NRA comes out against Kagan

[pnac]

Can't blame the NRA for swinging a bit late on this one, her writings and papers were hard to get and, since she hasn't been a judge of course, no decisions to look at. It may have been better to wait, give her some rope , so to speak. Read the whole article.

Jul 1, 2010 12:54 pm US/Eastern
NRA Shoots Down Approval Of Kagan Confirmation
CBS News Interactive: The Supreme Court
WASHINGTON (CBS) ―

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/elena.k...2.1783230.html

CBS News Interactive: The Supreme Court
The National Rifle Association is opposing Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court and warning senators that it will take their votes into account when considering endorsing their re-election.

In a letter sent to leading senators Thursday, top NRA officials say Kagan has "repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility" to gun rights in her career in government and academia.

The NRA also opposed Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation last year. Sotomayor was among the four dissenters in the high court's decision last week that limits state and local gun restrictions.

Kagan emerged from three days of vetting by the Senate Judiciary Committee much as she had begun, declaring she'd be an independent and impartial judge and denying Republican suggestions that she would be unable to separate her political leanings from her job as a justice.

Etc. ... (Long article)

[Brian Pfleuger]

....denying Republican suggestions that she would be unable to separate her political leanings from her job as a justice.

These sorts of claims are absolutely idiotic. NO ONE can separate their actions from their beliefs. You act the way you do BECAUSE of your beliefs. If you believed differently, you would act differently.

It's like saying that you can separate your love for your spouse from your actions towards them.

It's nonsense.

[pgdion]

Peetzakilla ... so true! And that statement alone is reason enough to not allow her to be a judge at any level. If you can't recognize and admit your own limitations then you can hardly try to look at things objectively. She has no experience and a history of acting on her own personal beliefs. Not good at all! Way to go NRA, if they hadn't stepped up to bat on this one then I don't know. And the timing is probably good. She got a fair chance to comment on any concerns during the hearings.

[Hkmp5sd]

These sorts of claims are absolutely idiotic. NO ONE can separate their actions from their beliefs.

Hope you never get selected for jury duty.

I believe once a ruling has been set, it should be locked in place: forever.

Familiar with the SCOTUS decision on Dred Scott v. Sandford?

[Hkmp5sd]

Nobody, either right or left is taking away anybody's gun rights, that is nothing but Reich wing propaganda.

Unless I am mistaken, the recent SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment was based on the Chicago BAN on legal ownership of firearms. That seems to imply some loss of gun rights by some American citizens.

The crude attempt to associate the "right wing" with Nazi Germany is LAME.

[ScottRiqui]

But take away that gun and BAM, all hell would break loose.

So there is zero chance of that happening thankfully.

Are you just young, or do you have a short memory? The California SKS seizure/confiscation/"buyback"/whatever was barely ten years ago.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Folks may note that posts are deleted and some posters have had consequences.

I'm not closing it but stay within our guidelines, no politics, gender insensitive overgeneralizations or rather low grade name distorting humor.

And you kids get off my lawn!

[Brian Pfleuger]

Hope you never get selected for jury duty.

If I get selected for jury duty, I will make the choices that I believe to be right. Same as every other sane human being. No one decides what they think is right and then does the opposite.

No judge. No juror. No one.


Kagan will do what Kagan thinks is right. So has, does and will every other justice, ever.

From everything we can see, Kagan believes that the democrat party line is correct. If she did not, Obama would not be appointing her because, just like every other human being, he believes that he is right and wants someone who sees things the same way that he does.

I'd bet a dollar to a donut that she will decide pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-union, anti-business.... right on down the democratic platform.

[sixgun67]

I'd bet a dollar to a donut that she will decide pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-union, anti-business.... right on down the democratic platform.

+1 on that one

[ZeroJunk]

The jury analogy is interesting. I am in the middle of a six week jury duty term in federal court and the jury selection takes at least an entire day. After a series of questions with almost all ending in the question as to whether you can make an impartial decision and everybody answers yes, they proceed to kick at least seven of them off.

