Comedy gold: Kagan pretends to admire Orrin Hatch’s gun

posted at 2:12 pm on May 13, 2010 by Allahpundit

An all-time classic in the annals of American culture clashes. Entrenched Ivory Tower academics love the firearms, baby!

Like Karl says, noting the double-entendre potential of the pistol, she’s killing two storylines here with one stone. Or is she?

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.”

That tidbit’s currently headlining on Drudge, along with her more recent outrageously outrageous declaration as Solicitor General that the Second Amendment “provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation.” Just one problem: She’s right. None other than Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the Heller decision, emphasized that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” etc, and that “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

That’s also why, like Ace, I’m not hyperventilating over the fact that she views the First Amendment as a balancing test between “the value of the speech against its societal costs.” She got ripped by the Supreme Court for arguing that, but I don’t know why: It is a de facto balancing test under existing precedent, with child porn, obscenity, “fighting words,” defamation, and a few other types of speech all deemed unprotected because they’re too harmful to society. The grilling at the hearings should zero in on how she does her “balancing,” not the fact that she’s doing it in the first place. After all, as Ace noted yesterday, even Sam Alito concluded that “crush” fetish videos should be bannable when he weighed the First Amendment pros and cons on his intellectual scale. Exit question for the nominee: How do you feel about “hate speech”?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Just like a politician stopping in to have a beer at a bar while on the campaign trail. She’s just like us!

How stupid do they think we are?

JohnJ on May 13, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Exit question 2: How does she feel about douchebags protesting dead soldier’s funerals, and about their fathers having to pay legal expenses?

DrAllecon on May 13, 2010 at 2:16 PM

She’s probably genuinely admiring the gun…

Or not.

JetBoy on May 13, 2010 at 2:17 PM

It would sure be nice if those running for high office, elected, or appointed, would have a strong character, and principles. These sideshows, and feigning interest in something they dont’ believe in, or disgusts them, is a waste of everyones time.

This woman might be qualified, as per her education, and experiences, but as to her character? Absolutely not. She’s not honest, forthright, or willing to stand on her principles. She’d rather put on a show, to gain favor. Poodles do that too. And wear a tutu at the same time.

capejasmine on May 13, 2010 at 2:18 PM

…except that there has never been a solid legal argument made that the Second Amendment allows for registration of firearms with the federal government if held by non-felons. So her lack of sympathy is quite the dealbreaker, and I’m sure that Scalia would not argue in favor of any such registries, either.

To hell with her.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Exit question for the nominee: How do you feel about “hate speech”?

Answer : I hate speech

macncheez on May 13, 2010 at 2:19 PM

I’m again reminded of Jocelyn Elders…

“I’m a big fan of Eric Clapner. I have all his albums.”

viking01 on May 13, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Concentrate on her judicial experience please.

Bishop on May 13, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Comedy is dandy
But this should be more handy

Only Barack Obama, who ran for president just two years into his first senate term and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for accomplishments to be named later, could make inexperience a virtue.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court precisely because, unlike every nominee since 1971, she was never a judge.

Given her lack of a judicial record and a very few published law review articles, Americans need to scrutinize every little thing we know about her.

As articles editor for the Harvard Law Review in 1985 Kagan helped shepherd into print a racially noxious story by a radical law professor and architect of Critical Race Studies, which is essentially “blame whitey” in legal vernacular.

This was no literary fiction. It was the kind of story that would never get past Tina Brown at the New Yorker. What Derrick Bell, the author, was doing, observes legal scholar Arthur Austin, was “making broadside comments on the tyranny of white people.”

Austin, in an article, ranked Bell’s fable one of the top 10 politically correct law review articles of all time.

Bell’s fiction was a way to circumvent law review standards. He made outlandish statements through a fictional alter-ego, modeled after a six foot three black woman in Portland, Oregon that would have been impossible to sustain with the logic and evidence required in a non-fiction piece. The goal was to access a readership that otherwise would not have countenanced such hateful notions.

“What the hell was that doing in a law review article?” asked Professor Austin. “Bell would publish these things in legal journals that had nothing to do with the law.”

Kagan was his enabler. She helped get something published that turned on all kinds of noxious sentiments about society and a relativistic view of the law.

“Several editors worked with me on the piece but Elena Kagan was the articles editor” Bell said. “There was real dedication and support by Elena.”

Kagan’s participation in an article that replaced facts and logic with subjective narrative does not bode well for her tenure on the Court. Considering that as articles editor of the Harvard Law Review she willingly discarded standards there is good reason to think that she might do this on the Supreme Court.

Critical Legal Studies — a school of thought which deems law fundamentally oppressive and renders everything completely relative — is the linchpin of judicial activism. If everything is the product of subjective perspective then the law becomes whatever judges make it.

As Bell asserted yesterday in an interview with JewishWorldReview.com, “What the hell is the rule of law? The law is whatever you say it is.”

