America’s finest legal reporters are very busy analyzing Elena Kagan’s very important writings over the years. Where does she stand on civil liberties and the entire legality of the “War on Terror,” for example? Those are examples of things that aren’t important, to be precise. Let’s instead focus on what she wrote as a clerk in 1987 about some asshole who was carrying a gun illegally. And no, we’re not talking about Orrin Hatch, although maybe.
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.”
Are you sympathetic to this person who was breaking the law? If not, then you, too are a lesbian. How’s your batting stance?
And sure, eventually the complexion of the Supreme Court reached a point to where, a couple of years ago, five judges felt free to legislate from the bench and shoot down D.C.’s firearms ban. So why didn’t Elena Kagan make this radical step when she was a clerk in 1987? Let’s keep bickering about these gun-related anecdotes to get a fuller sense of the woman who would be Justice, and who will probably predator-drone all of our asses when confirmed.
[Bloomberg via Balloon Juice]
{ 79 comments }
lack of sympathy is ok as long as she doesn’t show “empathy”.
I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that it probably would’ve been okay with her if it had been a beautiful hand-made flintlock.
When you come to a Bork in the road, just lay back & take it.
A pistol? Elena can’t get her fat juicy clit up for that. Now a flintlock, why, that would be beautiful.
To be fair, she did stick around St. Petersburg, when she saw it was a time for a change.
But, I thought there it was a big issue when we thought Ms. Kagan might be possessed of the smallest inkling of empathy?
Here I thought they wanted someone who wasn’t sympathetic.
[re=576788]OzoneTom[/re]: Dang! You beat me to it. But my post gets points for vulgarity.
When our rights to carry illegal weapons is taken away, then only illegals will have arms, or maybe legs, or do the set-up and tear-down for chi-chi Repubturd events.
[re=576794]Extemporanus[/re]: She can’t be Him….can she?
[re=576794]Extemporanus[/re]: She’s in need of some restraint.
Nice to know she is a good strategic thinker as well as a softball player.
And yet, despite her possible responsibility for his case being turned down, Jim Webb will probably vote for approval.
So, when the Death Panel assigns you a values of “superceded” and a Predator Drone is assigned to come after you, do they tell you first?
I’m jus’ sayin’, that could make a great reality TV show. “Diabetic Teabagger vs. Drone” or some bland shit like that.
ZOMG…..THE’RE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!!!!!!1111!!
It’s only illegal to be illegal if you’re a human. If you’re a gun, it’s just fine.
Why can’t we have a cute female Supreme Court Justice? You know, someone like Judge Judy.
[re=576810]SayItWithWookies[/re]: winner
[re=576810]SayItWithWookies[/re]: when guns are illegal, only illegals will have guns.
[re=576807]JMP[/re]: good one
This g**dam country gives me a headache. Americans would gladly shred all but the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Would everyone quit bitching about our kids not learning math and science? It’s the failure of our (regrettably) fellow citizens to know jack shit about American history and civics that’s killing this country’s soul.
[re=576810]SayItWithWookies[/re]: Where does Elena Kagan stand on the human cannonball loophole?
[re=576802]Aurelio[/re]: [re=576805]ph7[/re]: Senators, have some courtesy, have some sympathy, and some taste. Use all your well-learned politesse, or she’ll lay your confirmation hearing room to waste.
WOO-WOOOOO! WOO-WOOOO!
Lookit her up there, beaming the happy smile of a staffer who has achieved the staffer’s ultimate dream; that makes her and Thomas, I would guess, as the two biggest political careerists in the US right now. Staffer, campaign work, appointments, resume-padding, ticket-punching, academia, when your party is out of power, thats the usual refuge, for democrats, and now, the ultimate appointment, reward for services rendered.
I wonder why Plaxico Burress never tried to make the same arguement.
[re=576794]Extemporanus[/re]: yeah, maybe she did, but she did NOT ride a tank, nor hold a general’s rank, while the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank.
[re=576794]Extemporanus[/re]: …stick around St. Petersburg…
But the Republicans will be in Tampa.
(and technically, wasn’t it Petrograd?)
Shooting at the walls of heartache, bang bang! I am a warrior!
Hey, if she shouted out she killed the Kennedys teh rethugs would vote for her.
[re=576825]Cape Clod[/re]: He wasn’t a sympathetic figure.
[re=576787]maven[/re]: [re=576798]mumblyjoe[/re]: Antipathy: The New Litmus Test.
[re=576805]ph7[/re]: judicial restraint
I guess “illegal means illegal” is profound wisdom only when you’re talking about Messicuns.
