Elena Kagan, President Obama's most recent appointee to the United States Supreme Court, is currently testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about her qualifications to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Stevens has certainly been no friend to the gun-rights movement, and his opinions on both the DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago 
cases will attest to that. But with Elena Kagan, there is no judicial track record on which an opinion can be based, and that has pro-gun groups concerned about how she will vote as other gun-related cases are brought before the Court.
Instead, the members of the SJC are left to ask her pointed questions and base their decisions on what she chooses to use as a response. The unfortunate part is like any human being, Ms. Kagan is likely to say whatever she needs to say in order to curry favor and gain the acceptance of the committee, thus pushing forward with a full vote in the Senate.
Wise Senators will look past the responses and do what the majority of the gun-rights groups are doing, and look instead to what Ms. Kagan has stated in the past on the issue of gun rights. Or better yet, they are left to wonder how someone who has never spent a single day on the bench could possibly be qualified to hold a position on the highest court in the United States.
It is patently useless to question Ms. Kagan on how she would handle any particular situation if she were to be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice. While her past writing indicate that she would be no friend of the Second Amendment, she told Senator Feinstein yesterday that the McDonald decision is a binding precedent:
"Senator Feinstein, because the court decided them as they did -- and once the court has decided a case, it is binding precedent," Kagan answered.
The nominee said that unless the circumstances that led to a decision change or some other significant grounds can be found to challenge, "the operating presumption of our legal system is that a judge respects precedent. ... You assume that it's right and that it's valid going forward."
This is in stark contrast to earlier writings where she lumped the NRA into the same category as the KKK during her years of working with the Clinton administration, and was supportive of the 1994 Assault 
Weapons Ban. With the exception of yesterday's comment to Senator Feinstein, Ms. Kagan has been a stalwart supporter of the anti-gun movement.
The unfortunate truth is that makeup of the United States Supreme Court has a great deal to do with how our individual liberties are preserved or destroyed. Based only on her writings and actions of the past, Elena Kagan would be a dangerous addition to the Court that all Iowans would all have to live with until she retired. Senator Harkin is not likely to block her confirmation, but Senator Grassley has been critical of Ms. Kagan, and he would likely vote against her. It is in the best interest of all Iowans who value what liberty we have left to contact both Senators and ask them to block the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Someone who has no judicial track record cannot be adequately judged herself on how she would defend the Constitution of the United States from the bench of the Supreme Court.
| Visit the other Gun Rights Examiners |
|
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Detroit: Rob Reed | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Tucson: Chris Woodard |
Comments
Of course calling Harkin is almost a waste of time. The East Coast money people that he is beholden to want Kagan. So his vote is a lock. When Holder was being confirmed for the AG position I called Grassley, He voted to confirm anyway. I'm sure I wasn't the only one that called.
While I was at the GOP convention this topic actually briefly came up when I was personally talking to Senator Grassley. As long as he doesn't cave, I will hold him to his word that he's not interested in seeing any more progressive liberals making judgment calls from the bench.
Obama openly wrote in his "Strategy for National Security"
ht tp://w ww.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rs s_viewer/national_security_strategy.p df
that we need international law rather than being constrained by our Constitution. Dissolving America and moving USA under an international body, unelected and Marxist in flavor is Obama's mission statement. Kagan has been chosen to assist with this mission.
That our admirals and generals have allowed Bush and Obama to conduct business outside the parameters of our Constitution is outrageous.
Take the bum out and hang him on the fence surrounding the White House. Let's send a message to future presidents that any that would subvert our Bill of Rights will be swiftly dealt with.
I do not see prior service as a sitting judge as being necessary to qualify for a position on the USSC. Look how many judges we have now who have decades of service under their belts who consistently get it wrong. Good sense, knowledge of the law and the constitution and good character are necessary requisites, but prior judicial experience is our least reliable measure.
Kagan is lackin in all four of the former, therefore it matters not that she is also lacking in the latter.
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!