May 10, 2010, 11:21 AM | #1 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Kagan gets the nod
So it is official now. Kagan has the nomination for SCOTUS. With control of the senate a lock she should be seated within a month. Wonder if Obama will get the media push back that Bush got for nominating a political crony instead of a judge?
Complete lack of case law precedent and rulings is disturbing from my standpoint. Considering who she has worked for in the past I am guessing not a friend of the 2A? Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. Last edited by MTT TL; May 10, 2010 at 11:28 AM. |
||
May 10, 2010, 12:36 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
She did provide some interesting comments in her Solicitor General confirmation hearings.
Quote:
|
|
May 10, 2010, 12:47 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
That's a good thing, if Heller was 5-4, then believing in precedent would predict no sympathy for attempts to overturn it.
However, reasonable restrictions will probably still apply - the definition of those is the rub.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 10, 2010, 12:48 PM | #4 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
From her confirmation writings:
Quote:
Quote:
If not, at least she's no Stevens. I'm not bad-mouthing Stevens, as I admired him at times, but she will lack his influence, as well as his ability to sway Kennedy.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
May 10, 2010, 12:59 PM | #5 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
She's a far better pick than I would have anticipated from this administration. The left doesn't seem to like her any better than the right, and I think that's about the best that can be expected at this point.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
May 10, 2010, 01:12 PM | #6 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
Quote:
The big thing that worries me is her stance on the fourth. That is an ugly thing, but likely would be no better from the right.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
||
May 10, 2010, 02:02 PM | #7 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
There is a transcript of her testimony during her confirmation hearings for Solicitor General here (long pdf, starts at p. 304).
Quote:
I still find it interesting that she did not file a brief for McDonald, and I wonder if that's because of some political friction with the administration.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
May 10, 2010, 02:04 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
What I like about her so far is that she's been willing to agree that the Heller decision has an effect on both CARRY and ownership, and she's said that.
The worst gun-grabbers active right now are trying to disparage "carry" as having anything to do with the 2nd. She's not in that category so far. She'll likely be much better than Stevens and probably about as good a pick as we could hope for from Obama.
__________________
Jim March |
May 10, 2010, 02:05 PM | #9 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
In political terms, I think she's the best choice in terms of a smooth confirmation process. She's not too controversial, and they know her to some extent at this point.
Of course, replacing her as Solicitor General opens a whole different can of worms.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
May 10, 2010, 02:16 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
I'm also surprised that she seems to be rather moderate. She isn't the blazing leftist I'd have expected out of Obama; it appears that we may be seeing a solid vote for the liberal wing of the court be replaced by another swing vote.
My one real concern is her lack of bench experience and the decisions that would have come along with that. Lawyers for the administration will argue the administration's position; there's no real way of knowing if that's REALLY what they think. Very much a "take the king's shilling, do the king's work" sort of thing. Could be that Obama just didn't want a long and drawn out fight to install a hard left justice- he pretty well used up most of his political capital to get health care through, and now he has to mend some fences if he's going to get much else done. This could be something of an accommodation to more conservative Senators, both in his party and in the GOP. Or she could be a hard line leftist who has just hidden it thus far. There's no real way to know for sure. |
May 11, 2010, 08:49 AM | #11 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I also think she is the best nominee, from the names that have been going around.
Quick question: Can anyone find how many Justices were never judges prior to sitting with the Court? Who were they? |
May 11, 2010, 09:03 AM | #12 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Partial List:
William Rehnquist John Marshall Earl Warren Felix Frankfurter Louis Brandeis Maybe complete, not sure.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
May 11, 2010, 09:34 AM | #13 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Seems we may have gained a lot here to me...
I am not a huge fan of nominating such a young judge. She could sit on the court for 40 years. I think supreme court justices should be like the pope, crawling into their death bed at nomination. From my perspective this is one of Obama's few concrete attempts to be non-partisan instead of just talking about being non-partisan. Being a Judge on the supreme court seems to be much different than being a judge anywhere else so i don't believe her lack of experience is really relevant. It seems to me a constitutional scholar is just as qualified as a judge. Of course, there is always the possibility her past has been a series of calculated political moves leading up to this day and once the lifetime appointment is granted she will laugh maniacally and start pushing a communist agenda. |
May 11, 2010, 10:27 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
|
Quote:
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson |
|
May 11, 2010, 01:45 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I don't think we will do better from this administration. If the Republicans shoot down this nominee, I don't think we will much like what's behind door number two.
