Information on Kagan nomination for Supreme Court Justice


Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Information on Kagan nomination for Supreme Court Justice

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-13-2010, 06:22 PM   #1
Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Bigcountry02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest
Posts: 6,609
Liked 2007 Times on 1173 Posts
Likes Given: 4232

Default Information on Kagan nomination for Supreme Court Justice

Drudge has these links regarding Kagan, she very much left wing.

Kagan Said She Was `Not Sympathetic' Toward Gun-Rights Claim - Bloomberg

Kagan Said She Was `Not Sympathetic' Toward Gun-Rights Claim

Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.

Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal.

The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

Kagan, currently the U.S. solicitor general, has made few public remarks about the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled, in a case that overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, that the Constitution protects individual gun rights.

As a nominee to be solicitor general last year, Kagan told lawmakers that she accepted that 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent of the court.

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” she said.

Review Denied

The Heller decision left room for states to require registration of weapons. The majority also said the ruling didn’t cast doubt on laws barring handgun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill, or restrictions on bringing guns into schools or government buildings.

The lower court ruling in the 1987 case, issued by the District of Columbia’s highest court, said the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to raise militias, and not individual gun rights. The ruling upheld Lee Sandidge’s conviction for carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.

The high court refused to hear the case, known as Sandidge v. United States. The memo to Marshall, found in his papers at the Library of Congress, includes a handwritten “D,” indicating that he was among those who voted to deny review.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the position taken in the memo to Marshall reflected the prevailing view of the law at the time.

Reflecting Marshall

During her confirmation hearing to be solicitor general, the federal government’s top Supreme Court advocate, Kagan said she was trying to reflect Marshall’s views when she evaluated so-called petitions for certiorari, or cert petitions. She called herself a “27-year-old pipsqueak” working for a “90- year-old giant in the law.”

“He was asking us, in the context in those cert petitions, to channel him and to think about what cases he would want the court to decide,” Kagan said. “And in that context, I think all of us were right to say, ‘Here are the cases which the court is likely to do good things with from your perspective, and here are the ones where they’re not.’”

Marshall was a civil rights icon before becoming the first black justice. He led the legal fight to dismantle the “separate but equal” regime in public education, arguing the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case.

As a justice, he opposed the death penalty and backed abortion rights and affirmative action. Kagan, now 50, clerked for Marshall during the court’s 1987-88 term and has described him as one of her heroes.

Clues to Kagan

The memos provide clues to Kagan’s potential approach as a justice. Much like Marshall, Kagan might find herself playing defense, at least in her first few years, working strategically to thwart the agenda of a more conservative majority.

Kagan on numerous occasions urged the justice to vote for so-called defensive denials, rejecting appeals from criminal suspects and defendants to prevent his more conservative colleagues from giving more power to police and prosecutors.

She urged rejection of an appeal from an Illinois man whose burglary conviction hinged on evidence discovered when he was stopped, ordered to lie down and searched by police. The search took place even though police lacked the “probable cause” required to make an arrest, Kagan said.

Kagan said she thought the court, if it heard the case, would uphold the conviction. That “would be an awful and perhaps quite consequential holding,” she wrote.

In recent years, Chief Justice John Roberts and four colleagues have joined forces in 5-4 decisions to strike down campaign finance regulations and limit shareholder lawsuits, as well as to protect gun owners’ rights.

B-Minus in Torts

The Marshall papers also include Kagan’s Harvard Law School transcript and glowing letters of recommendation to the justice from her professors. “She is soft-spoken and delightful to be with, but razor-sharp and iron-hard in intellectual give and take,” wrote one, Abram Chayes.

One professor referenced her transcript, which showed Kagan got off to a slow start as a law student. She received a B in criminal law and a B-minus in torts in the fall of her first year, later receiving predominantly A’s in classes including constitutional law.

“Whatever was in her way on those fall term exams, it wasn’t affecting her class performance even during the fall, and evidently was gone by exam time in May,” wrote Frank Michelman, who taught her in a spring property law course and said he had contact with his students starting in September.

To contact the reporters on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net; Kristin Jensen in Washington at kjensen@bloomberg.net.

Kagan on Second Amendment: Like Freedom of Speech Enjoys “Strong But Not Unlimited Protection” | Kagan Watch

Kagan Watch Keeping an Eye on Elena Kagan

Kagan on Second Amendment: Like Freedom of Speech Enjoys “Strong But Not Unlimited Protection”

While in the Clinton White House, Kagan took on gun (and tobacco) industries.

During her confirmation as solicitor general, Kagan said the Second Amendment, like freedom of speech, enjoys “strong but not unlimited protection.”

