Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    I think this woman will be bad for the RKBA. In her heart I don't think she supports the right and seems to like the tactic of denying hearings to prevent cases from being heard if she thinks the decision might not go they way she likes.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aPI35t8uR6Gs

    Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument By Greg Stohr and Kristin Jensen
    May 13 (Bloomberg) -- Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.

    Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal.

    The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

    Kagan, currently the U.S. solicitor general, has made few public remarks about the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled, in a case that overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, that the Constitution protects individual gun rights.

    As a nominee to be solicitor general last year, Kagan told lawmakers that she accepted that 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent of the court.
    “There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” she said.

    Review Denied

    The Heller decision left room for states to require registration of weapons. The majority also said the ruling didn’t cast doubt on laws barring handgun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill, or restrictions on bringing guns into schools or government buildings.

    The lower court ruling in the 1987 case, issued by the District of Columbia’s highest court, said the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to raise militias, and not individual gun rights. The ruling upheld Lee Sandidge’s conviction for carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.

    The high court refused to hear the case, known as Sandidge v. United States. The memo to Marshall, found in his papers at the Library of Congress, includes a handwritten “D,” indicating that he was among those who voted to deny review.
    White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the position taken in the memo to Marshall reflected the prevailing view of the law at the time.

    Reflecting Marshall

    During her confirmation hearing to be solicitor general, the federal government’s top Supreme Court advocate, Kagan said she was trying to reflect Marshall’s views when she evaluated so-called petitions for certiorari, or cert petitions. She called herself a “27-year-old pipsqueak” working for a “90- year-old giant in the law.”

    “He was asking us, in the context in those cert petitions, to channel him and to think about what cases he would want the court to decide,” Kagan said. “And in that context, I think all of us were right to say, ‘Here are the cases which the court is likely to do good things with from your perspective, and here are the ones where they’re not.’”

    Marshall was a civil rights icon before becoming the first black justice. He led the legal fight to dismantle the “separate but equal” regime in public education, arguing the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case.

    As a justice, he opposed the death penalty and backed abortion rights and affirmative action. Kagan, now 50, clerked for Marshall during the court’s 1987-88 term and has described him as one of her heroes.

    Clues to Kagan

    The memos provide clues to Kagan’s potential approach as a justice. Much like Marshall, Kagan might find herself playing defense, at least in her first few years, working strategically to thwart the agenda of a more conservative majority.
    Kagan on numerous occasions urged the justice to vote for so-called defensive denials, rejecting appeals from criminal suspects and defendants to prevent his more conservative colleagues from giving more power to police and prosecutors.

    She urged rejection of an appeal from an Illinois man whose burglary conviction hinged on evidence discovered when he was stopped, ordered to lie down and searched by police. The search took place even though police lacked the “probable cause” required to make an arrest, Kagan said.

    Kagan said she thought the court, if it heard the case, would uphold the conviction. That “would be an awful and perhaps quite consequential holding,” she wrote.
    In recent years, Chief Justice John Roberts and four colleagues have joined forces in 5-4 decisions to strike down campaign finance regulations and limit shareholder lawsuits, as well as to protect gun owners’ rights.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    I'm not surprised.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    I don't see that she'll be any worse than anyone else he might have nominated, and better than some.

    She won't change the balance of the court.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    I don't see that she'll be any worse than anyone else he might have nominated, and better than some.

    She won't change the balance of the court.
    I tend to agree, she will not change the balance of the court. Obama is not going to nominate a conservative or strict constitutionalist. Kagan is perhaps to the right of Stevens.

    When Kennedy retires then there will be a big fight as he tends to be the 'swing' vote.
    Live Free or Die!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Tess wrote:
    I don't see that she'll be any worse than anyone else he might have nominated, and better than some.

    She won't change the balance of the court.
    I tend to agree, she will not change the balance of the court. Obama is not going to nominate a conservative or strict constitutionalist. Kagan is perhaps to the right of Stevens.

    When Kennedy retires then there will be a big fight as he tends to be the 'swing' vote.
    Hopefully, Kennedy wont retire while the Obamination's in office.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    I don't see that she'll be any worse than anyone else he might have nominated, and better than some.

    She won't change the balance of the court.
    I agree but lets not pretend she is some sort of neutral vote on gun rights like some want to pretend

    ETA: I'm more concerned about her denying the hearing of cases that may further our cause.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    Tess wrote:
    I don't see that she'll be any worse than anyone else he might have nominated, and better than some.

    She won't change the balance of the court.
    I agree but lets not pretend she is some sort of neutral vote on gun rights like some want to pretend

    ETA: I'm more concerned about her denying the hearing of cases that may further our cause.
    The Justices use a rule of four (4) when deciding to hear a case.
    Live Free or Die!

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    I don't see that she'll be any worse than anyone else he might have nominated, and better than some.

    She won't change the balance of the court.
    From this article it seems Kagan had her hand in on drafting at least 2 Clinton administration gun policies. I'm not sure who could be worse than her. See pages 2 and 3.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/11/nation/la-na-kagan-profile-20100511/2

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may...ile-20100511/3

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    Tess wrote:
    I don't see that she'll be any worse than anyone else he might have nominated, and better than some.

    She won't change the balance of the court.
    From this article it seems Kagan had her hand in on drafting at least 2 Clinton administration gun policies. I'm not sure who could be worse than her. See pages 2 and 3.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may...file-20100511/
    Link is bad.
    Live Free or Die!

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    My bad, they should be fixed now.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    Is anyone surprised about this lop's record? She's won the approval of Hussein Obunghole, which means that she's a anti-Constitution leftist. No other type would meet his approval.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I've come across one media report that either he taught her or she taught him in college. Can't remember which. He being Obama.

    Anybody else come across such a report?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I've come across one media report that either he taught her or she taught him in college. Can't remember which. He being Obama.

    Anybody else come across such a report?
    IIRC the, along with Michelle, were all taught by somebody-or-other of a fairly decided leftist bent.

    In any case she would not be nominated unless her general philosophy were in accord with that of the Prez. While he has not yes *cross fingers, knock on wood, spit 3 times, etc.* done anything overt with regards to 2A there is no question as to where the Prez and his cohort of Cabinet members and personal/political advisors stand on the matter.

    It's a lifetime appointment. For some folks that means their lifetime, which could be significantly shorter with her on the bench. I'm more concerned about her known propensity to recommend denying cases for cert based on a fear the Court may swing towards the conservative side if given the chance. tHat may leave a lot of bad law out there that will come to bite us over and over again.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Exactly, assuming McDonald v. Chicago breaks our way, we have a generations worth of work of pro-RKBA cases to bring to the courts. Defensive denials could be costly to our cause.

Posting Permissions

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