Look at who she will replace. Justice Stevens is a 2A nightmare, worsened by his possible cognitive difficulty due to age. His Heller dissent was a discredit to the bench, IMO. She has made the relatively unequivocal statement that Heller says individuals can CARRY arms in case of confrontation. I don't think we can expect more than that at this time. If Republican try to torpedo this nominee, it will not help them in the next election. They should certainly do their diligence in the confirmation hearings. But barring any legitimate, insurmountable obstacles, should graciously wave her through, and commend the President for such a wise, thoughtful nomination. Last edited by maestro pistolero; May 11, 2010 at 06:55 PM. |
May 11, 2010, 04:01 PM | #16 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
May 12, 2010, 09:33 AM | #17 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Here is an interesting tidbit from Sasha Volokh over at the Volokh Conspiracy regarding Kagan;
"In particular — and despite her presumably pro-gun-control views (see the David Kopel post below), she was a good friend of the HLS (Harvard Law School) Target Shooting Club, which I founded in Fall 2001 and was the president of for two years." On the flip side, it looks like Kagan drafted the 1998 Clinton Executive Order expanding the list of semi-automatic firearms banned for being "non-sporting" as well. Not anything to get real excited about; but given the Administration, 59 votes in the Senate and their past willingness to push controversial issues, I think we are doing about as well as can be expected with this nominee. Like maestro and Tom, I don't think what is behind Door #2 is likely to be better. Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; May 12, 2010 at 09:38 AM. |
May 12, 2010, 10:03 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Politicians shooting guns sometimes is not correlated with our type of RKBA fervor. However, it might indicate not a total horror about using guns as some might have.
As far as drafting this or that - if you have a job and the boss wants this, you do it. Last, we know that the gun culture contains split views on sports guns and the dreaded EBRs. But as Mr. Roberts suggested - it doesn't look like a disaster and I doubt with all the crap going on, a push for draconian gun laws isn't in the picture for a bit. I think the with shall issue laws being up to 42 states (I think) - a sensible and pragmatic politician isn't going to ride the strict gun control horse.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 12, 2010, 11:55 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,733
|
As far as the 2A I believe we could do far worse. Not getting personally political here as far as what I believe is "right" but I think the administration is very concerned about getting a nominee through quickly and with a minimum of poltical bloodshed. Just looking at the trends the Administration knows their side is in for a tripto the woodshed in November. They have specific agenda items they want pushed through, notably immigration reform, before that happens and it becomes impossible. SCOTUS confirmations suck te wind out of everything and slow down all legislative business. If Obama nominated a hard leftist you would see a bloody fight which would likely kill any possibility of moving his agenda this year.
She is the politically expedient choice and this time it works in the 2A's favor as much as can be reasonably expected.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin |
May 13, 2010, 09:28 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 425
|
So far she seems like someone I can deal with. Sure I'd like another Thomas or Roberts, but that's not going to come from Obama. If she doesn't get confirmed, I'd expect Obama to start nominating hard leftist. I'd say urge your senators to vote yes or we will end up with someone much worse.
|
May 13, 2010, 10:45 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Here's an article from Bloomberg about Kagan. She may the best of some very bad choses, but she's not a "friend" by any means. Wish she was about 75 yrs. old, we're going to be stuck with her for a looong time.
Link:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aPI35t8uR6Gs "Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument"
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
May 13, 2010, 10:47 AM | #22 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
In more Kagan news, it seems that someone unearthed a legal memo Kagan wrote for a Second Amendment challenge while Justice Thurgood Marshall was on the bench. Oddly enough, it was a D.C. resident challenging his conviction for unlicensed possession of a handgun on Second Amendment grounds.
Kagan's memo to Justice Marshall regarding cert recommended that he deny cert and noted that the challenge was solely on Second Amendment grounds and stated "I am not sympathetic." Of course this would have been fairly early in her legal career, around 1988, IIRC. It would have also predated a lot of the more recent scholarship on the Second Amendment. Not too sure what it says about Kagan's feelings on the Second Amendment; since in all probability, having cert granted on that case would have been very bad for us. My guess is pretty much the same as it was before I knew this - she isn't going to be much help for Second Amendment votes; but she won't be any worse than Justice Stevens at least. |
May 13, 2010, 08:03 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
You would have to work pretty hard to find one worse than Stevens.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
May 13, 2010, 08:50 PM | #24 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
That was exactly the sort of plaintiff we've been trying to avoid these last few years. Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
May 14, 2010, 06:49 AM | #25 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|