search
top

Should We Be Lambasting Kagan Before She Posts a Vote?

Wayne LaPierre addressed CPAC in Florida this past Friday, (written transcript here) and it’s interesting the references to Kagan as if she’s already a sure vote against us. I realize it’s a bit of a long shot that she’s going to vote with us, but you don’t really know what issue will next hit the Court, and you don’t know under what circumstances. On the off chance she might actually side with us, I think writing the history on her before she has a chance to post a vote might not be the wisest move.

And even then, I think a smart argument could be made that it’s not a good idea to lambast any sitting Supreme Court justice if you’re in the process of moving multiple cases that could possibly go before the high Court. But that said, NRA has to get their members thinking about the Supreme Court when they go into the voting booth in November 2012. We have to weigh the remote chance that Kagan will vote with us, against the very real possibility Obama gets to replace one of the Heller five, if re-elected. Gun owners need to realize we’re one justice away from the Second Amendment being read clean out of the constitution, so I suspect that’s why Wayne is erring on the side of driving that particular point home.

7 Responses to “Should We Be Lambasting Kagan Before She Posts a Vote?”

  1. emdfl says:

    Yeah, let’s continue to be nice to our avowed enemies and maybe they’ll make nice with us – NOT!!!!!!!
    You don’t ever seem to get the fact that people that far over on the left are and will be freedom’s avowed enemies and proud of it until their last breath.

  2. Sage Thrasher says:

    The NRA’s over the top attacks on Sotomayor seemed silly, too, until she proved them to be 100% right.

    Hopefully Kagan’s skeet-shooting trips with Scalia have had a positive effect, but it would be nice to see another 2nd Amendment case at SCOTUS just prior to the 2012 election just to make sure everyone is paying attention to her vote.

  3. Ian Argent says:

    Not sure it matters. If she is intellectually honest, what the NRA says doesn’t matter.

    One way or another

  4. Brad says:

    Ian

    I’m sure that Kagan will prove to be just as intellectually honest as Sotomayor proved herself. Which is, not honest at all.

    Sototmayor claimed during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she would respect Supreme Court precedent, and not try to overturn DC v Heller. Yet overturning DC v Heller is exactly what she supported when she signed on to the minority opinion in McDonald v Chicago!

    Kagan during her confirmation hearing echoed what Sotomayor said regarding the 2nd Amendment. We now know this is nothing more than boilerplate rhetoric. I’m confident that when the next 2nd Amendment case appears before the Supreme Court that Kagan will side against gun-rights.

  5. Sage Thrasher says:

    This may seem a little off-topic, but the best discussion of why we can’t seem to get honest answers out of SCOTUS nominees, let alone nominees who are even remotely in tune with our national values, has got to be Christopher Buckley’s 2008 novel “Supreme Courtship.” Bloody brilliant satire. (The same book does a good job explaining the same problem with presidential nominees.)

  6. Ian Argent says:

    If she isn’t intellectually honest that’s an entirely different problem that the NRA is correct to call her out on.

  7. Matthew Carberry says:

    I don’t get how simply not attacking someone prior to them actually acting in the way you disagree with is “being nice” to them.

    That’s nonsensical reasoning. “Being nice” doesn’t even mean anything close to how it’s being used in that sentence.

    If I think you might, or even probably will, do something against my interests exactly how does me being preemptively impolite (polite being the proper word, not “nice”) to you by accusing you of planning to do so -help- in that situation?

    If I am actually absolutely wrong about you then, at best, as Ian points out, it -might- not hurt. Other than me proving myself a dick unjustifiably of course.

    If I am absolutely right about you then it also probably won’t hurt, as you were going to try to screw me hard regardless.

    But, if there is any indecision or flexibility in your position (say because you haven’t actually voted on the subject yet and like a guy on the other side personally) in terms of to what -degree- you might oppose me then, rationally, does me pre-judging you make you “more” or “less” likely to, in this instance, -not- try to pull Kennedy to the “Left” along with me?

    That’s the real concern. I concede she is unlikely to be on the “pro” side of upcoming decisions (like the imminent MD carry case), but she’s on the Court and there’s a lot of ability on the dissent side to -weaken- the “pro side” by influencing Kennedy to moderate the “conservatives” positions when the final Opinion is written. If we piss her off, do you think she might try harder? Bring her “A game” to bear against us where she might have been a little less definitive/defiant otherwise?

    Kennedy is the key and that’s the risk.

    Even setting aside sophisticated strategy and “what ifs”, what ever happened to common courtesy, especially when it costs nothing and makes us appear to be the mature, intelligent, reasonable adults on the subject of gun rights?

    Why be a dick unnecessarily when absolutely no -good- can come of it? Unless preaching to the choir and feeling superior while potentially hurting your own side now counts as a “good” in this world of weird definitions we apparently inhabit.

top