Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Kagan Calls Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Ban 'Binding Precedent,' Offers Few Insights On Own Views

July 5, 2010 by  

Kagan calls Supreme Court ruling on gun ban 'binding precedent,' offers few insights on own views Under questioning from her Senate confirmation panel, United States Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan expressed her acceptance of the highest court’s recent decision to overturn the long-standing Chicago gun ban.

Pressed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Monday’s 5-4 decision, Kagan replied that she considered it to be "a binding precedent," according to media reports.

"Once the court has decided a case, it is binding precedent," the Solicitor General explained. She later specified that Supreme Court rulings become "settled law, entitled to all the weight precedent usually gets," quoted by The New York Times.

Despite this statement, many conservatives have said they do not trust Kagan’s commitment to the Second Amendment rights, and have called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to veto her nomination.

In fact, several Republicans on the committee, such as Senator John Kyl (R-Ariz.), have expressed their concern that she would become an activist judge—prone to legislating from the bench—citing the fact that she clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was instrumental in the major civil-rights era Supreme Court decisions. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19866550-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Kagan Calls Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Ban 'Binding Precedent,' Offers Few Insights On Own Views”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • J.M.R.

    this lying liberal hack will say what ever it take to be placed in the dick-taters stable of crminals.

    • Hugh Jordin

      How about when Bush tried to slip in his cleaning lady?

      • bp

        Hugh Jordin; The “Bush” excuse for everything is so passe’! It’s time for this administration to grow-up and take responsibility for the last 18 months. Half a term “transition”, the longest in history!

        • http://naver samurai

          100% agree! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Verus Langham

            Also agree… that that person should begin to see the insult to him/herself whenever their only comment can amount to a pathetic draw of the “old Bush” card thingy – a typical liberal modus operandi that oft-times takes on the character of using the “race-card” or the “anti-semitic card” in defense of their view or to prove a point that always, to me sounds about as deep as their generally deep-rooted belief they emerged from some primordial stew eons ago – imagine stew morphing into an intelligent with a stewed brain. That’s a dyed in the wool liberal alright.

  • CJ

    Yes, typical lib. Can’t commit to anything, so they dance around the issue, leaving themselves wiggle room for later confrontations. Heaven forbid they stand for anything. Can’t allow the chance to stick with their decision when it, later, gets in the way of their “progress”.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Kenneth Hubbell

    In reviewing any candidate, we must have the Constitution as our guide. I would urge congress to take a close hard look at what Kagan has done in the past. We do not need “activist” judges, but hose who will interpret the law, not make their own. Extreme caution should be exercised here, and I firmly believe this would be a bad choice. I agree that she will be a danger to our rights. Do not confirm!

    • Pat Mulvaney

      Everone should read what happened to Germany when Hitler banned firearms to “the people”. Do you want that to happen to America?

      • Wolf Wolf

        Unfortunately, Gun freedom doesn’t guarantee constitutional freedom. Beware of the police state and cameras and drones.

        Many freedoms were given up during the last administration.

  • M.R.

    Considering that Ms. Kagan is a liberal and the fact that there are few liberals that actually believe in the 2nd Amendment then I highly doubt that she will actually support the 2nd Amendment in the long run. Currently she is just trying to make herself look and sound good so that she can be appointed to the Supreme Court. I think that it would be a poor decision to give a life time appointment to anyone who has never served as a judge on any level.

    • Kinetic1

      So you would consider William Rehnquist a “poor Choice”? In fact, you would call into question 40 Justices over the life of the Supreme Court. Given, the first 10 or 20 may be excused due to a lack of legal schooling available in America at the time, but Presidents from Roosevelt to Nixon have all nominated people due to their qualifications rather than their having already been a judge.

      I understand that Ms. Kagan is a liberal, and your bias would have you believe that all liberals hate guns and lie through their teeth. The ability to hold and share these opinions is, as an American your right. Fortunately there are more open and rational minds at work here.

      • TIME

        Non movable, Where is that? For sure ot you.
        If your mind were a parachute you would be dead after the first jump.

        • Kinetic1

          Time,
          The minds I speak of are those that will confirm or deny Ms. Kagan’s appointment, but rather than consider this obvious reference you, once again consider a personal insult an intelligent retort. Hooray for your side!

          The point of my post is that MR considers Ms. Kagan unqualified based on two or three basic principles.
          1) She is, according to MR a common liberal and, therefore is unlikely to support the 2nd amendment.
          2) She is so anxious to get on the court that she will lie to do so.
          3) She has never been a judge.

          I would contend that the degree to which she is a Liberal is up for debate. We will only know the truth once she is seated, as is the case with all Justices, both right and left of center. To suggest that she is so desirous of a seat on the SC that she would do or say anything is quite an offensive stance and demands some proof. The fact that she never sat on the bench and therefore has no record to turn to is not proof, nor does it meet the standards set for becoming a judge.

          In reviewing this site I see that frequent participants seem to take great joy in hurling ad hominem insults at those they consider liberal and a few “liberals” will return in kind. If, Time you have ANY comments that relate to these issues, please speak up. If you are just here to make your little friends giggle, then please, hurl away.

          • TIME

            Non movable,
            I am a “REAL LIBERAL”, but your as far from being a real liberal as the Sun is from Pluto. As I see it everyone here knows I am a real Liberal.
            Yet how odd is it how no one here has any issues with me.
            Don’t you think thats a bit odd dude?

            That is other than you Posers like yourself who claim to be something your not.
            As I see it when one makes a absurd argument we all have the door open to adress such in a way thst displays the overt stupidity posted by the likes of people like yourself.

            If you don’t like that – then post something that is based in some form of real logic and drop the Poser Rap Crap.

            As for Kagan’s qualification’s for such a job, she has {ZIP, Nada Non!}
            Need I explain that in detail so your very slow mind can grasp it?

            If a person is to sit in the Supreem Court then I expect that person to display an “open mind” and not be set within a “grid of radical platforms.”
            Ms. Kagan has displayed nothing but 100% radical views from day one. Thus one can not trust her to have any change.

            The old adage of a leoprard can never change its spots fits this profile to a tee.
            Now do you need me to be more detailed or can you grasp that?

          • TIME

            Oh and by the way Non Movable one, the Progressive Marxist that sit in both houses I have zero respect for and I find them repugnant.
            Thus their minds are as far as I see it equal to used TP.

          • Kinetic1

            Time.
            “..as far from being a real liberal as the Sun is from Pluto.” “Posers like yourself who claim to be something your not.” ” Rap Crap”?
            Thanks, Time. It is clear now that your intent is to rile people up and, as you noted no one seems to have a problem with that. Now that I have a better understanding of you and your limitations, neither will I. Your posts have not been worth getting animated about, so, in the future I will not be bothered to respond unless you can come up with an honest, informed point.

