• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
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

:cool:
 

BJA

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
503
Location
SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
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."
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

PointofView

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
118
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
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
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

PointofView

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
118
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
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
 

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
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.
 

PointofView

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
118
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
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.
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
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.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

PointofView

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
118
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
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
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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...
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
Top