A look at 2 top Supreme Court picks through 2A lenses. From
David Kopel on Judge Diane Wood:
Instead, Judge Wood chose to preemptively rule on the constitutionality of gun registration. Her ruling was bereft of the analysis that is necessary for judicial analysis of restrictions on any enumerated right. It is safe to say that Judge Wood has ample legal skills to conduct carefully-reasoned legal analysis when she chooses to do so. Accordingly, it is plausible to infer from her unreasoned opinion a disregard for Second Amendment rights.
Then
Merrick Garland:
Details here, regarding the 2000 case NRA v. Reno, and Judge Garland’s refusal to require the Clinton Department of Justice to obey the federal statute requiring the destruction of records of firearms purchases by law-abiding Americans. The decision also suggests a cavalier disregard for privacy rights in general, such as the right not to be put on a government list simply because one engaged in a lawful activity.
This from the Democratic Underground on Elena Kagan, the Solicitor General and currently considered the frontrunner:
During her Solicitor General nomination proceedings, Ms. Kagan provided answers to Senator Chuck Grassley regarding her view of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008):
"The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Court granted this right the same status as other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as those protected in the First Amendment . . . . I understand the Solicitor General’s obligations to include deep respect for Supreme Court precedents like Heller and for the principle of stare decisis generally. There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
We'll see, won't we?
8 comments:
Nobody told me elections have consequences!!!
- Pouty Conservative Purist Who Stayed Home on Election Day 2008
Tell me about it!
- Ron Paul voter
How about Kagan?
Fact is, I happen to be one of those who thinks a president is entitled to nominate, and have confirmed, any qualified individual.
Yes, elections do have consequences, and liberal jurists are to expected from the election of BHO.
Yeah, well the senate has the right to fillibuster, too... And I hope they hang tough and "Bork" all liberal come-ers... What is good for the goose is good for the gander... This is war folks, a I remember folks saying the repubs should not use the nuke option, when now something far worse was used for health care. Take no f'n prisoners.
"after Heller"
She has more respect for the court decision then the Bill of Rights.
What constitutes a qualified individual? Nominating a person should not and does not qualify and individual if that self-same individual has shown a disregard to the Constitution...and automatic confirmation? what are you drinking, smoking or otherwise ingesting...there wouldn't be hearings and a system to confirm an individual if nominated equaled confirming?
I wonder if Mr. Anonymous 2:49 felt the same way whenever a Republican president nominated someone and got shot down by the Democrats.
Or when CONSERVATIVES sank the idea of Justice Harriet by Bush?
I agree that a well qualified individual who looks as if he he or she will rule on the LAW, should generally get confirmed, even if their ideas and political leanings are on the other side of teh idealogical divide.
Ms. Myers was not qualified, in that she seemed to have no solid phlosophical foundation, no framework of a logical legal philosophy.
But a judge whose rulings are based more on political leanings than actual legal reasoning is actually LESS qulaified than one who is just drifting in the wind.
RE: Elena Kagan, the Solicitor General and currently considered the frontrunner: and her reply to DC vs Heller:
There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
Uh oh - one who follows precident, not the Constitution. ANd not even very well at that, "in case of confrontation"? Where does it say THAT in the Constitution or Bill of Rights (not suggestions)?
B Woodman
III-per
Post a Comment