[jmortimer]

Will not do any good. She is in in spite of her idiotic answers. Say what you will about George Bush - he nominated some awesome Supreme Court Justices.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Hmmm... I wonder what made the NRA decide to count this as a key vote? Given the 59 votes in the Senate, it looks like blocking the nomination is unlikely - though it is certainly going to create some awkwardness for Democratic Senators who care about their NRA grade. Actually, I'm not sure I'd have picked this particular fight if I were the NRA.

[pgdion]

I'd bet a dollar to a donut that she will decide pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-union, anti-business.... right on down the democratic platform.

And another +1 on that.

I think the NRA had to take a stand on this one. It's symbolic if nothing else. They timed their position until after Kagan had a chance to speak at the hearings and then they made their stand. I think they did good here even if they don't sway the confirmation. We all carry through in November and a small loss here can result in greater victories down the road.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Even if NRA is successful in defeating Kagan's nomination by making it a record vote (unlikely in my view), then what is behind door #2 that is better? This administration is probably not going to be nominating any pro-RKBA Second Amendment scholars to the bench.

All this is going to do is basically provide a gut-check vote for pro-RKBA Democratic Senators so NRA can get an idea of how reliable they are; but otherwise it doesn't seem to serve much purpose besides making RedState happy (although it actually didn't do that either as they just moved on to criticizing NRA for supporting Reid),

[stevelyn]

The National Rifle Association is opposing Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court and warning senators that it will take their votes into account when considering endorsing their re-election.

Yet they have endorsed Harry Reid for reelection who is undoubtedly already in the bag for confirming her.

[Musketeer]

Oops - no offense on this edit - but since I nailed the inappropriate content that generated this reply - I'll taking out this reasoned respone to the silliness.

So folks, if you saw - it let it go. Report such stuff to us!

Glenn

[Musketeer]

Yet they have endorsed Harry Reid for reelection who is undoubtedly already in the bag for confirming her.

I believe they said voting for Her would affect a Senators rating. There are other reasons for them to support Reid. The NRA is a sigle issue lobby.

[KyJim]

Hmmm... I wonder what made the NRA decide to count this as a key vote? Given the 59 votes in the Senate, it looks like blocking the nomination is unlikely - though it is certainly going to create some awkwardness for Democratic Senators who care about their NRA grade. Actually, I'm not sure I'd have picked this particular fight if I were the NRA.

How could the NRA not oppose her after what has surfaced? They may not expect to have a real chance and probably realize any Obama nominee is gong to be anti=gun. So, they probably won't use a scorched earth approach.

[TMUSCLE1]

Please contact your Senators guys...it does nothing to just complain about it on forums like this fine one here. I'm sure some of you do, but I wonder how many are truly active besides just voting. We have to stay on top of our reps with emails, phone calls, etc., just to make sure they know we are still paying attention.

Rant off...something tells me she might not get confirmed. Not only do I think the NRA timed this pretty well, but a lot of political capital has been used up in ramming through some other legislation and another obvious anti-gun pick. That is just my opinion so we will see. Maybe I'm just hoping for a surprise.

[csmsss]

In her give and take with Sen. Coburn, Kagan alleged to have no opinion regarding natural rights. How on earth can someone alleged to be a constitutional scholar have no opinion on natural rights? Absurd.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37830

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The NRA probably decided to make its active gun rights sensitive members happy. Not opposing would lead to bad BR, some membership drops.

It has no impact as she will be affirmed. Thus, they did the 'right' thing at little cost.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

How could the NRA not oppose her after what has surfaced?

Well, the cost will come to the Democratic Senators who support the NRA. They'll take a hit on their NRA rating if they vote Kagan - although the cynical side of me says the NRA probably wouldn't have done this (given their stance with Sotomayor) unless they already knew that Kagan was going to be confirmed with enough votes to allow their Dem Senators some cover.