• 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.

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

Jack House

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...reme-court-gun-rulings-binding-precedent.html
Desert News said:
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."
Click to expand...
Did I say Elana Sotomayor? I meant Elana Kagan, my bad. :rolleyes:
 
Mas49.56

Mas49.56

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
308
Location
Florida, USA
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.
 
T

Toymaker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
175
Location
Washington, DC USA
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.com/2009/07/sonia-sotomary-explicitly-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:
Dreamer

Dreamer

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

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
Toymaker said:
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.com/2009/07/sonia-sotomary-explicitly-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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cavalryman

Cavalryman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
296
Location
Anchorage, Alaska
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.
 
opusd2

opusd2

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
453
Location
Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
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...'
 
Huck

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA
Cavalryman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Huck said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CrossFire

CrossFire

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
407
Location
Irving, Texas, USA
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top