of all supreme court appointees had no judicial experience.

    Btween 1953-2009 25% of all supreme court appointees had no judicial experience.

    I imagine this will be the main talking point for the opposition, which in this case is republicans (its only natural) but it is honestly the least important item I can see.

    How they formulate decisions is the most important. I actually think understanding how a justice will rule based on the circumstances by understanding their thought process. This could be obtained by talking to her students or looking at her work as an attorney.

    V/R

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    According to the most recent article at "The Slate", the difficulty with Kagan is that NOBODY seems to know what she really believes or where she really stands on major issues. Even her study partner from law school, the vile leftist and NWO operative Jeffery Toobin (who is also a classmate of Anderson Cooper), says he has no idea what she really believes...

    http://www.slate.com/id/2253496/?GT1=38001

    It is my opinion that these days, in the bureaucratci ruling class, this situation is actually becoming the rule rather than the exception. And the reason behind that isn't because these folks are "fence sitters", or because they don't have a paper trail, or because they are weasel-speak double talkers.

    It is, in fact, because people like Kagen don't actually believe in anything other than furthering their own lot in life.

    The "Baloney Bureaucracy" that we currently have is full of people who change parties for political expediency (Ronald Reagan, Arlen Specter, Jay Rockefeller, etc. etc., etc...) flipflop on major topics for political expediency (Arnod Swartzenegger, George Bush, etc.) or just flat out ignore the will of the people and do whatever they want, even if it's blatantly illegal according to the Law of the Land (Gov. O'Malley of MD, most of congres with regards to the Bank Bailout, etc).

    See a common thread here folks?
    Political Expediency. Preserving their own seats. Covering their own butts.
    See a common MISSING component in the motivation of these folks?
    Upholding their Oaths of Office and representing the will of their constituency.
    These amoral creatures DON'T BELIEVE in ANYTHING except their own furtherance. They DON'T have their own agendas. They have NO loyalty to anything except their own bank accounts and their own power.

    We have, my good people, allowed an entire class of elitist Neo-Nobility SOCIOPATHS to take control of our once-great Republic.

    We don't need tar and feathers, folks--we need to start bringing straight jackets to Washington, and the interior walls of the Capital shouldn't be of marble and oak, but rather, covered in padding...

    The inmates are, in fact, now running the asylum...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    Her own words show that Elana Kagen is NOT qualified to sit on the United States Supreme Court. Anyone who refers to our Constitutional Representative Republic as a Constitutional Democracy does not have the historical background or knowledge necessary to sit on the nations highest court.

    http://www.fox13now.com/videobeta/5a...-by-nomination

  21. #21
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    [...]

    It is, in fact, because people like Kagen don't actually believe in anything other than furthering their own lot in life.

    [...]
    However, in the case of Supreme Court Justices, this really shouldn't be a factor. There are few, if any, jobs that are more clearly the "top of the tower" than a justice on the SCOTUS. They are appointed for life, or until they get tired of it. They are accountable to no-one, so there is no need to act in the interests of anyone else.

    The only place left for her to go after a successful confirmation would be a move up to Chief Justice. I suppose at her young age, that could be a legitimate career goal, but I don't see much difference there myself.

    I suspect this is why we see occasional ideological swings among these justices, after a few years, they do finally figure out that they can make these decisions based on what they actually think is right, rather than what someone else wants them to do, which has probably driven them for most of their professional careers.

    TFred

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    They are appointed for life, or until they get tired of it.
    This is one of the places where "tradition" has stripped our Constitution of its meaning and power. Article III Section 1 clearly states that: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,...". Unfortunately, Congress has failed their responsibility to hold the judges to their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase, has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

    In 1957, the Georgia General Assembly passed a joint resolution calling for "The Impeachment of Certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices" believed to be enabling Communism with their decisions. The resolution targeted Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom Campbell Clark, Felix Frankfurter, and Stanley Forman Reed (as well as several unnamed deceased Justices) for "...[usurping] the congressional power to make law in violation of Article I, Sections I and 8, and violated Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment and nullified the 10th Amendment of the Constitution."

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post


  24. #24
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    This woman is a riddle. All I know for sure is that she looks like the product of a union between Buddy Hackett and Ellen DeGeneris.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    “There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’”

    Solicitor general confirmation hearing, 2009

    This quote tells me all I need to know about her. She says we have the right to carry in case of confrontation meaning if there is no probablility of confrontation then you don't need to carry. This is very much like those that claim they are pro-2A because thye hunt and are a member of the NRA. What is her definition of "in case of confrontation"? This is about one of the weakest statements in support of 2A I have heard.I suppose it could have been worse but sounds more like eyewash than anything else.

    Her refusal to allow the military on the Harvard campus is definitely a black mark as far as I am concerned. These are just some of the minor problems I have with her appointment but I doubt that there is anything that can be done now.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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