            Enjoy yourself!

          • TIME

            Non Movable,
            Your as transperant as a clear glass window, as well totaly clueless. As to whats in your twisted and bent nano mind one can only fathom what a five year old thinks about or will come up with as logical.
            Don’t chew on any electric wires while pluged in, it may be shocking.

          • JC

            There’s nothing wrong with classic “live and let live” liberalism. Its those pesky social engineering commies running around as liberals that are the problem.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            non movable,
            “as far as her being a liberal I think that will be determined after she is in office”! Typical liberal stance!!! “We gotta pass the bill to see what is in it”!!!!! I say we don’t find out if that is what it takes! Keep her off the bench!!! Call your reps and DEMAND that they vote against her!! I have and will keep remnding them weekly!!

      • Constitutional, Chris

        Ms.Kagan Is First and Foremost: an Attorney; Ah-to/ torn-turn about or CHANGE Ah-Torn-ey. The First Rule of LAW is: Any THING, that you CAN get AWAY with, is LEGAL, unless, Timely and Specific Objection is Uttered thereunto!

        Sub siletio( below silence) is a “position at LAW”, and supports the assertion of the Plantiff at bar and thier asserted accustions if not REPONDED to in a timely fashion, however, EVADING by “Legal Trickeries of LAW” by bobbing and weaving or RE-PHRASING the QUESTION, is a TACTIC, to obfuscate(confuse by changing the facts) by retorical meanderings, ad infinitum.

        Ms Kagan and her:S.C.O.T.U.S. STACKER in Chief. are Social Justice,(Humanistic-NeoPlatonistic, Pythagorean, MYSTERY School), Gnostic Ilumminati worshippers of Baal, Ashtoreth(Lilith);Cannanites{ source of:canna-Baals) and students of: Marx, Lennin, Stalin, Cloward and Plevin, Saul Alinski, SWORN to thier God: LUCIFER/SATAN, to Destroy the Righteous People of SHEM, as Their KIND,(the Canninites have done for over THREE THOUSAND YEARS as They Have Learned from thier Religions books: Zohar, Kahbbalah( based on the Sephiroth),Koran and midrash
        It may be wise to recall: Christ’s WARNING! to:”Beware of FALSE Profits, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves!” Ms Kagan and the PRETEND President(all though as mere Corporate President of Corp U.S.(the Federal Gavernment , ie: the 10 mile square, which is but; Washington, District of Criminals, and ancillary Federal Zones, it should surprise NO one, That he tends to think in terms of: “International LAW” not American Law, as Corp U.S. assets, inclusive of the asserted; Federal Reserve(in fact: Central Bank), I.R.S.(Fed’s ENFORECEMENT/Revenue Collection ARM)& Social Security Admin. were Under the Bretton Woods Agreement, all said asssets of Corp U.S, were, at LAW: QUIT CLAIMED to Private Foreign Bankers:(Rothschild-Myer Amschell Bauer, in truth),Warburg,(U.B.S.W.) Rockefeller, J.PEABODY Morgan, Brown Harriman and Harriman/(Prescott Bush and Sons), Queen of England, Royal Bank of Scotland…) thus NOT One RED cent, of what Americans pay to the IRS, Goes to Anything, here in America!

        The S.S.A.( Frauduently asserted as: Old Age Retirement Insurance) is in Fact and at LAW, a TRUST in Toten! It is NOT YOUR S.S.Number, It belongs to a Private Foreign TRUST but, has a NAME of an ENTITY spelled JUST like yours, BUT in Capitals, designating a TRUSTEE, a mere Corporate Entity said Benefits, pursuant to the to the TRUST, are SUBJECT to: the POWER of CONGRESS and as such, may at the mere WHIM of Congress, be Cancelled! so Much for the PONZI SCHEME, where will you set, when the MUSIC STOPS?

        So it Goes with Stealthy Praticers, of the COLORABLE ARTS(in truth, able to be COLORED, in any way that may benefit the Monopolistic Cabal of the Rights of the Black NOBILITY) devised by SCHEME, under mere Liscence, of what is but, TERMED: “secret mysteries” of LAW!

        May The GOD of Shem, the Creator of all the Heavens and the Earth, Protect and Save America and the Sovereign Human Beings sojourning here, from the Satanic Jihadists, plotting the DESTRUCTION of our Chrstianity, Freedom and Liberty concieved Grand Experiment of the REPUBLIC

        • Maverick

          You wasted a lot of fancy words, amigo. I write like I talk. I don’t give a sh&* about impressing anyone with a bunch of BS talk. I say it like it is. You may be right with what you said, but, why use so many words to say it ???? I’m just a simple, good ol’ boy from the southwest. So, I’ll put it in simple terms that anyone can understand. Kagan is a stupid (word removed). Raised on a silver spoon, and has no clue as to what it is to face a firearm, or any conflict in her world. Well, Mijo’ ,, I HAVE !!! She has no damned business being involved in politics AT ALL !!!! But, it shouldn’t take so many words to get your point across. Half way into your comment, I lost interest. Sorry, don’t mean to be disrespectful. You made a good point. And, I agree. But keep your point short, and directly to the point. I hate her, she needs to go. And, most will agree with that. Keep ypur comments simple, and directly to the point.

          • Soma

            Then you should welcome the lack of freedoms as promoted by the 1984 scenario guised as antiterrorism. So long as you have the right to bear arms (for the time being). Eventually in the police state you will be shown that is no longer needed (as other freedoms are trampled)and you will give yours up or be the criminal. Your freedom is protected by the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not just the ones you pick and choose.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Soma,
            I will never willingly give up any of my freedoms, especially my right to own and carry guns!

      • Constitutional, Chris

        Perhaps, you would consider the Pre-emminent Felix Frankfurter in the CLOTH of Kagan?

        You may Note: that the aforesaid, S.C.O.T..U.S., adjudicator of the “Brown vs. Board of Education” FRAUD on the PEOPLE, by: FAILURE to RECUSE when an “absolute” bonafide conflict exists, as is REQUIRED by Moral and Ethical Oaths and Affirmations pursuant to:the Oath of OFFICE, in re, Said Justice Frankfurter, having been the Plantiff Brown’s and his enjoinded in actio, Counsel of Record: N.A.A.C.P (founded in 1910 by all but one, Caucasian Canninite Lawyers, and so untill 1971), Said; Counsel, for the Plantiff, in the suit at Bar, for the N.A.A.C.P. which had in FACT and at LAW, Justice Frankfurter had been for approx 12 YEARS be said: Counselor General for the Plantiff, N.A.A.C.P., thus creating a: MONUMENTAL, bonafide, Controversy at LAW which, had any of the asserted; Learned, practitoners, of the Colorable Black Arts of Law, OBJECTED, in a TIMELY and Specific manner the HONERABLE JUSTICE?, in homage, to his High Officious Position, of Public TRUST?, at LAW should have RECUSED his KAGANISTIC self but, as the present Social JUSTICE communista candidate, will merely proceed to confirmation just like the previous Stalthy Presidents: Wilson, F.D.R., Cater, and Clintons will easily be CONfirmed against the WILL of “WE THE PEOPLE” by subversives clothed as President and their Co-Conspirators in TREASON!