She better wise up before the hearings and realize that it’s only Hillary who wears the pantsuits in this Administration.
Sheeyittt! What kind of robe-wearing yahoo wannabe can’t anticipate Supreme Court decisions twenty years in the future?
So to sum up:
Empathy = bad.
Lack of Sympathy = bad.
What the fuck it that Scalia does = good.
I’m dizzy.
[re=576819]Extemporanus[/re]: Now we’re getting somewhere. You can’t see it, but I’m holding my lighter high.
Bitch set me up.
Guns don’t do illegal, only illegals do. Or something.
Was the “illegal” gun a flintlock pistol?
I have sympathy for the people whose shortcomings are such they need to overcompensate by getting all worked up about the sensation of power that comes from having a warm gun dangle in the vicinity of their respective perineums.
[re=576837]Joshua Norton[/re]:
Should have been “Whatever the fuck it is that Scalia does”.
It’s really hard to type when you’re also banging your head on the keyboard.
[re=576819]Extemporanus[/re]: I heard her laughing with delight the day the music died.
This my rifle and that is my gun, one’s made for shooting and one’s made for fun.
We are all unsympaticotards today.
A man walks into a Starbucks carrying a gun and a Bible.
Well, Ms Fancy Pants. Has be broken the law? And does the Bible trump the Constitution and grant the gun-toter immunity form whatever law he may have broken?
Can a Supreme Court Jurist have sympathy for the Devil? Questions, questions. Too many questions.
When guns are outlawed, only Fat Lesbian Clintonista Careerist Lawyers With Zero Judicial Experience And No Particular Qualifications For the High Court will be . . .
Wait a minute.
I lost the train of thought.
Senator Hatch? Can you check with the NRA as to where we were going with this?
Oh. Right.
DISARM THE JEWS!!!!!!!!
If she played softball, she MUST obviously be teh lezbianz. QED.
[re=576878]President Beeblebrox[/re]: She is definitely metro-sexual. She could be our first metro-sexual justice.
Every case that challenges the constitutionality of a law involves breaking that law. Let’s try this:
“The man’s ‘sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s SEDITION statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘FREE SPEECH,’’ Kagan wrote. ‘I’m not sympathetic.’”
Hey, commenters, let’s pile on! There’s no debate here. Just a guy breaking the law. No, wait – “some asshole” breaking the law.
[re=576890]In the desert[/re]: You’ve done a good job with the straw there, making a nice-looking man out of it.
Hatch: “Check out mah fancy gun up thar. Pretty kewl, huh?”
Kagan: “Sure is. I’d love to take it down and smack you on the head with it, and then blow a hole into your face, JUST SPEAKING METAPHORICALLY, OF COURSE.”
[re=576890]In the desert[/re]: Sure, and there’s never been a time in the history of the courts where it was understood that the Second Amendment did not prohibit the government from steps to regulate gun commerce, before this past year, when the courts DIDN’T break with decades of precedent and their own principle of stare decisis, to read an expansive interpretation of the second amendment that was totally not apropos of nothing whatsoever.
Wait, no, the opposite of what I just said.
[re=576902]Gorillionaire[/re]: You forgot “with votes”.
Mumbly: Your comment addresses the guy’s chances of winning, had he been heard. And you’re probably right. But Kagan’s comment was about granting cert to hear the case in the first place.
Of course the guy was clearly breaking the law, but it follows from your comment that we never get to challenge laws. (Of course, what you actually mean is that we never get to challenge laws you like.)
And it’s perfectly reasonable if you think Heller was a crappy decision. But there’s too much research on both sides for anyone to bleat that it’s “apropos of nothing” without being too disingenuous to take seriously.
JMP: It’s a strawman only if our civil protections aren’t all equally valid. Which, as I’m sure you’ll agree… oh, wait.
Think of all the strain the people here could save themselves by giving up the pretense and sophistry and just being honest: “This is a right we don’t value, because it’s exercised by people we don’t value. There is no good faith debate here, only good and evil. Shut up.”
In the future she should cite Wyatt Earp banning guns in Tombstone and be done with it.
[re=576940]In the desert[/re]: Or, you know, it could be because the guy was not a member of a well-regulated militia, and there is not actually a Constitutional right to own handguns.
I’m not so much interested in her batting stance as I am in her junk shot.
[re=576832]user-of-owls[/re]: An entitled millionaire athlete who shot himself in the ass? Damn, you are hard hearted.