In a questioner from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) about gun rights during her confirmation to be Solicitor General, Kagan had this to say:

“Once again, there is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation.”

Follow Kagan Watch on twitter @kaganwatch for the latest on Elena Kagan.



__________________
Bigcountry02 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 05-13-2010, 09:57 PM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

I think Kagan is just another progressive socialist activist working from within our system to corrupt and dismantle the Republic.
I find it ridiculously despicable that for the sake of 'diversity',the fact is that she has no experience on the bench,yet is being nominated to the SCOTUS.

This nonsense needs to stop.



__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 11:23 PM   #3
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Ya beat me to it -- I was just going to post this.

Here's the deal:

Quote:
Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.

The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”
The District of Columbia is an incorporated Federal district. It is not a state. Therefore, it's rules of governance must be the U.S. Constitution, not a state constitution. In other words, the fact that 2A has not been incorporated against the states doesn't matter -- D.C. isn't a state and 2A is a given.

The Constitution does not require licensing handguns, firearms registration, serial numbers, microstamping, fingerprints, 4473 forms, FFLs, NICS checks, permits or anything like those things much-loved by those who wish to disarm Americans. The District of Columbia does not have the authority to draft its own set of laws like a state does on issues like this.

But Kagen is unsympathetic to the man who was convicted.

There is no rational, fact-based argument that can be made which is based on the Constitution to support her lack of sympathy.

This is a really long way of saying "She's going to stink on ice as a Supreme Court justice if she makes it past the confirmation". But we already knew that because Obama picked her.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 11:26 PM   #4
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Also, Kagan believes 2A gives "strong but not unlimited protection".

Kagan on Second Amendment: Like Freedom of Speech Enjoys “Strong But Not Unlimited Protection” | Kagan Watch

Kagan on Second Amendment: Like Freedom of Speech Enjoys “Strong But Not Unlimited Protection”

While in the Clinton White House, Kagan took on gun (and tobacco) industries.

During her confirmation as solicitor general, Kagan said the Second Amendment, like freedom of speech, enjoys “strong but not unlimited protection.”

In a questioner from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) about gun rights during her confirmation to be Solicitor General, Kagan had this to say:

“Once again, there is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation.”

__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 11:59 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post

“Once again, there is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation.”
The SCOTUS has ruled erroneously before.
The Second Amendments clear and common sense meaning is that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
'Regulation' is most definitely 'infringement'.

As we see the practical use of Heller unfold for statist lawyers,treasonous politicians,and activists in black robes,we will see that Heller was less of a victory than we should have expected.

Just the same way Kagan is using it here.

In truth,the ONLY limit to our natural,inalienable rights are the rights of other citizens.NOT government regulation.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Thomas Jefferson

This means anyone should be able to own any 'arms' and 'bear' them at will,and the only concern necessary from government is if we violate the rights of others in doing so.
Otherwise,its unnecessary infringement of our natural right.

I'm also of a different position regarding the application of the Second Amendment to the states and local government.
I argue that the Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution and Bill of Rights the Supreme Law,and that
"...the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The Constitution and attending Bill of Rights are the Highest Law of This Land.It applies to all forms of government within the jurisdiction of the United States,meaning that the Second Amendment is the Highest Law regarding arms.

All forms of 'gun control' are illegal.

We should not and do not need Kagan or any other group of power pilfering political rapists to re-define the plain meaning of our Constitution.

All government regulation,all government demand or infringement on the Second Amendment is illegitimate Constitutionally and legally null and void.
The only thing giving them weight are the thugs with guns sent to enforce them,and the people who actually think its a 'good idea' to let government out of its lawfully limited bounds.
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 05-15-2010 at 02:44 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2010, 02:30 AM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
gorknoids's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Virginia Beach,Virginia
Posts: 2,425
Liked 8 Times on 6 Posts
Likes Given: 5

Default

Kagan is Obama's nod to the Dyke contingent.

__________________

"Guns don't kill people. Male Kennedy's kill people."

gorknoids is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2010, 02:48 AM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gorknoids View Post
Kagan is Obama's nod to the Dyke contingent.
I thought he took care of both that and the "Wise Latina" La Raza scum with Sotomayor?


__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court has heard the Arguments Kelly J Legal and Activism 0 03-02-2010 08:20 PM
New 2A cases to go before Supreme Court? BigByrd47119 Politics, Religion and Controversy 3 08-26-2009 03:40 AM
Supreme Court Appointment falseharmonix Politics, Religion and Controversy 28 05-30-2009 11:44 PM
Supreme Court on RKBA bkt Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 03-19-2008 02:30 AM
2nd Amendment - Supreme Court notdku Legal and Activism 5 11-20-2007 06:40 PM