Instead of dissenting from PC orthodoxy at Harvard Law School in 1985 Kagan did her part to embolden it. Bell’s piece was published when Critical Legal Studies was all the rage. Her role in the Bell article says more about her than the oblique law review articles she’s written under her own name.

MB4 on May 13, 2010 at 2:21 PM

The guy carrying w/o a permit was not carrying a rocket launcher. Presumably he had a handgun. She was not sympathetic to his argument that the right to keep and bear arms means the right to keep and bear handguns.

Akzed on May 13, 2010 at 2:22 PM

D@mn, where’s Ed when ya need him? heh.

WordsMatter on May 13, 2010 at 2:23 PM

“And here’s a picture of my wife.”

theperfecteconomist on May 13, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Did Hatch begin with “With your gonna get mad…..”

LOL!

terryannonline on May 13, 2010 at 2:25 PM

That’s also why, like Ace, I’m not hyperventilating over the fact that she views the First Amendment as a balancing test between “the value of the speech against its societal costs.” She got ripped by the Supreme Court for arguing that, but I don’t know why:

Actually, that’s very simple: The gun case involved a STATE law, and the speech case involved a FEDERAL law.

If you get confused about that – or pretty much anything else – of course it could not possibly matter less to anyone.

But if someone practicing law in America, let alone ajudicating Constitutional cases, can’t grasp this distinction, that constitutes (at the very least) gross incompetance.

logis on May 13, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Comedy gold: Kagan pretends to admire Orrin Hatch’s gun

That’s not a gun. He’s just happy to see her.

amerpundit on May 13, 2010 at 2:27 PM

The inescapable takeaway from MB4 on May 13, 2010 at 2:21 PM is that Kagan is an extreme promoter of racial hate. She is a very sick woman and should be under professional mental health care and not let anywhere near the U.S. Supreme Court.

MB4 on May 13, 2010 at 2:28 PM

That tidbit’s currently headlining on Drudge, along with her more recent outrageously outrageous declaration as Solicitor General that the Second Amendment “provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation.” Just one problem: She’s right.

The problem is she’s a liberal making that statement. A conservative justice leaves “not unlimited protection” meaning that you can’t carry a bazooka into a school building.

Liberals tend to mean you can have a rifle for hunting purposes, but let’s not go crazy and say you can own a handgun for self-defense.

amerpundit on May 13, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Why is Drudge showing a closeup picture of her mouth?

Mark1971 on May 13, 2010 at 2:30 PM

What part of “….. shall not be infringed” does she not comprehend enough to support?

oldfiveanddimer on May 13, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Handmade flintlock… COOL!

Texas Gal on May 13, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Why is Drudge showing a closeup picture of her mouth?

Mark1971 on May 13, 2010 at 2:30 PM

There’s a hammer and sickle tattooed on her uvula.

viking01 on May 13, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Hmmm, guess she’s not a lesbian then.

WordsMatter on May 13, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Now I’m confused…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U&feature=related

What was she admiring?

Doorgunner on May 13, 2010 at 2:38 PM

It’s beautiful… it’s gorgeous…”- E. Kagan on guns.

Whodathunkit?

profitsbeard on May 13, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Why is Drudge showing a closeup picture of her mouth?

Mark1971 on May 13, 2010 at 2:30 PM

In addition to “666″ a gap between one’s front teeth is also a sign of the devil.

WordsMatter on May 13, 2010 at 2:40 PM

A nice dinner for anyone who can prove Kagan actually has held a gun, much less wenting shooting with one.

upinak on May 13, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Comedy gold: Kagan pretends to admire Orrin Hatch’s gun

That’s not a gun. He’s just happy to see her.

amerpundit on May 13, 2010 at 2:27 PM

I wondered who’d bullseye that one first.

maverick muse on May 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM

I can’t believe she didn’t use the old and dear liberal line: “I come from a family that hunts and I have hunted myself. I respect the rights of hunters but feel we need to do something to stop crime…”

I hope Dick Cheney takes him/her out hunting.

trs on May 13, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Why is Drudge showing a closeup picture of her mouth?

Mark1971 on May 13, 2010 at 2:30 PM

That only applies if you’re a liberal, progressive, socialist, communist, entitled, dreg.

capejasmine on May 13, 2010 at 2:46 PM

I love guns.

I got my dad’s Remington 510 Targetmaster .22LR rifle out. His father bought it in the 1930′s. Its stock is in perfect condition and there is this beautiful patina on the metal, an odd dark copper steel color.

Holger on May 13, 2010 at 2:47 PM

But I thought lesbians liked guns and powertools? At least that’s what they told me at the orientation class for gay men. If I get this wrong, they may throw me out of the homosexual union.

thuja on May 13, 2010 at 2:48 PM

In addition to “666″ a gap between one’s front teeth is also a sign of the devil.