[re=576940]In the desert[/re]: Jim did link to an article on which his post was based, where you can find the following brief paragraph:
The lower court ruling in the 1987 case, issued by the District of Columbia’s highest court, said the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to raise militias, and not individual gun rights. The ruling upheld Lee Sandidge’s conviction for carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.
While it doesn’t elaborate on the rest of the contents of Kagan’s opinion, the inference is that the Court of Appeals’ decision was based on pretty cut-and-dried (at the time) interpretation of the Constitution, and that Kagan’s lack of sympathy was based on the defendant’s case covering some already well-trod ground.
Also note that many of the perfunctory comments are allusions to the Sotomayor nomination battle, in which she was criticized by the right for having empathy — the seeming lack of which on Kagan’s part here one might expect to generate favorable views from the same group. Alas, they are prone to wrapping their tactical opposition in the nearest principle they can find, regardless of whether they have any intention of applying it after the moment. This is an example of situational ethics, something the right also denounces as a left-wing trope, and pointing this out can be used to particularly amusing ends in the right hands.
Additionally, this is neither the time nor place for such a dry discussion, so hitch up your TruckNutz and let’s roll.
[re=576940]In the desert[/re]: “This is a right we don’t value, because it’s exercised by people we don’t value. There is no good faith debate here, only good and evil. Shut up.”
For the people seen on the news carrying firearms openly in public parks and gun advocates on talking head shows (i.e., targets of Wonkette commenter scorn and sophistry), the only right they truly want to exercise is the right to intimidate others through thinly veiled threats of using the firearms they are so obsessed about or promoting sales of said firearms. Far more weapons are made and sold in the United States than are needed for anything resembling an exercise of Second Amendment rights. I’ve not possessed a firearm since I left the Army because I don’t need one. If I obtain one now, it will be because your friends are starting to concern me with their tantrums about reasonable controls (e.g. trigger locks) and talk by political leaders pandering votes that it’s open season on people like me. I value my fellow citizens, but when gun advocates make it very clear that I’m just some target, well, that gets me interested. I feel certain that the skills that allowed me to qualify as Expert with several weapons and be an infantry squad leader are not so rusty that any number of assholes will be surprised should they actually attempt to carry out those thinly veiled threats. Humor is our weapon of choice in this debate. Yours is bullying.
Now, wash off the Cheetos dust from your dick and go back to bed.
[re=576940]In the desert[/re]: Based on the specifics of the case being referred to, please make the SCOTUS level good faith argument on behalf of the citizen in question. We welcome your enlightened input.
Now if gun toting D.C. man had been a woman on her way to get a late trimester abortion because of pressure from her lesbian life partner, which side of the plate would Kagan have swung from?
Enquiring (short for batshitcrazyresluglican) no minds wanna’ know!!
[re=576989]steverino247[/re]: Steve! I’m with you! You’re vehemently anti-gun control . . . until you need a gun to fight off all of the pro-gun people.
Then you WANT a gun, so that you can use all of your “Expert” GI Joe weapons skills to defend yourself (by blowing the heads off the pro-gun folks).
[Gesh. Another example, if any is required, that ANY lunatic, however irrational, can get in the U.S. Military nowadays.
Or at least the Volunteer Army.]
:::Whoops:::
Sorry, Steve. No offense. Even though reasoning like that precluded you from working behind the counter at the 7/11 owned by the Pakistani with the Electrical Engineering degree, we value your service.
Killing Pakistani civilians . . . .
:::Whoops:::
Almost got caught in another “Illogic Loop” there. My bad.
[re=577034]Neilist[/re]: How can someone be “anti-gun control” and believe not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. You probably meant “anti-gun” or “anti-control”. In either case you seem to misunderstand his post. As I read it, it’s about situational ethics.
And why say “no offense” when you clearly meant offense. That’s what pussies do.
[re=576940]In the desert[/re]: Your comment addresses the guy’s chances of winning, had he been heard. And you’re probably right. But Kagan’s comment was about granting cert to hear the case in the first place.
Refusing to hear cases that simply retread established precedent is what stare decisis is all about, on the Supreme Court level, and part and parcel of what a non-”activist” court is expected to do. My comment was directly relevant to that question.
Personally, I’d be willing to grant that a li’l judicial activism is kinda necessary at times -it’s a big part what gave us Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and a number of other landmark cases within the past century that have essentially increased the degree to which our society is a just one- but then again, I’m not the one engaging in the naked hypocrisy of decrying judicial activism, on principle, by one hand, whilst trying to pretend that the very definition of activist decisions weren’tactually, because I happen to agree with them.
