Has Kagan compared the NRA to the KKK?

[KyJim]

This piece in the National Review suggests Supreme Court nominee Kagan has compared the NRA to the KKK. The Review says it found two documents suggesting this.

Both documents stem from her service with the Clinton administration. It involved review of a bill that would give immunity to certain charities. In the first document, a colleague wrote that "bad guy orgs" like the NRA and KKK might be granted immunity by the bill. There is some handwriting on it which the Review says appears to be Kagan's.

The second document is a memo from this same colleague to Kagan. It says he checked and that neither the NRA or KKK was on the tax exempt list covered by the bill and then states, "“If you have other names you want me to run down in the Cumulative List, I would be glad to check them out.” This, says the Review writer, suggests Kagan had requested the check of the NRA and KKK.

I know that some posters here have suggested Kagan might be the best of a bad lot of potential nominees on gun rights. Some even mention she has apparently shot a gun before. But, as we know, those opposed to gun rights have always believed they have the right to own guns, just that the average man or woman can't be trusted with them. Witness gun control aimed at African-Americans in the Jim Crowe era in the South. There have been a number of prominent gun grabbers who have their own guns but insist the average person should not.

So, the question is whether this latest news really places any real impediment in Kagan's pathway?

[Standing Wolf]

...the question is whether this latest news really places any real impediment in Kagan's pathway?

The Republicans will tut-tut for all they're worth.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

FWIW, I don't see Kagan's comments likening the NRA to the KKK. Both were organizations that the Clinton administration didn't like. Is that any secret to anyone here? She might have also compared the Jewish Defense League to the KKK in this context.

I'm not saying that she is, or ever will be, a gun rights advocate, but what she did as an advocate for her employer (the Clinton administration) and what she believes privately are not necessarily one and the same. ACLU lawyers are quick to support the right of the KKK to march or exercise other of their Constitutional rights. (Except, of course, their 2nd Amendment Rights. ) Does that make them racist, or even indicate that they have racist beliefs?

Kagan certainly wouldn't be my choice for the Supreme Court. But I believe she's still about the most benign of those on President Obama's short list.

[NickySantoro]

And be 100% correct yet again.

[KyJim]

but what she did as an advocate for her employer (the Clinton administration) and what she believes privately are not necessarily one and the same.

That's the point. She wasn't advocating anything. This apparently came as part of an in-house analysis of a bill. Thus, it is arguably more reflective of her personal views, of which there is only a scant paper trail.

[johnwilliamson062]

those opposed to gun rights have always believed they have the right to own guns, just that the average man or woman can't be trusted with them.

I absolutely don't think that is true. I see two very different types of gun control advocates that encompass most but not all of the anti-gun proponents.
The first the elitist who thinks gun should basically be regulated out of the hands of those poorer/darker/whatever than themselves or those they feel they control(military, police, etc.). It is not only white millionaires with this perspective. I know lower middle class hunters and Asians with these perspectives. Heck, I worked with a first generation African immigrant who thought as much about the descendants of slaves in the US. This group terrifies me and includes people like Mike Dewine, McCain, and my Father. Many if not most are "conservatives."
The second is idealists. They actually think a gun buster sign makes them safer. They think criminals will not be able to get guns if they are illegal. They look at gun crime numbers in the UK dropping after the ban and refuse to acknowledge that violent crime numbers did not drop. The vast majority of Liberal anti-gun proponents and those that I actually meet and talk to fall into this group. I find them to be a whole lot less terrifying than the other group and almost feel sorry for them as they seem to have a "the government/society will provide and protect me."

Thus, it is arguably more reflective of her personal views, of which there is only a scant paper trail.

But the thing about her is that she seems to be very good at separating her personal views from the LAW of the US. She seems to be more dedicated to the Rule Of Law than most appointees. If she holds to that we won't have any problems. I would much rather we have a Justice who personally disagrees with me but professionally follows the rule of law than one who mostly agrees with me and makes decisions based on personal opinion.

[KyJim]

The first the elitist who thinks gun should basically be regulated out of the hands of those poorer/darker/whatever than themselves or those they feel they control(military, police, etc.). . . . This group terrifies me and includes people like Mike Dewine, McCain, and my Father. Many if not most are "conservatives."

First, notice I never put "conservative" or "liberal" labels on people. It's whether they support or oppose the right to defend one's self by ownership of firearms.

I don't know about your father. I do know that John McCain is no conservative. He may be a Republican, but that doesn't make him conservative. I had to look up Mike Dewine. Pretty obscure reference. Again, just because someone puts a big R by their name and candidacy doesn't make them conservative.

But, again, I'm not labeling people conservative or liberal. The issue is whether they support gun rights or not. It is the "elitists" to which I refer and who believe the masses cannot be trusted, only they can.

The second is idealists. They actually think a gun buster sign makes them safer. They think criminals will not be able to get guns if they are illegal.

This is where I disagree somewhat. I don't think they are necessarily idealists at all. Rather, they are naive and unrealistic. They are the same sort of people who believe a government can continue gigantic deficit spending indefinitely because they want to believe it. Perhaps they even need to believe it. Many posters have referred to them as "sheople" and that is as good a term as I can think that describes them. They are less dangerous themselves because they do have to be led.

[KyJim]

But the thing about her is that she seems to be very good at separating her personal views from the LAW of the US. She seems to be more dedicated to the Rule Of Law than most appointees. If she holds to that we won't have any problems.

So how do we know this? She has been in no real position of authority by which we can judge this. Indeed, she illegally barred military recruiters from campus when she was dean. Even as Solicitor General, she only makes arguments favorable to the U.S. Government's position. This is not an inconsequential position, but she is not in a position where she issues rulings and from which we can determine whether she follows the rule of law. If she had judicial experience, we would know. But she hasn't and we can't. That's why she is the perfect "stealth" candidate.

And remember that as a Supreme Court Justice, she would be making the law, not following precedent from a higher court. And, yes, I do mean making the law. Every time a judge interprets a statute or a law, he or she is making the law. That's what our common law system is about.

[johnwilliamson062]

I don't think they are necessarily idealists at all. Rather, they are naive and unrealistic.

I don't know why these two sentiments are mutually exclusive.

I do know that John McCain is no conservative. He may be a Republican, but that doesn't make him conservative. I had to look up Mike Dewine. Pretty obscure reference. Again, just because someone puts a big R by their name and candidacy doesn't make them conservative.

Well, my vocabulary is limited in this forum. I would generally agree with you, although most of the Republican party probably would try to convince us otherwise.

I had to look up Mike Dewine. Pretty obscure reference.

During his time in the Senate he did a few things to get national attention.

So how do we know this?

Know that she separates the two or that she will continue to do so? As to the first she has written about cases and made statements in the past that indicate she does so. As to whether she will continue to, we don't know. Even justices with long track records have flipped on issues once they receive the lifetime appointment. Remember they are politicians previous to securing the position.