As questioning continues today on the nomination of Elena Kagan to replace retired Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court, it might be educational to hold Kagan to the Palin standard (as smarmly explained by Huffington Post contributor Dan Froomkin and NewsBlaze writer Robert Paul Reyes).
That is the level of experience she has (or lacks) to assume the position for which she is nominated, in Kagan's case the lifetime responsibility of serving on the highest court in the nation. How ironic and timely that the high court would hand down its opinion on the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge to the Chicago handgun ban on the very day that Kagan’s confirmation hearings began.
Sarah Palin critics said she lacked experience, having “only” served as a mayor, and then a governor of possibly the richest state in the nation. She operated a small business with husband, Todd. She also served on the Wasilla City Council, and chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, resigning in 2004. She made executive decisions.
You wouldn’t put an unqualified pilot in the cockpit of a jetliner."—Bob Herbert, NY Times
Elena Kagan has served as Dean of Harvard Law School. She was a professor at the University of Washington Law School. She worked in the Clinton White House and was nominated by Bill Clinton to fill a spot on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but no confirmation hearing was ever held. She is now Solicitor General, without ever having served so much as a judge in a traffic court.
By the "Palin standard," Kagan is not qualified. We refer readers to the sage observation of New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, a Palin critic. But watch the liberal media spin on that one. Watch the Democrats practice their double standard of scrutiny, as they are so skilled at doing. They savaged Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, and will probably cry a river of tears if anyone is even slightly tough on Kagan, a woman who once lumped the Ku Klux Klan and National Rifle Association into the same category, as noted by the Washington Examiner.
During her time as a clerk for the Supreme Court, Kagan stated she was “not sympathetic” to a man’s contention that “the’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms.’” A Supreme Court Justice should not only be sympathetic to individuals’ rights secured in the Constitution; they should be the strongest advocate.—Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) District of Columbia
Kagan’s attitudes about gun ownership and the Second Amendment are, at the least, worrisome, not just to this column, but to Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA), who wrote an opinion piece opposing Kagan. As a clerk at the Supreme Court, she was “not sympathetic” with an argument from a District of Columbia resident that the district’s gun laws violated his right to keep and bear arms. My colleague David Codrea also wrote about Kagan's anti-gun leanings here. She may be downright hostile toward the Second Amendment, according to Brian Darling, writing in Human Events.
Anybody want to guess how Kagan would have opined on the Heller case, had she been on the District Court of Appeals? She was not sympathetic to a notion that is now the law of the land, thanks to a Supreme Court on which she was not serving, and upon which she perhaps should not serve…ever.
Similarly, during the
years, Kagan compared the National Rifle Association with the Ku Klux Klan, calling them "bad guy orgs." Justice Clarence Thomas likely can offer Kagan some useful advice on why the right to own firearms is never more critical than when KKKers are planting burning crosses in a black family's front yard.—Washington Examiner Clinton
Cynics will argue that she’s replacing Stevens, one ultra-liberal in exchange for another. For those who have yet to read Stevens’ dissent on McDonald, this column suggests you read it pronto. Then read the opinion from Justice Antonin Scalia that rebuts Stevens. Others are weighing in on McDonald in the New York Times.
There have been two significant Second Amendment rulings by the Supreme Court in two years. Both were 5-4 rulings. A shift of one vote could have changed how those cases were decided.
Her efforts to restrict the importation of some guns, mandate trigger-locks on federal law-enforcement officers’ guns and efforts to close gun shows are three issues that must be raised during Kagan’s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. Expect Kagan to dodge any direct questions on these gun-grabbing activities during the Clinton years, though, and run away from her own ‘Kagan Standard’.” –Brian Darling, Human Events
As this column noted previously, yesterday’s ruling found Obama appointee Sonia Sotomayor on the wrong side for gun rights, and that is a clear signal where Kagan will land on future gun cases. While her anti-gun-rights philosophy will certainly not be enough to disqualify her, Kagan’s consistently ultra-leftist background paints her into a corner as a would-be activist justice.
Digest Breyer’s dissent, in which Sotomayor and Ginsburg joined. Adding Kagan to the mix would put the “liberal” wing of the high court so far out in left field that they would be way beyond the bleachers, out in the parking lot with all of the other foul balls.
Firearms cause well over 60,000 deaths and injuries in the United States each year. Those who live in urban areas, police officers, women, and children, all may be particularly atrisk. And gun regulation may save their lives.—Justice Stephen Breyer
And what of Seattle’s parks gun ban case?