        • Maverick

          You actually expect me to look that up ??? Less than 1% of the people who read this crap will bother. What ??? Are you an attorney ?? I’m willing to bet, I have been in court against more defense attorneys than you ever have in your carrier ,, if you are. And I NEVER lost a case. 13 years as a Law Enforcement Officer,,, please, take some advice … stop with all the ‘legal quotes’ ,, just say what you have to say ,, it will get more respect.

    • Maverick

      Ask her to deal with a firearm in her face, just one time. She would change her mind, QUICKLY !!!

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Maverick,
        no, being the progressive liberal she is, she would just demand all firearms be banned!!!

  • http://YAHOO ED FOUTS

    OBAMA appoints the worst lowest un americans he can find
    the white house needs to be cleaned out of criminal thugs
    starting with OBAMA the snake he has done enough damage to our country
    it will take years to bring us back to the land of the free
    all liberals un americans radicals need to go, come nov if their not voted out look out get ready for a revolution

    • Maverick

      Ed ,, I am a ‘good ol’ boy from AZ. I’m not into fancy ‘PC’ language, ,,, Lets call it like it is … “Hunting season is open ,,, Open season on Kagan, and all of her ‘species’. No limit, year ’round, and top dollar for the pelts ,,”. It’s time for her kind to become ‘endangered species’.

  • http://YAHOO ED FOUTS

    KAGAN not fit to be ant exterminator
    this is just a little fat liberal that has never been anyehere
    but brain washed by the socialist pigs and picked by another
    socialist muslim pig barry hussein oboomer

  • Harold

    She should not be confirmed, Obama would not have nominated her if she beleived in the U.S. Constitution!

  • Al Sieber

    In the end she’ll be confirmed by the traitors we elected.

  • Bruce D.

    What she said may be true but if they have the votes to misinterpret the Constitution they will do it. That is why it is so dangerous to have a democrat as president. If she is not confirmed Obama will stay with the same philosphy of sedition through legislation and judges that lean toward government intervention and control of everything.

    • Maverick

      Hey, Bruce ,,, what about ‘attrition’ … OBAMACARE ???

  • http://none J and D Tom

    Kagan, shoud not be confirmed she is not smart enough for surpreme court and if they put some one like he on there she’s to young and it’s a lifetime job. We would have her forever. We don’t like her gun right views and alot of others NO. do not confirm this woman.

  • AL Mosher

    THIS WHAT SHE SAID;
    Kagan replied that she considered it to be “a binding precedent,” according to media reports.
    “Once the court has decided a case, it is binding precedent,”
    BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT IF THE ISSUE MAKES IT BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH WE KNOW THAT IT WILL IN THE SAME OR SLIGHLY DIFFERENT FORM, SHE WILL RULE AGAINST ANY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT. SHE’S LYING !!!

    • Norm

      She’s alledgedly lying(according to you). Thank God your not a judge. You sound like a perfect Nazi.

      • marvin

        Norm you are entitiled to your liberal opinion i could call you a stuped nazi teabagging homosexual that likes boys but we on here are haveing a grown up debate about kagen and the supreme courty, not you having sex with your boy friend, and as for you if you don,t like it here leave this is not a liberal site,kagen will say anything right wrong or indifferance to be conformed,like you stuped is as stuped does and why tell the truth if a lie will work

        • Smilee

          Grown up debate??????? Your are a comedian full of jokes are you not!!! Norm is right there are a lot of professed mind readers on here who in reality cannot read minds like you.

        • Kinetic1

          Marvin,
          It frightens me to think that your version of a “grown up discussion” includes resorting to name calling and sexual innuendo. No, I do not think that Norm should have resorted to using “nazi”, but look how quickly you sank to the same level and then kept going. How fitting, then that you ended with the quote “stuped (sic) is as stuped (sic) does.”

          Ms. Kagan is a well educated person with, by all accounts a fine grasp of the law. Her lack of judicial experience is not considered a limiting factor by either history, the larger part of the legal world (including many Republicans) or the Constitution. Her response to this question is no less than what others, such as Justice Roberts gave for other controversial subjects during his confirmation hearings. You may recall that commenting on one’s opinions of issue likely to be heard is not considered appropriate, thus the question of Roe v Wade is often responded to in this manner. To contend that she is unqualified due to your bias against those you consider liberals is fine for these conversations, but it ignores the realities of past selections, many of whom have judged differently than anyone had expected,
          and holds little weight in the real world.

          • TIME

            Lack of movement1, If it were not for double standards you would have none.
            But really thanks for displaying that here daily so we can all observe just what that means.

          • David

            It is not her lack of intelligence that should render her ineligible nor her lack of Judicial experience, though I think they should have to have served as a judge before. What makes her not right for the job is the completely partisan/political focus of her entire career. How is she supposed to make constitutional decisions without bias when her whole life is dedicated to one view point? The judges are our last line of governmental defense, they should not be on any side but the constitutions.

          • del

            Kinetic, you said she has a fine grasp on the law. I ask you can you give an example of this fine grasp?

          • Kinetic1

            del’
            “…fine grasp on the law.” is, of course a personal opinion, though it is shared by many in the legal world. I base my opinion on the memos recently released. I these memos I saw a person who was not afraid to consider all sides of an issue, even in cases where she would likely disagree.

            Kagan criticized a California court for rejecting a landlady’s claim that an state anti-discrimination law violated her religious freedom and suggested that her appeal should be accepted by the Supreme Court. Further, she felt the court should side with the landlady, saying it was her right not to rent to unmarried couples based on her belief that sex outside of marriage was wrong. I am not sure where I stand on this, but it has given me much to consider. You may or may not agree with her stance, but she has taken both the couples freedoms and the landlady’s freedom of religious belief into account, rather than taking the easy way out.

            Kagan also argued against a ban on abortion, noting that the ban made no concession for situations where the mother’s life was at risk, again speaking to the gray area of the pro life stance: which life takes precedence?

            You may or may not consider these and other of her opinions worthy of a Supreme Court Justice, but I, though I am concerned that she may prove less liberal than many think, can find no reason not to support her.

          • Kinetic1

            Sorry, that should have read “In these memos…”

          • independant thinker

            Obama always considers all sides of an issue …………………… then he says we are doing it my way.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            non-mover1,
            marvin obviously feels like I do. I return what is thrown at me! normie and even you have stooped to name calling as have most of your progressive bretheren here!!

