Kagan Probably Doesn't Belong on U.S. Supreme Court (given Sotomayor as a precedent)

IsraPundit ^ | 6/28/10 | Bill Levinson

[Winged Hussar]

As reported by the New York Times, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to states and municipalities as well as the Federal Government. One does not have to be a Supreme Court Justice or even a lawyer to understand this; all one needs is a basic high school education in American history and civics. ...

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer have already shown their unfitness to serve because of the infamous Kelo decision, which says municipalities can seize property through eminent domain for the benefit of private gain as opposed to public use. Barack Obama's appointee Sonia Sotomayor, who supported the taking of private property for private gain in Diddick vs. Port Chester, joined Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer in saying that the Second Amendment, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not apply to states and municipalities. This suggests that no jurist appointed by Barack Obama is likely to be suitable for any post of public responsibility, let alone a lifetime one on the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Uncle Miltie]

Obligatory “Carpet Muncher” Alert!

[Marty62]

She is just another example of the mediocacy that has become fashionable in POL today.

She is so unqualified it is embarrassing.

What would anyone expect from a pathetically mediocre President.

[Red Badger]

She is not qualified to sit on the bench of ANY court in the United States, even unto county circuit court, let alone the Supreme Court of the United States!..................

[Howie66]

She certainly does NOT belong on the Supreme Court.

Her comparing the NRA to the KKK is reason enough to throw her nomination in the circular file.

[humblegunner]

Kagan and Sotomayor will probably be dating in a week or two.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Kagan and Sotomayor will probably be dating in a week or two.

So far, all we know is that they are constitution munchers, but I'll be waiting to see more on the front page of the Enquirer at the checkout counter.

[ozzymandus]

“Probably”????

[WKUHilltopper]

Probably??

She’s a bucket of fascist puke...

[Missouri gal]

I am waiting for someone to do a deeply thoughtful analysis of the significance of turning the Supreme Court into a bunch of super-activists. What happens to respect for the law when everybody clearly knows that the referees are dirty?

Maybe that's what Zero is hoping for, that people will just erupt into chaos triggering his totalitarian power grab.

I hope and pray instead that this ol’ republic will endure until we can throw the bums out, and reform the whole process to cleaner government (e.g., term limits, balanced budget amendment, to name a few).

It looks like we also need a Congress with the courage to overrule the SCOTUS and maybe even enact emergency removals, due to the fact that certain judges have been chosen by a usurper.

[Salvation]

No, we don’t want Kagan. Throw her out, Senatos, please!

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Didn’t Sotomayor tell the Senate she believed that the rkba was an individual right?

[Cboldt]

-- What happens to respect for the law when everybody clearly knows that the referees are dirty? --

Even if everybody knew the game was rigged (and they don't), they still play, and make an effort to get on the side that is rigged to get ahead.

Federal second amendment jurisprudence is a good example of the sort of corruption you wonder about. How many people know that the federal courts are playing a dirty game there?

People generally respect "law of the jungle" because might makes right. But anybody who has respect for federal gun law on the basis of "it's well reasoned and correct" is ignorant or delusional.

[Cboldt]

-- Didn't Sotomayor tell the Senate she believed that the rkba was an individual right? --

She had to, because the Heller decision was handed down by then, and it expressly said that. So did the Presser case, from 1886, but the courts have swept that under the rug.

The McDonald decision is about whether the 2nd amendment operates as a restraint on state and local law-makers.

FWIW, even the "individual right" language is twisted by these liars in black robes. The minority in Heller claimed to agree that the RKBA is an individual right, then went on to explain that it applies (only) to every individual in the military or participating in a state-sanctioned organized militia.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Almost nothing can I find in the news sites about Sotomayor's deception. There's this from Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39106.html

Asked about gun control last year, Sotomayor said, “One of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized” in previous rulings upholding the amendment. “I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.” But on Monday, she formally agreed with Breyer’s minority opinion criticizing the ruling. “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ in so far as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes,” Breyer wrote.

[Oceander]

just like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to states and municipalities as well as the Federal Government

Just to clarify: the Bill of Rights originally did not apply to the states at all, and each provision that now applies to the states has been incorporated piecemeal through the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.

Some other provisions of the Bill of Rights that still do not apply to the states, either because the issue has not been raised or because the Supreme Court has affirmatively refused to incorporate them as against the states include (but are not limited to):

the 3rd Amendment's prohibition on quartering soldiers (not ruled on);

the 5th Amendment's right to indictment by a grand jury (incorporation rejected, see, e.g., Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)); and

the 7th Amendments' right to a jury trial in civil cases (incorporation rejected, see Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916)).


There is thus no "of course" about the proposition that some part of the Bill of Rights "of course" applies to the states.

There are much, much better grounds on which to attack the butch bee-itch.

[Cboldt]

-- Almost nothing can I find in the news sites about Sotomayor's deception. --

Some Democrats are spinning the McDonald decision as a signal that the DEMs do not pose a threat to the RKBA. They overlook the 5-4 split, and they overlook the language in the dissent.

I expect all DEMs and nearly all GOP to be hostile to the RKBA as envisioned by the founders. The public has the right to be as well armed as the professional infantry.

I hear no call, at the federal level, to repeal the Lautenberg amendment or relax parts of the 1968 GCA to allow civilian ownership of post-1968 automatic firearms, such as the M-16. It is legal to own a pre-1968 automatic weapon.

Anyway, politics and law are arts of deception.