• 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.

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

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
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?pid=20601087&sid=aPI35t8uR6Gs

Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument By Greg Stohr and Kristin Jensen
data
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.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
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.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
 

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA
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.
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
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.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
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/11/nation/la-na-kagan-profile-20100511/3
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
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.
 
Top