Kagan On Guns: Court Precedents Are 'Settled Law'

[stevie_d_64]

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-K ... /id/363394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan says she considers recent high court decisions expanding gun rights to be "settled law."

Kagan was asked at her confirmation hearing about two recent decisions, including a 5-4 ruling Monday, which essentially guaranteed citizens' Second Amendment rights to have guns, no matter where they live.

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California decried growing gang violence in her state, saying officials need leeway to deal with it.

Kagan responded that "once a court decides a case as it did, it's binding precedent." And she said judges must respect a precedent unless it proves unworkable or new facts emerge that would change the circumstances of a case.

Ok, call me crazy...But in my opinion, I could have sworn that this was actually "settled law" ohhh, say 'bout 200+ years ago...My memory might be fading a bit...

Its all the "infringements" that keep getting implemented and sometimes repealed...

If anyone believes this woman is not a threat...I got some land in Louisiana I wanna sell ya, give you a good price...Cheap!!!

Here's a good one for ya...

If you are caught changing your mind on an opinion (during a confirmation hearing like this) is that perjury??? Should you be indicted or even impeached for doing so???

I mean, if that were a true peril to an elected or appointed office, you'd think you'd just come out and tell the truth...Because for all intents and purposes, she will be confirmed...And we'll have to deal with her for at least another 25+ years...

I just hope the originalists on the court eat their Wheaties and stay healthy...We cannot afford to lose any of them and have Obama get another nomination...

[stevie_d_64]

A FRiend of mine sent me this...It's a little more insight and analysis on this woman...

Elena Kagan Well Represents America’s Ruling Elite
By Paul E. Gottfried

Listening to Elena Kagan as she was speaking before the Senate Judicial Committee, I was struck by how perfectly she fits her time and place. An overweight Jewish lesbian, whose career seems to have been put on fast track by her political supporters both inside and outside the media and someone who if she held diametrically opposed views, would not even be considered for a grounds crew post at Harvard, she is the quintessential symbol of Obama’s America. Her praise for her mentor Thurgood Marshall, whose “glory” it was to have acknowledged “special rights for the disadvantaged and despised,” does not in any way represent Christian or bourgeois morality. It is a ridiculous parody of what Nietzsche described as the behavior of the “Last Man,” the type of decadent who combines slave morality with philistine tastelessness. Kagan not only looks the part of this Last Man. She is the real article, no less than her fellow-law professors in the Ivy League and their imitators in the Bush League, who spend their time and energy instructing judges and state administrators on the practices and intricacies of victimology.

The major objection that has been raised to her nomination by respectable conservatives (unlike the readers of this website), typified by the Young America’s Foundation and Heritage, is that the nominee opposed ROTC at Harvard. Kagan, who is a gay activist when she is not wearing other prescribed victmological hats, defends her stand on the grounds that the military at the time was not doing enough to integrate self-described gays into the armed forces.

But the issue that movement conservatives have pushed the most vigorously is a non-starter. Kagan can now plausibly say that her grievance has been addressed. The Obama administration, with the full blessings of The Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer, and other neocon potentates, has arranged to allow gays who are open about their proclivities to serve in the military, and so Kagan’s onetime objection would no longer apply. The other movement conservative complaint deals with her lack of experience as a working attorney or judge. But Diane Feinstein has ably countered this objection by pointing out that the Court is already top-heavy with former federal judges.

I doubt most Republican senators would want to raise moral and cultural questions. Pat Buchanan might, but then he is not in Congress; and so far Jeff Sessions of Alabama is the only senator who seems eager to take on the nominee. The wussified Lindsay Graham, whose macho quota may have been filled by hanging around John McCain during his disastrous presidential campaign, can’t seem to get beyond inoffensive twaddle about how “some people might think the nominee wouldn’t be impartial.”

But why should the GOP waste its time going after Kagan, who is the klutzy poster child for a yuppified, urbanized multicultural America? Those who call themselves “conservative” will vote R, no matter what vile compromises Republican politicians make and no matter how often they genuflect before minorities. “The media made them do it!” is the excuse that happily gulled Republican loyalists offer for their gutless representatives. With such a following, why bother to go out on a rightwing limb or allow oneself to be identified with homophobic or fascist “hate speech”?

My own first choice for Supreme Court Justice given our circumstances would not be Kagan but someone like Jeremiah Wright or possibly Michelle Obama. At my age, I yearn to see the pompous advocates of multicultural America hoisted on their own petard. No more liberalism on the cheap for white liberals! Let them suffer for the harm they’ve inflicted on the social fabric by being stripped of their honors and by being reduced to servitude in a country run by the onetime “despised and disadvantaged.” At least I can dream!

