Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan being introduced by President Obama this morning (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
The President has nominated his pick for the Supreme Court to replace Justice Stevens. Elena Kagan is the Solicitor General of the United States, and, if the Senate approves, she will become the next Justice on the United States Supreme Court.
Solicitor General Kagan has never been a judge, so her track record on constitutional issues is almost non-existant.
Therefore, she has no written judicial opinons giving her view on the constitutional right to bear arms, as Justice Sotomayor had when she was picked for the Supreme Court from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Kagan's lack of a written judicial record has liberal activists very concerned, according to reporting from several news outlets.
Solicitor General Kagan has, however, spoken and written on the subject or the right to bear arms. During her confirmation hearings to be Solicitor General, she was asked several times about Heller v. DC, the Supreme Court decision from 2008 in which the Supreme Court struck down DC's gun laws and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. In writing, she responded to a question on the influence of foreign law on interpretation of the Second Amendment by stating that the Justices did not rely on foreign law and:
the grounded historical approach adopted in that case (and even in the dissents) would grant no relevance to arguments from comparative law in defining the scope of the Second Amendment right.
In response to a subsequent question from Senator Chuck Grassley, Elena Kagan had this to say:
. . . there is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like all others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against government regulation.
She also said:
There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
Since she is replacing Justice Stevens, who was a dissent in the Heller opinion, Kagan's appointment may be one more vote on the Court in favor of the right to bear arms. In any event, she might be as close as can be expected from the current administration to a vote in favor of the right to bear arms, given some of the other choices that appeared on the short list, and she may be seated before the McDonald v. Chicago opinion is due this summer. The question in McDonald is on whether the right to bear arms restricts state and local governments in addition to the federal government. Although Kagan does not see the Second Amendment's protections as unlimited, the McDonald case involves only the same sorts of measures that the Court struck down two years ago in the Heller decision. As such, the McDonald decision should be an easy call for her.
Comments
I'm not sure to be happy or afraid. This is like your Mom telling you you look sexy. Weird!
She finds no fault with Heller? That must have taken courage. While Heller, in itself was good, there was so much wiggle room left by the poor opinion from Scalia, that not a lot has changed in DC. We can only hope McDonald will turn out differently.
What is so frightening about Kagen is she has NEVER been a judge, as written very little, so there is not a lot to go on. Kinda sounds like our Anointed One. She actually appears to be a carbon copy of Obama. Her academic credentials however are real while his........
"Kagan's appointment may be one more vote on the Court in favor of the right to bear arms."
To paraphrase Bill Engvall, "Here's your graveyard whistle."
How is this statement at ALL any different from the usual refuge of a gun-grabber: "I support the right to keep and bear arms, subject to all appropriate, common-sense government regulations"?
She can't very well say, "I disagree with established Supreme Court precedent," can she? So she says, "Sure, I agree with Heller (since I can't erase it)." Doesn't say she won't work like hell to limit it into irrelevance once she's seated.
She will not be seated in time to vote on McDonald. She won't be seated until the current term is completed.
I suspect she will bring a fresh view to the courts and she knows her way around court decisions since she has had to live with them all during her career. Does she have an opinion. You bet she does but she is not going to volunteer it until it is all said and done. Obama dropped her in the middle of what might be viewed as the middle of a hostile ocean and said "Swim for it". She has the guts to do it and I suspect she is a supporter of the Bill of Rights and it will come out after she is appointed. she won't get to weigh in on McDonald but she can shape decisions after it in our favor. And not being a judge first she has got a lot to prove to the other eight and they will be gunning for her. She is going to have to be dead on right to win her points either way. For a while I see it being eight to one against her with the bias being her not having a judgeship before being appointed to the highest court in the land. Kind of like taking Normandy single handedly on D-Day.
During the confirmation process before congress she needs to be asked point blank her personal opinion of the second amendment.She further needs to clarify whether or not in her opinion,if the second amendment protects the individual right to bear arms from ANY infringement by government as stated in the constitution.Since the majority of politicians and political appointees couch their answers to specific questions in vague language for future wiggle room she should be limited to yes or no answers to specific questions regarding the second amendment.She should further be questioned on her opinion of the inviolability of the constitution from executive,judicial and legislative action.Kagan also needs to be asked her opinion of judicial activism from the bench,and if she feels that such activity should bar a nominee from confirmation.