          • Verus Langham

            Your viewpoint is well-taken and with respect I submit that I personally would not have had much with which to formulate bias (except my inclination toward my Republican Party Conservatism)against her… there is however some evidence that both she and her office were involved in the birthing of the bill known as OBAMAscare and further in the obvious attempt to cover up her personal knowledge of its content well before Obama selected her for his nominee… and then there were the inescapable conferences that targeted insulation of her involvement or the appearance of her isolation from its tenets while the agency from which she came consulted the author of the bill on its legality. All that is now published on the Internet in this venue indicates a large amount of redacted (for the general public) material and that remaining does in small part bear the signature of a cover-up. While this is being carefully raked over by appropriate legal community experts we have in the wake the approaching day when the highest court will indeed be making a determination of the final outcome of this highly speculative piece of legislative work that many see as a threat to the very fabric of our Republic. Should she not recuse herself from the final panel of judges then there will undoubtedly become a cry throughout the land for her removal… her staff and her own complicity to give the bill its stamp of approval with the understanding and full knowledge that she just might one-day be enthroned to give it the flag of victory for the liberal left’s agenda to further democratize America… our Republic be damned.

      • Maverick

        Norm ,, have you ever stared down the business end of a firearm? Have you ever faced someone willing to use it? My friend, I have ,,, 4 times. It is not a pleasant experience, believe me. I served as a law enforcement officer for 13 years. Has Kagan ever done that ??? She needs to, it would change her beliefs drastically. And, personally, I think she needs to face that, one time in her life. And, if she continues with her current belief, it could happen. It can happen to anyone. She needs to go away. ANYONE, who has never dealt with that, only needs to have it happen. It can change a belief or conviction against firearms.

    • Kinetic1

      AL Mosher,
      Justice Roberts, when asked about Roe v Wade said “It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis,”. Once on the bench though, in his decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission he rejected decades of precedence “to address the important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case.”

      Was he right to do so? “At the same time, stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command’… nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ … especially in constitutional cases,” he wrote. “If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”

      Well that sounds reasonable. Of course the part about wiretapping raises some eyebrows. Roberts continued;
      “When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right,”… “stare decisis is not an end in itself.”

      So you may be correct. Kagan may reconsider her commitment to “binding precedent” depending on the case, but why does this possibility preclude her from becoming a justice? The freedom to do so was practiced in modern times by the 4 most conservative justices.

  • Ellis-Tx

    This is why it is so important to vote every encombient out in November, particular the dems. We have the opportunity to do this. Then impeach Obama. His views are diffently not for the good of this country.

    • Norm

      Ellis-Tx
      Would you replace them with extremeist teabaggers who represent the lunatic fringe?

      • TIME

        Well Norm you seem to know a lot about gay people so you tell us all about how that works.

      • http://naver samurai

        Norm, now you know you can’t get too much more crazy than the current administration. I don’t have time to rewrite the bad list of things they have done, so you got lucky. Put a sock in it Norm!

      • Robert

        In reply to Norm. Not all teabaggers are extremists! “We the people” are ordinary citizens who have had enough of government orgainized crime. There are traitorous people in our government and need to be expunged in order to continue our way of life and our freedom. You haven’t realized yet what repercutions are in store for you, my friend, and they are going to turn your world upside down unless you get a grip on reality and understand the workings of manipulating government officals. Unless you like being told what to do, when to do it, and lose your freedom and money.

      • vicki

        I personally do not care about their sexual practices. I care about their ability to read and comprehend. It would also be nice of those that COULD read would bother to do so before they vote.

        I might feel a little more represented if they read the bills they pass on us.

  • http://www.freedomspitchfork.blogspot.com Freedom’s Voice

    I agree she definitely should not be confirmed. Problem is who would take her place?

  • Ed

    The Supreme Court is charged with evaluating actions which are “properly” brought before it to determine if in fact they met the demands of the Constitution. It is NOT permitted to reinterpret the Constsiution. When there is a prohibition as clearly worded as the 2nd Amendment, which prohibits any (government or citizen) from infringing on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms (of citizens, not everyone). There is nothing more for the court to say. There is no such thing as a precedent regarding the Constitution. If one believes that there is a need for precedents to rule regarding Constitutional violations, then clearly that person simply does not understand the Constitution, and cannot be permitted to be placed in a position of safeguarding it.

    The Constitution is a contract between two parties. There is a proper pathway provided to amend that contract, but otherwise the WORDS of the Constitution rule over all citizens and ALL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. This contract is between citizens of the various States and a created federal government. No one beyond these two entities has any standing in Constitutional matters unless specifically given standing by that contract, and there are none. Non-citizens have NO rights under the Constitution. Perhaps in need of serious debate is the use of Presidential Orders. There is no provision in the Constitution for such action and therefore they are illegal actions. It is de-facto legislation by the Executive Branch. The Federal Government, in an obviously self serving fashion, maintains that giving the President those powers is for the better good of the nation. I question this, as well as the way our Constitution has been treated in the past (and present) as a matter of convenience rather than the law as it was intended.

    • James

      Ed. The Supreme Court, in McDonald v. Chicago, didn’t enforce the Second Amendment within a State, it held: “We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment in Heller.” (The D.C. v. Heller [2008] decision honored the individual right to posses a handgun for his personal self-defense.) The Court held, in McDonald, that “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment now includes that right, not the Second Amendment. You’re confusing the right with the amendment. The High Court didn’t reverse its decision in U.S. v. Cruikshank, which held that the Second Amendment restriction applies exclusively to the federal government. Originally “liberty” (in the 14th) only meant not being incarcerated without the state’s due process of law, now, however, all sorts of rights (abortion, homosexual acts, etc.) have been added to it by the High Court.

    • Smilee

      Eddie is really mixed up when it come to the Constitution even though he thinks otherwise he is completely wrong on that point.

  • Eddie

    Almost Every Judge & Lawyer I speak with seems to have a Love for “Fuzzy Law.” That is a Law that is so “fuzzy” that it needs constant “professonal interpretation” before judgement can apply.. One Judge said, “Fuzzy Law” lets me go either way on the “Guilty or Not Guilty” verdicts, & I love the Power to Decide the Fate.” Going on to say, “A clearly defined Law ties my judgemental hands too tightly, and simply forces me to Obey & Apply the Law as clearly defined Law, – where’s the judgement call in that..??
    And there you have the basic Democrat Party Principle of, “Let the Law mean anything we choose to interpret it to mean..”
    “Fuzzy Law” works for the Democrat Social Agenda.. While a clearly stated Law works for We the American People, and for the Free Republic for which We Stand..
    Eddie’56

    • Smilee

      The law has never been as FUZZY as you are!!!!!!!!!!

      • TIME

        Smelly, The law is nothing but shades of gray, but as it goes its nearly as bent as you, thus whats your point again?