Many people are wondering how the McDonald ruling will affect the on-going case regarding Seattle’s attempt to ban guns in city parks. Think “toast.” SAF, the National Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Washington Arms Collectors joined forces to stop the city cold, and that’s where the issue should stay.
The ban has already been ruled illegal under Washington’s superb model preemption law. Seattle is appealing that ruling, and the smart money will be on the side of the plaintiffs at the appellate level. If the city loses its appeal, the State Supreme Court will likely reject any further appeal, thus letting the ruling stand.
Because SAF/NRA won on state preemption, theparks ban is nullified, no matter what Judge Pechman ruled. Seattle
The other Seattle gun ban case now has some legs, because Judge Marsha Pechman earlier ruled that the ban would be constitutional under both the state and federal constitutions. The McDonald ruling appears to refute that notion, though you can bet the gang at Washington CeaseFire will insist that the ruling leaves the door open to “reasonable local regulation” and in the rusted-shut minds of gun prohibitionists, “reasonable regulation” means ignoring the constitution and banning guns, anyway.
McDonald was the second step in the proverbial “long road back” for gun rights activists to fully restore the much-eroded Second Amendment.
For more info: Second Amendment Foundation. Assasult on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns.
Comments
Too many people thought a favorable decision on McDonald would wipe away all of the gun owners problems. All it did was provide an opportunity for gun owners to change some laws but it in no way stopped the anti-gun lobby from finding new ways to attack the second amendment. Sotomayor was a terrible mistake and Kagen would be even worse. She has no experience on the bench and only served in political appointments when it came to the judicary part of government. We have no idea what her wisdom is when it comes to protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact what little we have heard suggests she intends on severely eroding them to the best of her ability. She will betray all that this country stands for but the opposition is not nailing her to the wall for her failings. If Kagen is confirmed then the McDonald decision is doomed as is this country. A large percentage of Americans will not tolerate what is coming and that could mean a second civil war. Kagen is that bad.
If they had ruled that it applied under the "privileges and immunities" clause under the 14th, then pretty much ANY restriction would have been out. While there was some hope, the "due process" was what seemed likely to win. And unfortunately, that was where the NRA was prodding the case with their presentation.
There is no doubt that Kagan is seriously anti gun rights; there is also no doubt that Obama is of the same ilk. Any nominee of his should be opposed just on that basis, but I have two issues with the article:
(1) It has only been in the last few decades that service on the federal bench was a presumptive prerequisite. I would suggest that some of these folks worked out pretty well: John Jay, John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, Felix Frankfurter, Byron White, and William Rehnquist.
(2) As for the Palin analogy, it seriously erodes the credibility of the entire price.
kagan is just like obama & all his buddies...they are immoral perverted educated waaaayyyyyyyyyyy beyond their intelligence no common sense people who hate common every day folks in the "fly over country" .....i would not shake their hand for $50,000 !!!
Palin has more grace in her pinky toe than kagan can ever dream...
Amen Brother.
Don't you think Kagan looks like Jeffrey Jones (actor who played principal Ed Rooney in Ferris Bueler's Day Off)?
Kagan might be a serious mistake, but to compare someone who can handle Haarvard law, is solicitor general and has argued cases before the supreme court to someone who goes through five colleges to get a journalism degree and lucks her way to being a governor of a state withe less people than King County is really grasping at straws.
Kagan may have opinions about the law that differ widely from many of us, but Palin, regardless of her opinions, is simply too stupid to be trusted with decisions about anything. Save us at least, from the cult of stupid.
riverworld, I do not believe the Palin analogy erodes the thrust of the piece at all. One must remember that though Palin did not have an overabundance of experience in executive postions, she had more than any, ANY, other candidate in the race regardless of sought office. Yet, she was attacked virulently and repeatedly by the Obama campaign and the MSM for her lack of leadership gravitas. what puts the lie to their assertions is that the Dems never ran against McCain who was the presidential candidate, but rather ran against Palin. Evidently Obama and the MSM all understood that she was the most qualified of the candidates in the race, else no need to trash her so as she was not on the top of the ticket.
Was she qualified to be president, probably not. But moreso than the rest of that sorry bunch. By no stretch is Kagan as qualified in her nominatio as was Palin. At the least, she deserves the Palin treatment.
I don't have any problem with Palin's "lack" of experience, especially since, with regards to executive office, she had more executive experience than Obama, McCain, and Biden combined. I also don't have a problem with appointing inexperienced people to public positions, because sometimes that makes life interesting!
But I do have a problem with Kagen, and likely anyone else who would be appointed by Obama (and a large portion of people that would be appointed by any Republican): she is out to destroy our freedoms.
Because of this, she should NOT be on the Supreme Court!
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!