Much is now being written about Barack Obama’s second Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, and expect even more prior to the commencement of her Senate confirmation hearing on June 28.
A clear profile of Kagan is now surfacing, thanks to extensive coverage of Kagan’s life and career by the Washington Post, and an editorial in the June 9 Washington Times. But this may be the tip of the proverbial iceberg, as information about her Second Amendment position has already been revealed, as this column noted here earlier this week. She also talks about herself in this White House video:
Kagan’s confirmation could have critical importance to Washington State, for any number of reasons, not the least of which is our own State Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year that the Second Amendment does apply to state and local governments, as this column reported here.
One year ago, this column took issue with the Second Amendment positions of then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and those concerns remain. Within days, and certainly by the end of this month, Sotomayor's attitude about gun rights will become evident, whether she joins in an opinion that strikes down the Chicago handgun ban – the anticipated outcome of the Second Amendment Foundation’s lawsuit – or signs onto an opinion that supports the ban. McDonald, which was argued in March, will be her first opportunity to show her true colors.
Ms. Kagan's defenders acknowledge her liberal political views but claim that as a judge, the former Harvard Law School dean will somehow manage to separate her judgments from her political opinions. The hitch is that her legal views correspond with her political views. When Ms. Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, she wrote, "I'm not sympathetic" to the claim that "the District of Columbia's firearms statutes violate [an individual's] constitutional right to 'keep and bear Arms.' "--Washington Times
Recall that this column reported opposition to the Sotomayor nomination, from former National Rifle Association Presidents Sandra Froman and Robert Corbin and many of their colleagues, and separately from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Christopher Cox, head of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.
Recall how Sotomayor declined to explain how she might approach Second Amendment incorporation, and how she remained evasive on critical gun rights issues, including self-defense, during questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee; where she lands on McDonald will define where she really stands on the Second Amendment.
Her friends are elite lawyers of a certain set or Democratic operatives with staying power. She cultivates their company, holds their confidences, gives them the best presents and solicits their ideas...Washington Post
Her performance, combined with other warning flares sent by Obama with some of his other administration choices, should clearly signal the kind of judicial nominee that this president would send to Capitol Hill. As we say out here in the settlements, west of the Mississippi, “She ain’t from around here” and her leanings on the district court level so far suggests she certainly is not our friend. (Perhaps to punctuate how the firearms community looked at Sotomayor, on the day she was confirmed, the Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia over its gun regulations.)
The portrait of Kagan as presented by the Washington Post is one of a woman with few outside interests and a rather narrow life experience. She has hobnobbed with liberal elitists, and spent her entire professional career in a somewhat confined environment. This nomination may seem “sewed up” to the extent that Robert W. Benson, emeritus professor of law at the Loyala Law School, has publicly announced he will forego watching the hearings.
A native ofNew York , Kagan has worked her entire life alongPennsylvania Avenue or nearHarvard Square andHyde Park .
However, that may not be the case, provided Republican members of the Senate panel show some backbone; something that seemed painfully absent last year from South Carolina’s Lindsay Graham, who was all-too-collegial with Sotomayor.
A Kagan confirmation will not change the makeup of the high court, but as many others are pointing out, what happens if one of the four court conservatives should be incapacitated or die? What becomes of the court makeup if swing-voting Justice Anthony Kennedy should leave the bench during Obama’s reign? There should be little doubt that this president would give us more liberal activist judges, the kind who might rule that the parks gun ban in Seattle is constitutional, instead of a judge who rules that the ban is wholly illegal under state statute, and that the right to carry is constitutionally protected.
Kagan can say anything during the hearings, but most likely like Sotomayor, she will talk a lot but actually say very little. Where an Associate Justice Kagan would clearly speak is from the Supreme Court bench. Can the Second Amendment be placed at such risk?
The Bill of Rights is an all-or-nothing package. You embrace all of its rights, or you really believe in none of them.-Seattle Gun Rights Examiner, July 17, 2009
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
Important message from my colleague, David Codrea:
Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner John Longenecker has started a newsletter titled "The Liberty News/Safer Streets." I posted a sample yesterday on The War on Guns that I encourage you to check out.
If you'd like to receive it regularly, click HERE:
More from 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
And Don’t forget to visit:
Comments
I've been under the misguided belief that Supreme Court Justices should be at least knowledgeable about Law and more importantly the Constitution, do they not swear an oath to uphold it. I am fully aware that the president has the right and responsibility to appoint Justices to the High Court, and he can choose any one he wants, but stacking the court to gain Legislative power from the Bench is a sad way to do his job, but it seems to be the Democratic Parties way of doing business. After all with his AG, and the Supreme Court all he needs now is an issue after he gets his next puppet in place, is a crisis to happen for him to start the attack on any topic of choice.
Listening to the Kagan UTube blurb above, I wonder why possible Supreme Court Justices think that we live in a Democracy instead of a Republic. How sad.
Hey Dave,
We hope in vain for the Republicans to either grow, rent, or buy any backbones.
This is the reason I left the Republican Party back in 2008: the Republican Leadership, like the NRA Leadership, continues to betray the rank and file membership.
Senators like Snow, Graham, Collins, McConnell, McCain, and so many others, regularly betray average working class Americans.
These pro pols 'compromise' so much that they denude any fair, ethical, or constitutional legislation from every becoming law.
Socialism and retaining power are the only two mantras of both the Dem and Repub Parties.
Sotomayor is a racist, a socialist, and a Reconquista supporter.
Kagan is a socialist in policy and a marxist in her politics (just like her master, the Obamasiah).
I have little hope that our country will survive if the elections this November do not prove out by throwing out, the incumbents.
Frankly, I believe we are doomed.
Cheers.
Notso, I caught that as well, Kagan saying laws are the bedrock of our "democracy."
AS Machiavelli pointed out, in "The Prince", there are two types of nations, monarchies and republics.
A nation may have laws, but that doesn't make it a democracy. Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Burma all have laws, but none of them are democracies.
.
We must be very careful that they don't set a precedent with this ruling. If they rule that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the States, then none of the other Amendments will apply to the States as well. If this happens, we are all doomed.
We are in deep excrement if we lose one of ours. This lady is the definition of a pinko commie.
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!