        • JC

          That’s the problem with our “law” system. It isn’t a “justice” system.
          It’s merely a football to be kicked around in Kangaroo court until somebody scores.
          We’ll need to re-enact a system of justice before this whole circus can be brought to an end.

        • Smilee

          My point cannot be given until you tell me hat the heck you are talking about assuming you know that.

          • TIME

            Smelly,
            Its quite clear your 100% totaly clueless so other than having no point your pointless.
            Go to law school, then tell me all about the shades of gray.

          • Kinetic1

            Smilee,
            Don’t waste your time. If you look over Time’s past posts, you’ll see that he is short on information, long on insults. He seems to be here for no reason other than to feed his ego, so let him have his fun.

          • Smilee

            Kinetic1 says:
            July 5, 2010 at 4:30 pm

            You convinced me, you are right!!

          • http://?? Joe H.

            notmoving one(a little exlax will fix that!),
            On the contrary i find Times posts to have a lot more thought as well as intelligence that is quite sorely lacking in edduh, smelly and of course, yours!!!

          • Smilee

            Joyie

            Thats not surprising coming from you who has no intelligence!!

  • Suzette

    I so agree with you Ed. Kagan talks about “precedent” forgetting that the SC isn’t the despot she’d like it to be.

    In order to correctly understand what the parties to a contract intended, a court should look to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract, e.g., writings, phone calls, letters, memorandums, etc. In the same way, when analyzing any clause or amendment of the Constitution, the Supreme Court should first discover the “original intent” of the parties to the document by looking to the events surrounding the drafting and passing of the clause or amendment, including the records of the Constitutional convention and the writings of the Framers.

    “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of ALL instruments [documents] is to construe them according to the sense and the terms and the intentions of the parties.” ~Justice Joseph Story, considered by many to be the father of American jurisprudence due to his prolific contributions to American law.

    But if liberals did this they would loose a huge voting block in the process.

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
    It can only exist until voters discover they can vote themselves generous benefits from the public treasury. From that moment, the majority always votes for candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”~Alexander Tytler

    Even those who are here illegally and their illegal babies too.

  • bp

    “Once the court has decided a case, it is binding precedent,” rulings become “settled law, entitled to all the weight precedent usually gets”!

    The man-woman Kagan has it backwards. SCOTUS decision’s are based on “settled law”, according to the balance of powers of the three branches of government. This ugly little lesbian bureaucrat is anti-military, anti-gun rights, pro-abortion, hates men, loves women, believes in precedent based on “circumstances” rather than the CONSTITUTION, which she considers an out-dated “living” document. In other words, she’s anti-American, just like BHO!! We all need to stop this nomination because it is a LIFETIME appointment and we deserve only the best for the Supreme Court of The United States of America!!

    • Fear GOD, not man!-James White

      bp-You hit the nail on the head! Are we sure she’s not related to Barry Soetoro? Probably his sister from Kenya, very UN-american! Barry is NOT a U.S. Citizen, either! There is too much proof he is Kenyan and the liberals completely hoodwinked the young voters and “change” was good. What they didn’t understand was that he meant that was all they might have after he got finished with them, just a little bit of change! (in thier pocket) Now they are almost all remorseful mfor the act of supporting a muslim idiot like him…..

    • rwnut

      bp…..and others,please sign the petitions against Kagan’s nomination. http://www.ipetitions.com/start-petition
      and
      http://www.NoKagan.com

  • ONTIME

    That’s just great that Kagan gave everyone such a lovely speech when her past indicates she is not even close to understanding the values of the Constitution or the founders intent. The woman is a Barry Sotero clone in female form and like him talks out bothe sides of her big mouth..

    Mayor did the same, told all how she valued our laws and understood the amendments and then demonstrated recently what she is a ideologue seeped in the belief of a living Constitution and rejected the 2nd amendment outright.

    RE-PARE AMERICA’S GOVERNMENTS

  • Norm

    The fact is her nomination is a sure thing and I predict 5 or six Republican votes as well.

    • JC

      With a sufficient amount of grease and lobbying, you’re probably right. It’s really quite pathetic.

  • Bill Kay

    Just another henchmen for the socialist/ communist regiem Should never been selected in the first place. NOT QUALIFIED , UNAMERICAN DISGUSTING .

  • uponroof

    Norm, Happy Fourth of July. What part of the constitution do you reject? Or are you simply of the opinion that times change, and so should a 200 year old document?

    Please give us some insight on how the progressive mind justifies such radical thoughts. I believe we are all Americans and entitled to our opinions. That said, what the progressive party (new democrats) are proposing reeks of constitutional/societal sabotage. Is there another explanation?

    • Smilee

      There is the correct explanation but it’s doubtful your capable of understanding that bases on your simplistic statements and closed mind so why bother!

      • TIME

        Smelly,
        We all await your briliance. I guess we all will be waiting a long time.

        • Smilee

          My post was in response to uponroof says, so your “WE” is not of any concern

          • TIME

            Smelly, Yada – Yada – Yada, more babble from a POSER.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Time,
            That’s Yadda, Yadda Bush Bad. Yadda, Yadda, Bush terrible! Yadda, Yadda gotta kiss Obummers behind!!! thats Norms mantra!!!

  • Fear GOD, not man!-James White

    Here’s one thing I don’t recall anyone saying on this post, “TREASON”! Obama and all of his muslim/liberal appointees are committing the act of TREASON! Every one of them should be taken out of the office they hold and tried under the laws to protect our unalienable rights! Read the preamble from the ‘Declaration of Indepedence’ written BEFORE the Constitution.

    Because of their concern with the philosophy of the Declaration, many modern scholars have dealt with the opening sentence of the preamble out of context, as if Jefferson and the Continental Congress intended it to stand alone. Seen in context, however, it is part of a series of five propositions that build upon one another through the first three sentences of the preamble to establish the right of revolution against tyrannical authority:

    Proposition 1: All men are created equal.
    Proposition 2: They [all men, from proposition 1] are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights
    Proposition 3: Among these [man's unalienable rights, from proposition 2] are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
    Proposition 4: To secure these rights [man's unalienable rights, from propositions 2 and 3] governments are instituted among men
    Proposition 5: Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [securing man's unalienable rights, from propositions 2-4], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

    When we look at all five propositions, we see they are meant to be read together and have been meticulously written to achieve a specific rhetorical purpose. The first three lead into the fourth, which in turn leads into the fifth. And it is the fifth, proclaiming the right of revolution when a government becomes destructive of the people’s unalienable rights, that is most crucial in the overall argument of the Declaration. The first four propositions are merely preliminary steps designed to give philosophical grounding to the fifth.

    I pray that ALL good men will know these simple truths, and come together to defend the rights (not privleges) given to us by GOD the Father, our Creator! LONG LIVE FREEDOM!!!

    • Smilee

      The DOI is an American document and applies to only our country so if these rights are given to us by God why are these rights not true in all countries which we know it is not. The DOI is a man made document not written by God and at the time it was written it did not include all in this country even through it uses the term “ALL” in the DOI also it is a declaration not law that is in the Constitution and it took several amendments and several laws most many years later to include the “ALL” in law as specified in the DOI but these changes were to the Constitution and not our DOI. You also should see the definition of Treason in the Constitution so you would not apply that term incorrectly as you have done in this post of yours as you are totally wrong in your description of Treason.

      • uponroof

        Smilee, That’s a glimpse into the insight I was looking for. Thanks. To counter I would say the DOI and Constitution, regardless of imperfect authors, reflects Judeo Christian values. Further, when comparing track records with whatever else you choose to compare the American experience to, America comes out well ahead of any other societal experiment in history. Please explain why we must ‘progress’.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csj-wr9qqgY&feature=PlayList&p=AB509C76D7478D34&playnext_from=PL&index=1&playnext=2

        • TIME

          Uponaroof, You are so right!
          Lets look at pre American experiment, thats about 5000 years according to whats within written records.

          So that means that man was held down for 5000 years and then along comes a new form of FREEDOM so any person can if they are so compelled become wealthy, own land, own anything they wish.
          They are no longer slaves to the state or King.

          Yet some of the neo Marxist who feel thats failed want to drag all of us down into the abyss of being slaves again so everyone can be the same. Strange how they forget the KINGS.
          But hey as you and I know Marx was a malcontent who hated other Jews, as well as all mankind no matter who.

          And as we have seen time after time when the Marxist experiment has taken place its failed time after time. Lets also not forget the fact that more humans have been killed by Marxist than any other form of Government ever.

          But as we seem to have a plethora of neo Marxist who post here with thier mindless dribbel, as well thier post filled with such vitriol toward the American way of life.
          What can we expect from such Godless mindless droids that will follow blindly into that good night.

        • Smilee

          uponroof says:
          July 5, 2010 at 9:56 am

          Smilee, That’s a glimpse into the insight I was looking for. Thanks. To counter I would say the DOI and Constitution, regardless of imperfect authors, reflects Judeo Christian values. Further, when comparing track records with whatever else you choose to compare the American experience to, America comes out well ahead of any other societal experiment in history. Please explain why we must ‘progress

          _____________________________
          That may be your insight but disagree with your conclusion that it reflects Judeo Christian values but that’s not to say its free expression is not protected as are all other religious /spiritual beliefs not just Judeo Cristian beliefs or values. Billy Graham a few years back in an interview with David Frost said We have never been a Christian Nation and the country was not founded on these principals and I agree with him and the Constitution does not say it was was so that is but your opinion . I agree with the rest of your post and I said nothing about progress but all must live in the present and that is very different than circumstances of the eighteenth century and we have changed the Constitution 27 times so it is no longer a document of just the founding fathers as they designed it not to be, the first amendments were in 1791 and the last in 1992, these changes spanned 201 years, you tell me if you call that progress or not? Progress has always been the present and the future, the Constitution and the DOI are our roots (very good ones at that) only, so they are just a part of the whole tree so to speak. We are the product of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries not the 17th and 18th centuries and its new growth so to speak

        • Smilee

          This in part a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison after the constitution was ratified and before it was amended to include the “Bill of Rights” You might find it interesting.

          Thomas Jefferson, Letters, THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE LIVING
          The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826

          THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE LIVING

          To James Madison Paris, Sep. 6, 1789

          – I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general despatches. The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government.

          …….On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.

  • s c

    Most rational adults know Kagan is a first-class loser. Those who can’t see it live in a dream world, where everyone gets along because they never have any differences or see the need to see anything from an adult perspective. The polite term for such people is self-serving children.
    Kagan has much to hide from America. She has a closeted central banker personality.
    She uses a Bubba Clinton approach when asked to describe herself. Any politician who wants Kagan on the Supreme Court is not fit to be in any office, let alone within 1,000 miles of Washington.
    Castro can have her. China can have her. They can tell her all about international law and how to hate freedom with a cheshire cat’s grin on her non compos mentis face.
    To let her join the other 4 predators on the Supreme Court would be the same as praying for the destruction of America (because ‘she knows what’s best for us’). She belongs in a Chicago traffic court, not on the Supreme Court.

  • dan/texan

    I am afraid you are right. Emphasis on AFRAID. Obamanation has everyone so afraid of him, he bullies the fence sitters into believing his powers, which are actually theirs, if they would get together and stand up to him. As to impeachment, you know who would be left? At least he would be our American dud.We here still believe God will turn this around and show us what can happen when we stop putting Him first in all things.

  • bob pa

    The only way to correct all of the past wrongs of the last 150 years when the constitution was violated is to do what was done 235 years ago. uprise and take back our country. then we will have what our founding fathers gave us. what we have today would horrify our founding fathers. a lot of good came during those years, but the bad far far out weighs the little good. from a republic to a democracy is a far strech. let us think, examine, deduct then act as our founding fathers did. let us emulate them. God be with us.

  • Rob Alexander

    An individual who interprets the Constitution based on temporary circumstances rather than principle, or convenience rather than original intent, is not fit to wear the robe.

    • Kinetic1

      And so we return to Bush v Gore:
      “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances,…”
      So you would have the conservative wing of the court step down, right?

  • Randy

    Denish D’Sousa pegged the Democrats when he described their agenda as economic piracy, moral depravity, and anti-Americanism.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Randy,
      Have you read his book “letters from a new republican”? Not 100% sure of that title but the book is very good and informative as to our collegiate education system!

  • ronsonfire

    What we have here is a lack of communication. The second amendment is under no threat. Problem we have here is the fact people have a difference of opinion and their opinion has been misconstrued as a form of legalization. In conservative movement a person that has a different opinion of the conservative movement seen as the enemy and and there way of thinking must be changed the conservative thinking or be eliminated!

    • JC

      The very real threats to the 2nd Amendment and to our liberties in general, must be eliminated.

