Kagan Calls Gun Rights Decision 'Binding Precedent'

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
28,044
Likes
20,345
Feedback: 125 / 0 / 0
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/29/senators-press-kagan-specifics-opening-day/

Kagan Calls Gun Rights Decision 'Binding Precedent'


Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan told her confirmation panel Tuesday that the landmark decision extending gun rights to all 50 states is "binding precedent," despite a senator's suggestion that the 5-4 ruling was on shaky ground.

As questioning of the nominee got underway on the second day of Kagan's hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pressed her on the high court's Monday decision affirming the right to bear arms everywhere in the country and a similar 5-4 decision two years ago. Citing the plague of gang violence in her state, the California Democrat said "metropolitan states" have different problems than rural states and suggested the court's decision is challengeable.

"Why is a 5-4 decision -- in two quick cases -- why does it throw out literally decades of precedent?" Feinstein asked.

Kagan, in a to-the-point response, said a judge is obligated to respect prior decisions.

"Senator Feinstein, because the court decided them as they did -- and once the court has decided a case, it is binding precedent," Kagan answered.

The nominee said that unless the circumstances that led to a decision change or some other significant grounds can be found to challenge, "the operating presumption of our legal system is that a judge respects precedent. ... You assume that it's right and that it's valid going forward."

Kagan gave a similar response when grilled by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, about a recent campaign finance decision which President Obama and other Democratic officials have criticized. Kagan called the decision "settled law."

Such answers could help to assuage Republicans' concerns that Kagan would advance her political views, which they claim to be liberal, on the high court. Little is known, however, about her personal views as she has never held a judicial post. She worked in the Clinton administration but on Tuesday dismissed some of her writings there as "talking points" for the White House and not her personal views. She is the solicitor general, but made clear it was her job to advocate on behalf of the federal government.

Kagan briefly addressed the issue of abortion Tuesday under questioning by Feinstein. Asked whether the health of the mother must be protected in any statute restricting abortion, Kagan said "women's life and women's health have to be protected" in abortion regulation based on past decisions of the court including Roe v. Wade.

The start of the hearing, though, was consumed by one instance in which Kagan did appear to express her personal views -- her decision as Harvard Law School dean to temporarily restrict military recruiter access on campus. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, pressed her on the issue.

In response, Kagan insisted the Pentagon's recruiters had access to Harvard Law School students "every single day I was dean," adding that she believes military service is the most important way anyone can serve the country.

She has said she acted because the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars openly gay men and women from serving, was a violation of the university's anti-discrimination rules. As an alternative, she encouraged a campus veterans group to facilitate the Pentagon's recruitment of students.

Sessions disputed Kagan's version of events, saying that for one recruiting season "you gave them (the Pentagon) the runaround. ... You've continued to persist with this view that somehow there was a loophole in the statute that Harvard didn't have to comply with."

Kagan gave no ground, countering that "military recruiting went up that year, not down," when Pentagon's representatives worked through the veterans office on campus.

She also sidestepped when Sessions, citing a characterization by a senior White House official, sought to label her as a "legal progressive."

"I honestly don't know what that label means," she said. "I've served in two Democratic administrations. ... You can tell something about me and my political views from that."

Sessions said afterward that he was "disappointed" in Kagan's responses.
 
Yes, unfortunately for Feinstein, the U.S Constitution is a binding precedent as well.

"Why is a 5-4 decision -- in two quick cases -- why does it throw out literally decades of precedent?"

Pretty sure 200+ years outrules your "decades" of precedent. The 5-4 decision didn't create a new precedent, it upheld the one we should have had for 200 YEARS. The nerve of these people.
 
Last edited:
Feinstein also completely mischaracterized Miller - pretty standard operating procedure for the anti-gun lobby.
 
Yes, unfortunately for Feinstein, the U.S Constitution is a binding precedent as well.

"Why is a 5-4 decision -- in two quick cases -- why does it throw out literally decades of precedent?"

Pretty sure 200+ years outrules your "decades" of precedent. The 5-4 decision didn't create a new precedent, it upheld the one we should have had for 200 YEARS. The nerve of these people.
I was just thinking the same thing. It's because she wants it to be.
 
She will say anything now to be confirmed. She will vote to reverse both cases first chance she gets.

I would have disagreed a few days ago, but now that I've seen that Supreme Court Justices I respect and enjoy reading go off the deep-end when guns are involved...

That said, she can't possibly be worse than Stevens.
 
The court isn't going to reverse Heller no matter who is on it. The supreme court has never worked that way. The devil is in "reasonable restrictions." That definition is where all the other battles are going to be fought.
 
Agreed. If Obama and establishment types are for something, you can bet we won't want it.
There in lies the rub. No matter who he puts up for nomination, we are not going to like the choice. Just hope and pray that no conservative Judge leaves office during his term.
 
Going through the nomination process is kinda like filling out a pre-employment ethics questionnaire:

1) I sometimes take office supplies for personal use as the supplies are "for everybody"

a) strongly disagree b) disagree c)no opinion d)agree e) strongly agree

It's obvious that you need to tell them what they want to hear in order for you to get the job.

With all the highly anticipated elections that will be rolling our way, I believe republicans are in a good spot to be as aggressive/rude/persistent with their questions as they want. AND THEY SHOULD!
 
Pilgrim is correct. Do not expect this administration to follow established patterns or respect precedent. Obama promised to "funadamentally transform" this country, and he wasn't just talking about increased funding for social services.

Read the following:

From John Lott

A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns

From David Kopel

Sotomayor targets guns now

Kopels prepared testimony to be presented soon before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
http://davekopel.org/2A/Speech/Kopel-Kagan.pdf
 
That fat cow Sotomayor said she believed in the 2nd amendment too when she was trying to get confirmed. Just be thankful that Bush was the one to appoint two SCJ's and not Kerry.

Agreed.

Don't expect these nominees to be telling the truth, or even what they really believe.

Getting through a nomination has become a bit of a cottage industry. Nominees are very carefully coached and endlessly tested on the techniques for GETTING THROUGH the process without snags or controversy.

It's as close to a complete waste of time as we have in government.


The unfortunate fact is that while Republicans beleive in deferrence to the President and that 'elections have consequences', Democrats believe that EVERY conservative nominee is outside the mainstream and requires a fillibuster.

The confirmation process is no place for being magnanimous, but I don't see any changes on the horizon.
 
Last edited:
The court isn't going to reverse Heller no matter who is on it. The supreme court has never worked that way. The devil is in "reasonable restrictions." That definition is where all the other battles are going to be fought.

A week ago I would have agreed with you. The dissenting opinion in McDonald says otherwise.

Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings: "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." "I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans."

Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent: "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense."

The dissenting opinion in this case did not just oppose incorporation, but it opposed Heller as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom