Kagan Was ?Not Sympathetic? as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument

[Dan W]

Kagan Was ?Not Sympathetic? as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument
 
By Greg Stohr and Kristin Jensen

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.?

 

[Husker_Fan]

I don't expect we would do a lot better from a 2A standpoint with anyone else nominated by the President.  Heck, two of the four dissenters in Heller were appointed by Republicans.  I'm more interested to see how Justice Sotomayor votes and if she writes any opinion in McDonald.

Kagan may be the best to hope for from a conservative standpoint.  If she goes down on the basis of having no judicial experience, I would bet Diane Wood of the 8th Circuit is in on deck.  She is very liberal, but would have conservative stallwarts like Judges Posner and Epstein at her hearings to exhalt her intelligence and temperment, which they have already publicly commented on.

[Hardwood83]

I don't expect we would do a lot better from a 2A standpoint with anyone else nominated by the President.  Heck, two of the four dissenters in Heller were appointed by Republicans.  I'm more interested to see how Justice Sotomayor votes and if she writes any opinion in McDonald.

Kagan may be the best to hope for from a conservative standpoint.  If she goes down on the basis of having no judicial experience, I would bet Diane Wood of the 8th Circuit is in on deck.  She is very liberal, but would have conservative stallwarts like Judges Posner and Epstein at her hearings to exhalt her intelligence and temperment, which they have already publicly commented on.

Why is it the GOP appointees are about 50/50 but the Dims always remain true to their Liberal/relative morals/Living document roots?
I also have zero expectation of anything but radical nominees from this administration and will be shocked with anything less (ie better).

[ScottC]

I think it's because Republican's always choose folks more middle of the row moderates so that they won't be drug thru the slime of a committee, where Dems love to hassle anyone 'conservative.'

Republicans don't play the game as nasty as Dems do: if a Dem picks a liberal, everyone expects it.  But if a Republican picks a conservative, the media and other Dems rake both the person chosen as well as the Pres. over the coals.

It's a petty, slimy game they play - but the Republican leadership caves in way more than not.

[Husker_Fan]

You don't think Roberts and Alito are conservatives?  I think it has more to do with the priorities of the President at the time. GHW Bush picked Breyer who is pretty pro-business, which the President wanted.  I think they took other issues for granted.

[ScottC]

Do you happen to recall both the Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork 'approvals'???  I'm amazed anyone is willing to put their family through that sort of abuse.  No facts, no concern over truth: just unbridled slander and abuse by liberals & their pet media.