Yours In Fraternity For The Republic
Wild Bill
Alaska
During the confirmation process before congress she needs to be asked point blank her personal opinion of the second amendment.She further needs to clarify whether or not in her opinion,if the second amendment protects the individual right to bear arms from ANY infringement by government as stated in the constitution.Since the majority of politicians and political appointees couch their answers to specific questions in vague language for future wiggle room she should be limited to yes or no answers to specific questions regarding the second amendment.She should further be questioned on her opinion of the inviolability of the constitution from executive,judicial and legislative action.Kagan also needs to be asked her opinion of judicial activism from the bench,and if she feels that such activity should bar a nominee from confirmation.
Yours In Fraternity For The Republic
Wild Bill
Alaska
Kagan is just another ugly female liberal on the court. It (she) will not make much difference as long as the Bush appointees can stay alive and on the court.
I am really concerned that someone who has zero experience as a judge can sit on the supreme court. To me, that would detract from the credibility of the court in a serious way.
But then, our president (small "p" was intentional) also has zero experience and his lack of experience is showing in a big way.
So what do we do if a supreme court justice turns out to be a dud?
2ND ADMEND KAGAN
I have no problem with the appointee having no experience as a judge. I firmly believe that the majority of posters here who have read the Constitution and the federalist papers are as able and qualified to interpret the Constitution as any black-robed lawyer. Perhaps more so. And while Kagan may have no qualms about the Heller decision, I still do. "Shall not be infringed". 9 supposed Constitutional scholars redefined the words "shall not be infringed" to include unspecified rules, regulations, requirements, and "reasonable" infingements. The Supreme Court has been declaring unconstitutional "law" as constitutional and binding precedent for decades. It's obvious that black robes don't elevate ones thought processes beyond that of an ordinary American patriot. The question remains, does Kagan support the Constitution or the present government? They are not the same.
Just a couple of issues, well perhaps more than a couple. However, issue 1; in her acceptance speech to the Supreme Court she used this phrase “…. Our constitutional democracy…” It is obvious that this woman doesn’t have a clue as to what form of government the United States has and I wanna toss a few patriotic cookies every time I hear a political official use the term democracy when referring to the United States.
Issue 2 if you’ll reread her 3rd quote (in the article) “There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Please note that she did not say the United States Constitution proclaims that each sovereign citizen has the right to keep and bare arms, but rather she wrote “after Heller the Second Amendment guarantees Americans …”
In translation this means that she still doesn’t feel that the Constitution means what is says, it was only case law that gives soverei
sovereign American citizens the right to keep and bare arms .. in case of confrontation. The words “after Heller” negates the meaning of the Constitution, reread that sentence without the “after Heller” leaves a different image in your mind, doesn’t it? After Heller, the Second Amendment has always meant what it says, a long time before Heller.
Well maybe Obama giving a mouth full of noise to the Supreme court, during the Sate Of the Union, will give them reason to make him choke a little over McDonald. I didn't get past the third grade, but I can still read the Constitution as well as the Federalist Papers and not miss a word of what they mean. There is only one gun law, that counts, and that is the Second Amendment. The people have the right, this goverment will never have the power to change that, "Shall not be infringed" ends the story. Thats' just the way us illiterate folk see things.
I cant believe the president of the GCO is on the verge of supporting a woman who has said she has no simpathy for the second amendment argument. I cant believe he even wrote this article. I expect him to rethink this soon or I will rethink my GCO membership and encorage others to do so.
@MadbadHoward
What article did you read Howard? I didn't see an endorsement of Kagan. I saw reporting of her answers to specific questions followed by the sentiment that those kinds of answers are probably the best we could expect considering the current administration. It sounds like someone either skimmed the article, or was reading into it something that wasn't there.
Dont forget her affiliation with Goldman Sachs! He is placing all his goldman buddies in OUR government, from the treasury to the supreme court...wake up and smell the hostile takeover Mussolini style.
Why would anyone think that she would be a part of the McDonald decision?
She wasn't involved with the arguments at all.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!