  • Geon Holt

    Poor Norm -of June 5 response. Take something heinous and turn it against your avowed enimies, in public: who is “anyone against lock step liberalism.” Your statemenst is Hate Speech, Norm, and you used it to justify your candidate for the Supreme Court. U Poor Thing. And it was the only thing you had to justify Kagan, a stab at someone else. Poor, Poor Norm and all the libs like you.
    Nothing to be said for the candidate and a wild slap at the world will suffice for little Normy.
    Try dealing with Kagan’s tenure at Harvard and her being forced to reverse her own decision against allowing ROTC on campus. Deal with that, Norm! Deal with anything substantive! I will be startled.
    No Norm, you’re just the typical liberal: intolerant, a pathetic sophisticate and nasty about your entire reality. Tut-Tut-Tut, Normy!
    For you “Thinking People”–not you Norm–see Kagan as a consumate lier and deny her seat on the Court. She is doubtless, an activist.
    Literally, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  • Ron
  • DANEL

    COMMON SENSE WOULD INDICATE TO ME THAT THERE IS AN AGENDA DRIVEN CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS SELECTION TO THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND,AND OBAMAS FUTURE FOR AMERICA,AS HE WOULD SEE IT.THIS IS BECAUSE OF WHO HE HAS SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH.A TRAITOROUS BUNCH OF MISFITS FROM HIS CZARS,TO HIS DEPT HEADS.NAPOLITANO,HOLDER,EMANUEL,EVEN THE REV.WRIGHTS BULLY PULPIT ANGRY,HATEFUL TIRADES ABOUT THIS COUNTRY,AND ITS TREATMENT OF WHAT HE WOULD BELIEVE TO BE LESS FORTUNATE.OBAMAS SOCIALIST PRETTY TALK IS IN KEEPING WITH THE ARROGANCE HE PORTRAYS DAILY.HE HAS LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY NOT ELABORATING FULLY ON HIS CHANGES,FOR AMERICA.NOW,THAT HE HAS ALL HIS CHARACTERS IN PLACE,HE WILL COMPLETE HIS ULTIMATE TAKEOVER OF AMERICAS JURIS PRUDENCE.HER,MEANING KAGANS LAUGHTER,LIGHT BANTER,AND ARROGANCE,MAY BENEFIT THE CHICAGO CROWD,HOWEVER,I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MORE HUMBLE PERSON,STEERING AMERICA AWAY FROM ITS CURRENT DIRECTION TOWARD THIRD WORLD STATUS.

  • Rich

    Seems Kagan is like most of those in government positions. They say what they have to say to get the office then do as they please with their power.

    • vicki

      And unlike presidents or representatives Kagen can not be voted out when she doesn’t do her job. Then again the American people have not been very good at voting presidents or representatives out when they don’t either.

  • HANGMEN

    Whomever votes to confirm this Marxist, is a traitor to this country!!

    • bp

      HANGMEN; All legislators be put on notice; Listen to THE PEOPLE, if you vote for this “woman”, you will not be re-elected to office.

  • mehoward

    UNLESS SHE IS PULLING THE PROVERBIAL WOOL OVER OBAMA,S EYES, SHE WILL
    JUDGE JUST AS HE WANTS HER TO. OBAMA IS NOT LIKE ANY PRESIDENT THAT WE HAVE HAD BEFORE. HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH JUST APPOINTING A SUPREME
    COURT JUSTICE, HE WANTS TO HAVE HIS BOOT ON THE NECK OF EVERYONE THAT HE APPOINTS. OBAMA IS ONLY INTERESTED IN ONE THING POWER AND MORE POWER. HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT (HE PROVED THAT WITH THE HEALTHCARE DEBACLE) HE IS BUSY FIXING IT SO THAT IT WON’T MAKE
    A HILL OF BEANS WHAT WE THINK. WAKE UP AMERICA, THE NEXT STEP IS DICTATOR SHIP.MEHPENSACOLA,FL

  • David in Ma.

    Kagan Calls Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Ban ‘Binding Precedent,’ Offers Few Insights On Own Views……………

    I’ll guess on her view(s) in this instance…..she is a “case-law” proponant and NOT a Constitutional follower…..and….that isn’t good.

    If she gets on the court America is one more step toward socialism.

    REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!!! it’s our only hope as a soverign Constitutional nation of laws!

  • JeffH

    Kagan’s uncovered college thesis has revealed her to be a stone cold Socialist – and her methods which are now finally being examined, are showing her to be an Alinskyite radical.

    Shannen Coffin, writing for NRO, was a deputy attorney general during the Bush administration. He was charged with defending the federal partial-birth abortion act in court. He has discovered that Kagan, while a deputy assistant to President Clinton for domestic policy, used shocking and despicable slight of hand to help the Clinton administration overturn Nebraska’s ban on partial birth abortions.

    There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method.

    The task force’s initial draft statement did not include the statement that the controversial abortion procedure “might be” the best method “in a particular circumstance.” Instead, it said that the select ACOG panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

    The liberal Supremes needed a scientific sounding excuse to allow the unsavory procedure, and like a good Alinsky soldier, she supplied it for them:

    Kagan set about solving the problem. Her notes, produced by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee, show that she herself drafted the critical language hedging ACOG’s position. On a document [PDF] captioned “Suggested Options” — which she apparently faxed to the legislative director at ACOG — Kagan proposed that ACOG include the following language: “An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”

    Kagan’s language was copied verbatim by the ACOG executive board into its final statement, where it then became one of the greatest evidentiary hurdles faced by Justice Department lawyers (of whom I was one) in defending the federal ban. (Kagan’s role was never disclosed to the courts.)

    Ms. Kagan has a great deal of explaining to do. Unless she can come up with an innocent explanation for these documents, she should not be confirmed.

    Kagan lied to Supreme Court in 9/11 case, should be disbarred

    As Obama’s solicitor general, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan urged the Court to dismiss the suit that our 9/11 families have been pressing against the Saudi government and several Saudi princes for their extensive funding of al Qaeda. The families sued under the domestic tort exception to sovereign immunity, which according to Kagan’s Supreme Court brief:
    requires not merely that the foreign state’s extraterritorial conduct have some causal connection to tortious injury in the United States, but that “the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee” be committed within the United States. 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(5).

    Contrary to Kagan’s assertion, the law only specifies that the injury has to have occurred within the United States. Not a word about the wrongful act that leads to domestic injury also having to have taken place within the United. Kagan flat lied about the clear wording of a law that goes to the very heart of our ability to use the courts to combat Islamic terrorism, and thanks to the Court’s failure to review this crucial case, the simple wording and intent of Congress—that foreign states whose actions do injury in the United States can be sued for those injuries—has now been undone, as if the law had never been passed.

    Kagan proves that her lie was self conscious by also lying about the relevant Supreme Court precedent, claiming :

    In Amerada Hess the Court considered and rejected the argument that domestic effects of a foreign state’s conduct abroad satisfy the exception. 488 U.S. at 441.

    In fact, the Court in Amerada never considered “the domestic effects of a foreign state’s conduct abroad” at all, for the simple reason that there were no domestic injuries in that case.

    Radicals consider themselves to be moral people, too. They just have a vastly different idea of morality than we do.

    What would Saul Alinsky do if the facts in a case favored the other side? Facts can manipulated and distorted, and they often are with Alinsky radicals…ends always justify the means with these people. Being a little loose with the facts to get the outcome desired (for the good of humanity, mind you), is considered virtuous.