Note that this is what is so striking about the New Have case and Sotomayor’s ruling in it, if you actually followed the facts: Sotomayor’s ruling was 100% right, if you applied the standards of the law as they existed at that moment. Only then, on appeal, the Supreme Court Activism’d that standard into a much weaker one. Sotomayor’s comments on the case during the hearing reflected that, and while she was pretty diplomatic about it, did say, in essence, that her ruling was overturned by activism.
(Wow, that was a serious couple of paragraphs, there, so:)
In conclusion,
Cocks.
[re=576940]In the desert[/re]: Actually, Heller said that citizens have the right to own appropriate weapons for self defense inside their homes. It didn’t address the right to walk around with an unregistered pistol in public, as was the facts in the 1987 case. The right to self-defense in public is more a western movie myth than an American tradition or custom. But the court could admit evidence of how our society is so violent that a person has the right to bear arms in public for self-defense, which seems to be what Mumly and Steverino are saying. But wouldn’t it be better left to the cities and states to determine if carrying in public is a good thing?
You know, it’s not like anyone is trying to ban trucknutz.
[re=577034]Neilist[/re]: Beware the labyrinth.
[re=577048]whiterabid[/re]: And, also, “was the facts”? My bad.
NOT THE TRUCKNUTZ!!
Okay, seriously, uncle. I was just trying to pierce the echo chamber, and look, I’ve got echo all over me.
Steverino247 figures he knows who my “friends” are (I don’t own a gun and I’m not an NRA member), then makes it clear how expert he is in killing anyone who may one day mess with them… then calls me a bully.
JMP recites an opinion that maybe half the people interested in this issue hold, presenting it as fact, as if he were telling me the sky is blue.
Mumblyjoe and, by implication (or bluff!), snarkalicious are evidently better-armed than this layman to debate finer points of SCOTUS doctrine, and I cede. But I was making a broader point anyhow.
Whiterabid wants us to let the states and cities decide the issue. [THE FOLLOWING IS A LOGICAL EXERCISE AND I AM NOT A BIGOT] You mean like the states and cities should decide, without court interference, whether gay marriage is legal?
The funny thing is that I never said a word against Kagan. It’s true I’m not a Democrat, and if I had a magic wand to appoint judges I’d pick someone else. But President Obama won, he gets his pick, and that’s how it works. She seems smart and well-intentioned. I don’t even think her gun comment bears on her qualification for the bench — I was just batting around a point. Never called anyone a name, never gave anyone advice about the Cheetos residue on his dick. (It’s more a paste than a powder, Steve, and if you don’t clean up right away it chafes terribly.)
Like I said, uncle. But as you head home full of self-congratulation for what open-minded progressives you are, contemplate that there is precisely as much tolerance for dissent on this thread as there is on the wing-nuttiest NRA message board. “You shoulda seen it, honey – there was this Nazi fascist teabagger child-raping killer asshole John Bircher on Wonkette today.
“But we showed him what rational debate is all about.”
[re=576940]In the desert[/re]: Maybe this tale will help you understand that illegal and legal guns are heartless bastards.
Nah, probably not.
Iranovermyneighbor: Your suggestion that I like it when people get hurt crosses a line. You and I disagree on which laws will make people safer. If you can’t see that distinction, you’re a fool, and if you can see it and are just posturing, you’re disgusting.
Clearly what they need in Detroit are some anti-gun laws. They don’t have any now, do they? That would end all violence.
I could just as easily dredge up a news item about someone who died at the hands of an assailant because he or she didn’t have recourse to self-defense. We’d both be cherry-picking anecdotes. Neither one of us would be advancing a logical argument.
Also: Do you understand that legal or not, guns are by definition heartless because they’re inanimate objects?
Nah, probably not.
[re=577084]In the desert[/re]: Not bluffing, just calling yours, homeslice. I mean, seriously, for a troll, you throw out a pretty fine stalking horse, but lets see some cattle to go with that hat. But not here. Go for DKos, where there’s less snark, sarcasm, irony, layered entendre and false backbiting to wade through.
Snarky:
Also: “Layered entendre”? Is that part of the “irony”? You can cut the pretension with a knife. (So quick – ban all knives!!)
[re=577044]Oldskool[/re]: No offense, but you’re a pussy.
Meow.
[re=577056]whiterabid[/re]: Hey, I did a lot of drugs, too, back in the the day. But back then it was NORMAL to get wasted and shorten the fuses on the 2nd Lt.’s grenades so that they would detonate as soon as the spoon flew off.