We are rapidly approaching a point where the mechanisms we have in place to voice our opinions, our objections, to have "due process", are being systematically and severely limited to exercise...And all under the guise of a "progressive" political, social (cultural) and economic movement...They are no longer ashamed to state their preferences (or intent), and they do and say the things that do not upset the general (inattentive) population, but when "respectable" conservatives (I would like to think I am one of those) voice our objections, concerns or outright differences based upon fact, or historical data, we are the ones raked over the coals for even daring to further "victimise" people like this for our own devices...

[psijac]

I don't think of Kagan as a game changer. If she gets confirmed she will just replace the previous liberal judge. Right now We have 5 Conservative judges and 4 liberal. If she wins the balance of the court remains the same if she loses Obama will just line up the next Activist Judge. Also she has said will not judge on and cases which she worked on 10 of which will be heard next year. If they are are liberal then i am predicting a 5-3 slam. I Also predict she will go back on her word if she sees a 4-4 tie

[C-dub]

Don't believe a word she says. Wait until she's a justice and we'll see which side of different issues she comes down on.

Sotomayor said she believed that gun ownership was an individual's right in her hearings, but look what she said in this case. She lied through her teeth in her conformation hearing. She was not under oath during those was she? It would be nice to be able to kick her out because she lied during her interview. I know it's not going to happen, but it would be nice.

[wheelgun1958]

What's she saying from the other side of her mouth.

[bdickens]

Kagan is a liar.

[Cobra Medic]

Kagan is a liar.

Maybe, but Sotomayor definitely is.

[Oldgringo]

A hypothetical question - if you please.

Suppose, for a moment, that you were being interviewed for a very high paying part-time job for life with unequaled benefits. Would you speak your mind and heart or would you tell the interviewers what they wanted to hear? Just askin...

[C-dub]

A hypothetical question - if you please.

Suppose, for a moment, that you were being interviewed for a very high paying part-time job for life with unequaled benefits. Would you speak your mind and heart or would you tell the interviewers what they wanted to hear? Just askin...

Some, who need a job, will either lie or bite their tongue on anything controversial.

I would not lie, but I may bite my tongue. I have not had to do that yet. I think most interviewers will also steer clear of most controversial things because many of those issues are protected.

[jester]

A hypothetical question - if you please.

Suppose, for a moment, that you were being interviewed for a very high paying part-time job for life with unequaled benefits. Would you speak your mind and heart or would you tell the interviewers what they wanted to hear? Just askin...

In organizations and professions with ethics, lies on the application or during the interview process are grounds for immediate dismissal.

Just sayin'

[Beware of Doug]

A hypothetical question - if you please.

Suppose, for a moment, that you were being interviewed for a very high paying part-time job for life with unequaled benefits. Would you speak your mind and heart or would you tell the interviewers what they wanted to hear? Just askin...

I don't lie in job interviews. I also don't shoplift. Not even in expensive jewelry stores.

[bdickens]

A hypothetical question - if you please.

Suppose, for a moment, that you were being interviewed for a very high paying part-time job for life with unequaled benefits. Would you speak your mind and heart or would you tell the interviewers what they wanted to hear? Just askin...

In organizations and professions with ethics, lies on the application or during the interview process are grounds for immediate dismissal.

Just sayin'

And if I have to lie during the application process, is it a job I really want anyway?

[stevie_d_64]

Well, you don't have to tell them you have a Facebook page...Let them find out on their own if they are so inclined or motivated, and have the time to do so...

Other than that, I am very good at concealing my political and personal preferences, interests and activities from a lot of people in real life...In interviews, you'd think I was a wimp or something...

What people don't know about me, doesn't hurt anyone...

[bdickens]

Well, you don't have to tell them you have a Facebook page...Let them find out on their own if they are so inclined or motivated, and have the time to do so...

Other than that, I am very good at concealing my political and personal preferences, interests and activities from a lot of people in real life...In interviews, you'd think I was a wimp or something...

What people don't know about me, doesn't hurt anyone...

You don't have to tell them; they can find out on their own.

My brother-in-law has a big hand in the hiring decisions for t he company he works for. He routinely googles potential hirees' (and employees') names and checks out their Facebook, Myspace, et al pages.

[FL450]

My brother-in-law has a big hand in the hiring decisions for t he company he works for. He routinely googles potential hirees' (and employees') names and checks out their Facebook, Myspace, et al pages.

My company does the same thing, Your Social Networking page has become your resume so to speak
They are looking at character