    • Smilee

      Jeffie

      It so sad that you had to twist her words to give them your desired meaning, these documents and her words of explanation have totally different meaning than you give them, I guess when the truth will not give you your desired result then I guess you find it necessary to to create this fiction, Does not matter though as she came through her confirmation hearing with flying colors and will most definitely be confirmed and on the court by this fall.

      • JeffH

        Smilee. I could give a rats asz about what you think. I’ve presented the facts as they are. What you think is meaningless and what you have to say is meaingless.

        • Smilee

          Jeffie

          acts are statements of truth, in fact you gave no facts in that correct context, believing something to be true when it is not is not a fact no matter what you say in its defense.

          • JeffH

            Just admit that you cannot “handle the truth”!

          • Smilee

            Yes I can, what a stupid statement coming from one who is incapable of recognizing the truth

          • JeffH

            That is the best you have? Prove me wrong, just once!

      • Maverick

        Hey. Smilee ,, wake up and smell the dung rotting !!!

        • Smilee

          Thanks for expressing your stupidity in such glowing terms!!!!!!!!

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Maverick,
          He can’t, he IS the dung!!!!

    • Maverick

      Lord Almighty, Jeff … you are as bad as many of the commentators I’ve read. Why so many words to get the basic point across ??? It’s pure simplicity. We all know, the (offensive word removed) doesn’t belong here. She has never stared down the barrel of a firearm, held by a person who intended to use it. I HAVE, SIR !!!. I find her ‘ignorance’ of this to be one of many reasons to ‘kick her ass to the curb’. No need to qualify your response with ‘Who vs. Who’ ,,, As a simple ..’Good ol’ boy’ from AZ. ,,, right is right and wrong is wrong. Keep it Short, sweet and simple.

      • JeffH

        Maverick, point taken and for the most part I can agree…quit your bitchin’, if you don’t care to read it, pass over it…that’s what I do when I don’t want to read a comment.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Maverick,
        Jeff, being an all around good sort can be quite easy going. I would, hoever, watch raising his ire as he can be quite inflamed as well! Just a word to the wise!!

  • Ken & Mavis Bolin

    With out a doubt we need men. That have the back bone.
    To ban this marxist, socialist. We don’t need this woman.
    On the any of our courts.
    I ask one more time how long. Will the American peope.
    Keep letting this happen. God help us now is my prayer.
    I also say we don’t need brack hussien obama. Or any of
    his socialist bunch. I know they are destoring. Our great
    nation each day. We let them stay in power.
    Let the American people pull tgeather now. Then remove them.
    Once & for all along with these socialist judges. As well
    the rest of all of the democrats do it now America.

    • Allan

      Having no judging experience is a negative, but I acknowledge the precedent. I also recognize that Kagan is a skilled lawyer who has worked her way up the ladder.

      The reason she, and other paper-qualified candidates should not be on the Supreme Court is the willingness to place political agenda over principle.

      Ever served on a grand jury? I had a child molestation case to decide. As much as I wanted to put away the s.o.b who I felt in my gut had committed a crime against a child, we did not have evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt”. We agonized over this, but we couldn’t indict and honestly meet the standard of the law.

      My point is, a judge who doesn’t occasionally act in conflict with his or her political beliefs, is not doing the job properly, and cannot be a judge. The problem we have with the Obama administration is that most of its members (the justice department lawyer who outed Holder last week is an exception) put their politics ahead of doing the job honorably.

      If there are any morals in Washington today, they are well hidden.

  • Danny Terry

    Did I here Obama is honorable? I not sure about the rest of them but Obama is honorable?

  • uponroof

    Smilee, Thanks. That’s good info worthy of careful examination.
    In fact, when those 27 amendments are carefully examined…

    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h926.html

    …one can easily see that most if not all constitutional amendments, including states rights in 1791, focuses on individual rights, or to further simplify seeks to LIMIT CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT.

    So while I agree wholeheartedly with Jeffersons point regarding ‘THE EARTH BELONGING TO THE LIVING’ I would add that ‘the living’ (in Jeffersons past present and future tenses) are meant to be free and clear of oppressive government and in charge of their own destiny.

    My simple question then becomes; What part of the ‘progressive movement’ seeks to limit centralized government while encouraging individualism?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH6rTBQOXqM

  • http://aol.com tessie

    This Woman is giving Congress LIP SERVICE!!!! I personally don’t beleive one word out of her mouth.

  • http://charter howe

    Kagan is a deceptive piece of work who is in lockstep with Obama’s march toward socialism. She is a judicial activist, who agrees with former Justice Thurgood Marshall that the Constitution given to us by the Framers was “defective” and that it contained “outdated notions of liberty, justice and equality. “Her “judicial hero” is former Israeli justice Aharon Barak, who said a judge “may give a statute a new meaning…the statute remains as it was, but its meaning changes, because the court has given it a new meaning that suits new social needs. “She is anti-military. While dean of the Harvard Law School, she kicked military recruiters off campus, in defiance of a federal law which had been upheld by the Supreme Court on a unanimous vote. She said she “abhorred” the military’s ban on open homosexual service, and called it a “moral injustice of the first order.”
    She believes in the supremacy of international law over the Constitution. While dean at Harvard Law, she dropped the required course in the Constitution and replaced it with a required course on international law. She is for taxpayer funded abortion. She has contributed financially to pro-abortion groups, and believes that abortions should be taxpayer funded. Kagan’s abortion activism is a horror story about how she undermined efforts to ban the gruesome procedure of partial-birth abortion during her time in the Clinton White House. Anyone who thinks she is qualified to make judgements on WE THE PEOPLE, has to be drinking the Obama kool-aid. She believes that the government may ban political pamphlets and books during an election season, in violation of the First Amendment’s free speech protections. She is anti-Second Amendment. She is “not sympathetic” to the claim that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution. She is pro-Muslim. At the same time she kicked military recruiters off campus, she allowed Saudi Arabia to recruit lawyers for work on Shariah-Compliant Finance. She is anti-capitalist and pro-socialist, once writing glowingly of “socialism’s greatness.” Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork said that if Kagan is confirmed “you will have a court that is much more to the left than we have today.” That’s bad news for our Constitution.

  • http://www.charter.net James A Graham

    WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Overwhelm the system
    Barack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos — thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
    Barack Obama is my college classmate ( Columbia University , class of ’83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University . They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below.
    Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival … and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

    – Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn’t care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

    – Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama “spread the wealth around.”

    – Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who’s asking for a 51st state? Who’s asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

    – Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

    – Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions — including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America . The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

    – Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

    With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

    Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme — all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan

  • Old Man Time

    Justice is blind, the supremes interprete the law.

    Hers is that the decision is binding.

    She upholds the constitution.

    Enough said.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Old Man,
      You better hope she continues to just do that!!! Your freedoms depend on it!!! Now Enough said!!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.