The trick was not to be standing nearby. Also, you had to dislike the guy who was lugging around the PRC-77. Or get him a really, really long handset cord.
“Hey, Lt! Why don’t you climb up on the dike and lob a few?”
[re=577103]In the desert[/re]:
You believe deregulation of firearms make people safer?
In 2009 for people ages 15 to 35 firearms are the second leading cause of death on automobile accidents kill more people in this age group. Over 35 desease starts to take over and firearms fall to fourth. That’s statistics – not anecdotes.
I would think that if a class of devices are implicated as one of the top four causes of death then laws regulating firearms do make people safer.
Do you have any statistics showing that owning firearms makes people safer? I’d like to see the data.
[re=577119]Real DC Native[/re]: “Do you have any statistics showing that owning firearms makes people safer? I’d like to see the data.”
no data, only lore.
Wait, there was a law and someone was breaking it and got in trouble.
Judges aren’t supposed to make laws. . . that would be activisty and shit. And Law and Order, Bitches.
[re=577044]Oldskool[/re]: One more time…
1. Most of the hoopla about firearms you see in this country today is about promoting sales. Firearms sales are increased by scaring people. Scaring them about Liberals taking away their guns or about members of group X wanting their women or something. Far more firearms are made and sold in the United States than anyone could possibly use. Many of them end up at crime scenes and suicides. You really don’t need to own one, but you can. Do you need automatic weapons? Hell, no! I fully support strict controls on assault rifles and other reasonable restrictions.
2. There is a concerted effort to brandish firearms in public in order to scare sane people, most of whom have never fired one and wouldn’t know how if they had to. They’re trying to scare you away from the debate so they win. Bad idea to let that happen.
3. Because I hate such bullying tactics, I wrote that I probably had much more experience than they and if I had to own a firearm, it would be to protect myself against nuts who believed it was Liberal Season. This has been covered by other commenters with posts along the lines of “You’d be surprised who would shoot back, etc.”
Having made some rational points, to include the point about my not needing to own firearms, despite being very familiar with them and hitting what I aimed at almost all the time, one should come to the conclusion that despite my military experience, I’m not a mindless zombie in favor of killing everything that moves in the Middle East or elsewhere. Those who believe otherwise about active duty troops or veterans have no real experience with professionals and take a cartoonish view of the folks who risk their lives to defend the United States from its foreign policy mistakes. Of course, there’s buffoons out there, but the people who really do the dirty work usually aren’t the problem. It’s the guys who heard a loud noise one day in Basic Training and think they deserve the Bronze Star Medal and a 100% VA rating for PTSD.
Dear Wonkette, please avoid 2nd Amendment posts if you can. They bring out the boring cunt ‘n us.
@in the desert “Whiterabid wants us to let the states and cities decide the issue. [THE FOLLOWING IS A LOGICAL EXERCISE AND I AM NOT A BIGOT] You mean like the states and cities should decide, without court interference, whether gay marriage is legal?”
Well, it’s an exercise, sure, but I don’t know how logical it is. Gay marriage is an equal protection issue. It’s about whether everyone has the same rights under the constitution or whether some people are more equal than others. If the DC handgun ban only applied to racial minorities your point would make more sense. As it stands the issue is very simple. Straight people can get married, gay people can’t. Under our constitution, the federal government, and thanks to the 14th Amendment, the individual state governments have a responsibility to protect the rights of everyone, not just certain favored groups. That’s why people apart from property-owning white males can vote now. I think we all agree this is the best system.
However, that means you can’t specifically make laws that carve out special groups that aren’t allowed to do certain things everyone else gets to do. Outlawing carrying guns is like outlawing smoking marijuana or murder. It’s outlawed – no one gets to do it. Not even rich white guys. Officially anyway. Letting the states pass laws outlawing gay marriage violates our constitutional commitment to see to it that certain inalienable rights are extended to everyone, and not just the lucky few.
We can argue about the 2nd amendment all you want, although for the record I’m against gun control (but not common sense regulation, which is where the arguments would probably come in), but comparing gun control to gay marriage is an apples to oranges comparison.
[re=577108]In the desert[/re]: Actually, that was a jab at your previous spew about sophistry blah blah blah, whatevs. Whatevs, also.
Speaking of the 2nd Amendment, you can get a Justice Scalia bobblehead doll and support a worthy cause. http://cgi.ebay.com/Justice-Scalia-Bobblehead-Doll-with-original-box-/170484173397?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27b1a60a55
Comments on this entry are closed.