PDA

View Full Version : Bloomberg: Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument




Pennsylvania
05-13-2010, 08:34 AM
May 13 (Bloomberg) -- 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.”



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.

Full Article (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPI35t8uR6Gs&pos=9)

Pennsylvania
05-13-2010, 08:35 AM
I guess after Heller she magically began to see the light :rolleyes:

SWATH
05-13-2010, 08:43 AM
"strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation”

Uh, let's see what amount of government regulation coincides with "shall not be infringed"

She is just making it up as she goes.

Jeremy
05-13-2010, 08:52 AM
She seems to be highly supportive of government decisions. Not very objective.

Brian4Liberty
05-13-2010, 10:25 AM
Kagan should be our top priority. There is nothing more important today. If she gets on the Supreme Court, it will be ~40 years of her eroding Liberty. We can argue for days and many pages about certain issues, but in the end, those issues will be decided by the Supreme Court. And she will decide against us every time.

nate895
05-13-2010, 06:37 PM
Kagan should be our top priority. There is nothing more important today. If she gets on the Supreme Court, it will be ~40 years of her eroding Liberty. We can argue for days and many pages about certain issues, but in the end, those issues will be decided by the Supreme Court. And she will decide against us every time.

If worst comes to worst, then we can just pack the court.

xd9fan
05-13-2010, 11:21 PM
In the end.......it really will not matter what the 9 black robes say anyway......its just not their Constitution......

article 5 of the constitution people.....

Southron
05-14-2010, 12:03 PM
Nothing good will come from her.

Are we ever going to learn to take away power from the Supreme Court?

Brian4Liberty
05-14-2010, 08:09 PM
If worst comes to worst, then we can just pack the court.

I believe that is what they are doing. With Statists, Socialists and Communists.