Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: SCOTUS Nominee Elana Kagan calls SCOTUS 2A Ruling "Binding Precendent"

  1. #1
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    SCOTUS Nominee Elana Kagan calls SCOTUS 2A Ruling "Binding Precendent"

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...precedent.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert News
    WASHINGTON One day after the Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun ownership rights, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said Tuesday that she wouldn't vote to overturn the ruling without compelling reasons.

    Speaking at the second day of her confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan said, "Once a court decides a case as it did, it is binding precedent." Pressed later for a more detailed response, Kagan said, "I think that's good precedent going forward."


    On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a sweeping ruling that said state and local gun laws must take the individual right to bear arms into account. The court's ruling followed a 2008 ruling that struck down a strict handgun ban in Washington, D.C.


    Kagan noted that while she had not extensively reviewed the histories of both cases, "I have absolutely no reason to think the court's analysis was incorrect in any way." She added, "I accept the court's analysis and will apply it going forward."
    Did I say Elana Sotomayor? I meant Elana Kagan, my bad.

  2. #2
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...precedent.html

    Did I say Elana Sotomayor? I meant Elana Kagan, my bad.
    That's OK. Two peas from the same pod. Anybody could have made that error.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Mas49.56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    309
    You just ruined my breakfast. Now I'm nauseated. Why not have some SCOTUS Judges NOT from NY city. How many is this? Three? I think the "please help, God bless" transient by the interstate could do a better job of interpreting law.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175

    Kagan/Sotomayor, The contradiction twins

    LEAHY: I've owned firearms since my early teen years. I suspect a large majority of Vermonters do. I enjoy target shooting on a very regular basis at our home in Vermont. So I watched that decision rather carefully and found it interesting.

    Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?

    SOTOMAYOR: Yes, sir.

    LEAHY: Thank you.


    SOTOMAYOR: Like you, I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller."

    http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.c...-supports.html


    HaHa....
    Words mean a lot, especially when you're voting for someone. You're dealing with politicians here, not boy scouts.
    Sotomayor said that she accepted the Heller decision and 'understood it'. She never said that she supported it.

    Oh and also....
    Nowhere in Kagan's statements will she say that she supports the majority decisions in either Heller or McDonald.
    Last edited by Toymaker; 07-05-2010 at 12:10 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...precedent.html

    Did I say Elana Sotomayor? I meant Elana Kagan, my bad.

    "...without compelling reason."

    Hhhmmm, care to wager how broad this one phrase can be interpreted?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    I think to judges like Kagan and Sotomayor, a "compelling reason" would be ANY chance they have to overturn Heller or McDonald. I believe that if they had another case of similar type, the mere chance to overturn these rulings would be enough of a "compelling reason" for them. Since they are compelled by their gun-grabbing background, and they are beholding to Obama for their seats on the court, it's pretty obvious what a "compelling reason" would be for them...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by Toymaker View Post
    LEAHY: I've owned firearms since my early teen years. I suspect a large majority of Vermonters do. I enjoy target shooting on a very regular basis at our home in Vermont. So I watched that decision rather carefully and found it interesting.

    Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?

    SOTOMAYOR: Yes, sir.

    LEAHY: Thank you.


    SOTOMAYOR: Like you, I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller."

    http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.c...-supports.html


    HaHa....
    Words mean a lot, especially when you're voting for someone. You're dealing with politicians here, not boy scouts.
    Sotomayor said that she accepted the Heller decision and 'understood it'. She never said that she supported it.

    Oh and also....
    Nowhere in Kagan's statements will she say that she supports the majority decisions in either Heller or McDonald.
    Here we go with the" I have a family member who is a member of the NRA" Micheal Moore says he a member too. And Chris Mathews has family members who own guns and hunt. WTH!!! The 2nd amendment is NOT a hunting right or just a "I own a gun" Im sure the liberals know exactly what its for.Thats why they try sooo hard to change the meaning.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Cavalryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    308
    There oughta be some sort of penalty for sitting in front of the Senate and lying out your @$$. But of course, as one of the senators said to Kagan, "When you're in, you're in" meaning that if/when she is confirmed, nothing she said in her confirmation hearing is binding.

  9. #9
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453
    Am I the only one who gets a little piss-shiver every time they show or mention her on TV?

    To quote a movie, 'By the pricking of my thumbs, Something Wicked This Way Comes...'

  10. #10
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by Cavalryman View Post
    There oughta be some sort of penalty for sitting in front of the Senate and lying out your @$$. But of course, as one of the senators said to Kagan, "When you're in, you're in" meaning that if/when she is confirmed, nothing she said in her confirmation hearing is binding.
    If there was a penalty for lying in front of the senate, or in it, 99% of the politicos and beaurecrats in DC would be behind bars. And even if there was such a law/rule does anyone believe that those culls would'nt ignore it? Hell, they ignore evrything else that they find to be inconvenient.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck View Post
    If there was a penalty for lying in front of the senate, or in it, 99% of the politicos and beaurecrats in DC would be behind bars. And even if there was such a law/rule does anyone believe that those culls would'nt ignore it? Hell, they ignore evrything else that they find to be inconvenient.
    There is a penalty for lying in front of the Senate. It is called perjury.

    The problem is that the word "lie" is being overused and misused. Broken promises, opinions with which one disagrees, changed opinions, etc. are not lies. In most cases, they are reprehensible, but not lies.

    It is becoming a nasty habit in American politics to call many statements lies that are not. Before I use the "L-word," I use a three-pronged test.

    1. Is the statement provably false as of the time it was made? (Note, opinions and promises can neither be true nor false.)

    2. Does the person making the statement know that it is false?

    3. Is the false statement being made for the personal gain of the person making it?

    I see nothing wrong with criticizing Sotomayor's and Kagan's statements. I have no doubt that both set up situations where their positions on the issues could be spun to make them seem more harmless than they are. However, nothing either has said has been demonstrated as a lie.

    When we misuse and overuse the word "lie," we get a lot of Rah-Rahs from those who think like us. However, if we want to change the hearts and minds of those who do not already agree with us, we ought to be more precise and rational, and less hyperbolic, with our accusations.

  12. #12
    Regular Member CrossFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Irving, Texas, USA
    Posts
    408
    Ask Martha Stewart if there in a penalty for lying to congress. Always remember that the reason people should not steal is that the goverment hates competion and will retaliate.

Posting Permissions

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