Kagan on the 2nd Amendment

[38-44HD45]

Actually, I think the "in case of confrontation" language comes directly from Heller, FWIW.

 

[Iggy]

Do any of you remember the "rhetoric" hosed about by our illustrious leader.. High falutin' statements about transparency, no lobbyists,no pork?

Do you have any reason to believe that any statement she made or makes will last any longer than his did?

Grab yure shorts folks, it's gonna get bumpy out.

 

[bk43]

You're naive. Our foreign born socialist rank liberal president is not going to appoint anybody who is not like minded.

My focus is Kagan and the 2nd. The birther nonsense and other extraneous stuff does not interest me.

There are numerous signals that she could be the justice appointed by a liberal that turns conservative which is long overdue. Lord knows we've had our share of justices appointed by Republican presidents who have turned into flaming liberal judicial activists.

Bob

 

[tomhenry]

The birther nonsense and other extraneous stuff does not interest me.

Nonsense. He's foreign born thus is an imposter as president. That means he's not qualified/entitled to appoint anybody to anything.

Lemme guess. You're a liberal?

 

[PDL]

While this has been an interesting discussion. I don't think it will mean a tinkers dam when it comes to what happens. She'll get approved, simple as that. She's going to be a major liberal on the court for a long time. And she will cause us problems for sure.

 

[sheriffoconee]

My focus is Kagan and the 2nd. The birther nonsense and other extraneous stuff does not interest me.

There are numerous signals that she could be the justice appointed by a liberal that turns conservative which is long overdue. Lord knows we've had our share of justices appointed by Republican presidents who have turned into flaming liberal judicial activists.

Bob

I agree bk43....none of this other stuff matters in the case at hand.
Truth is, POTUS demonstrated some political acumen with this nomination. She has previously been confirmed by the Senate to be appointed Solicitor General. She doesn't have a judicial track record, and there isn't much the GOP can hang on her that qualifies for prolonged hearings, or a bunch of media drama.
I submit her appointment will be swift unless something totally out of the blue shows up. If the GOP could have hung something on her, they would have done it already.
This is essentially a done deal.

 

[Tom Servo]

She'll get approved, simple as that. She's going to be a major liberal on the court for a long time.

She's the least of all possible evils. I don't want to think about what might lurk behind Door #2.

Plain fact is, the President's the President. They won, and we lost. He gets to appoint Justices. We could do far worse.

 

[northslope]

Nonsense. He's foreign born thus is an imposter as president. That means he's not qualified/entitled to appoint anybody to anything.

Lemme guess. You're a liberal?

This made me chuckle a bit. To paraphrase some guidance I got once: "you're not helping".

Just because someone doesn't buy into the birth certificate drama doesn't mean they voted for the man. As gun owners we've got more useful battles to fight.

--Neill

 

[johngalt]

Obama has stated in the past that he considers the Constitution an impediment to his agenda. He is going to appoint an activist who is out to destroy the meaning of the Constitution. Since Kagan isn't a judge, she has no past history and can say anything she wants to win approval.

 

[paramedic192]

She's the least of all possible evils.

Tom,

I'm not saying Kagan is the worst possible nominee, but I certainly wouldn't go as far as to describe her at the least evil of all choices. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but let's remember that the second amendment and gun rights are not the only issues at stake in the selection of a Justice for the Supreme Court. I know this is a second amendment forum, but there are so many other issues that we have no idea how Kagan will decide. The second amendment is not a lone right; it will be affected by many other decisions that Court will make. Worst of all, I think the second amendment is often used as a bargaining chip. You know... I'll give or take on gun rights this time if you give or take on issue X.

Let's talk about the optimal nominee for the Supreme Court. Ideally a card carrying member of the NRA should be part of their resume, or at the least, maybe a membership in a local rod and gun club. I think this would be better than the current nominee, who I would doubt even knows which end of the gun the is up.


Kyle

 

[paramedic192]

The strange thing about this Democratic President, come to think of it, this is a strange thing about all Democrats (and to the practicing lawyers in the forum, correct me if I'm wrong), but a basic principle behind the Democratic party is protection of the individual citizens rights, mostly through the actions of big government and more laws. So, I have always found it strange that the majority of Democrats are anti-gun. The Constitution (and now the Supreme Court) clearly defines the second amendment as an individual right, so how can a party that prides itself on protecting the rights of the individual citizen, work so hard to oppress a right that was so important to the Framers of the Constitution that they specifically enumerated?

Every time I hear a Democrat cry anti-second amendment rhetoric, I just want to shout "hypocrite"!


Kyle

 

[tom turner]

Barry, the alleged POTUS, isn't going to put up a flaming lib this time around and risk losing more members of his party this fall who are up for re-election in Congre$$. That is the last thing he wants to do.

Look out for the NEXT opening though . . . after the elections. Right now he knows that he's screwed if he can't keep Peelowsee and Reid in power . . . and in overwhelming power at that.

 

[charlie sherrill]

He's either doing an end run with someone he knows very well and worked with at Harvard Law or he's trying to give us some kind of middle of the road thing hoping for an easy confirmation so he won't appear weak before trying to cram some more socialist crap down our throats. I suspect the end run. This is the sneakiest POTUS in history. Nothing he does is going to be good for us. Everything is about his agenda. I think right now he is taking Slick Willie's advice about not going after 2A in the first term. If we give him a second term we need to start burying stuff because they're coming after it. He can make one more appointment after this one before we really start feeling the pain and Ginsberg doesn't look too healthy. If we can take one house back in November we might be able to hold off until 2012.

 

[northslope]

Every time I hear a Democrat cry anti-second amendment rhetoric, I just want to shout "hypocrite"!

Yep - this is my problem too. Either incorporate all the Bill of Rights, or none at all.

--Neill

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

. . . but a basic principle behind the Democratic party is protection of the individual citizens rights, mostly through the actions of big government and more laws.

You're entitled to your opinion. I, however, believe that a basic principle of the Democrat party is big government and more laws, and a false claim of protection of individual citizens' rights is simply a means to an end. Look at the record.

More principles of the Democrat party can be found in Thomas Sowell's book The Vision of the Anointed, or perhaps just in its subtitle, Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy.

 

[ncy54]

No "middle of the road" justice here. Once those robes are on, be afraid, very afraid.

 

[Raspy]

I have no intention of being "very afraid". There's more to life than being afraid all the time. And I'm certainly not going to plan ahead to be very afraid in the future. Sheesh.