WordsMatter on May 13, 2010 at 2:40 PM

A tongue thrust equates to a devil sign? And so many Americans submit to orthodontics.

maverick muse on May 13, 2010 at 2:49 PM

“It’s beautiful… it’s gorgeous…”- E. Kagan on guns.

Whodathunkit?

profitsbeard on May 13, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Given her politics, if she’d never seen one before, her awe might seem plausible. But then she claims a familial gun tradition.

maverick muse on May 13, 2010 at 2:51 PM

But then she claims a familial gun tradition.

maverick muse on May 13, 2010 at 2:51 PM

look at my 2:41 comment to your comment.

upinak on May 13, 2010 at 2:52 PM

“And here’s a picture of my wife.”

theperfecteconomist on May 13, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Winner

/ took me a minute

faraway on May 13, 2010 at 2:53 PM

That was a funny awkward bit of film for both of them. Made me laugh, though.

AnninCA on May 13, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Guns don’t kill people, bullets do.

faraway on May 13, 2010 at 2:54 PM

“Show me your gun and I’ll show you my catcher’s mit…”

Akzed on May 13, 2010 at 2:55 PM

I watched a few minutes of this on CSPAN last night. Kagan going from office to office, cameramen in tow. It’s about the silliest crap I’ve ever seen. What’s the point?

Bugler on May 13, 2010 at 2:56 PM

I dated a softball player for a year, but when I became a dude she dumped me.

Akzed on May 13, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Maybe she’s OK with the 2nd Amendment afte rall, so long as law-abiding citizens stick to the 18th century firearms the Founders knew.

Blacklake on May 13, 2010 at 2:57 PM

What’s the point?

Bugler on May 13, 2010 at 2:56 PM

It worked for Obama, didn’t it?

upinak on May 13, 2010 at 2:58 PM

I think there must have been a portrait of Obama next to the rifle.

ctmom on May 13, 2010 at 3:07 PM

I watched a few minutes of this on CSPAN last night. Kagan going from office to office, cameramen in tow. It’s about the silliest crap I’ve ever seen. What’s the point?
Bugler on May 13, 2010 at 2:56 PM

To give the story air time, while staying as far away as possible from any discussion of her legal opinions.

“Look, she’s a normal person – sort of.” That’s the party line, and they’ll fight tooth-and-nail to keep anyone from adding anything to that message.

logis on May 13, 2010 at 3:14 PM

The inescapable takeaway from MB4 on May 13, 2010 at 2:21 PM is that Kagan is an extreme promoter of racial hate. She is a very sick woman and should be under professional mental health care and not let anywhere near the U.S. Supreme Court.

MB4 on May 13, 2010 at 2:28 PM

If you substitute Kagan with ‘this whole administration’, then I am behind you 100%.

Sir Napsalot on May 13, 2010 at 3:15 PM

And the Obama regime has beging reshaping Kagan. They are also keeping her away from as much direct media strutiny as possible.

Carl on May 13, 2010 at 3:20 PM

It is a de facto balancing test under existing precedent, with child porn, obscenity, “fighting words,” defamation, and a few other types of speech all deemed unprotected because they’re too harmful to society.

Is not that balancing test applied to the content of the speech, not the “who” engaged in the speech? She was taking the position that otherwise non-harmful political speech was miraculously converted to harmful speech, but not by virtue of the content of the speech, but who was speaking (a corporation).

tommylotto on May 13, 2010 at 3:24 PM

How long did it take a Hatch staffer to scurry over to the NRA to lift that piece for the photo op?

Fletch54 on May 13, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Maybe she’s OK with the 2nd Amendment afte rall, so long as law-abiding citizens stick to the 18th century firearms the Founders knew.

Blacklake on May 13, 2010 at 2:57 PM

I’ll go even further and say…liberals won’t rest until we’ve resorted to throwing sticks, and stones. Even then, they might have an extreme punishment for that. However, their cracking the whips on the backs of Americans, is all for the common good.

capejasmine on May 13, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Does he have a nickname for all his guns?

austinnelly on May 13, 2010 at 3:31 PM

And the Obama regime has beging reshaping Kagan. They are also keeping her away from as much direct media strutiny as possible.

Carl on May 13, 2010

Gold spray paint on a turd. Maybe people will only see the paint and ignore the turd.

SKYFOX on May 13, 2010 at 3:32 PM

+500 points if someone asks her what barrel shrouds are and her position on them.

+100000 if she says that they are “a thing that goes up”.

Rightwingguy on May 13, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Akzed on May 13, 2010 at 2:57 PM

You have my sympathies.

Rightwingguy on May 13, 2010 at 3:33 PM

I if was Hatch my pucker factor would be very high after the Bennett crash.

rplat on May 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM

+500 points if someone asks her what barrel shrouds are and her position on them.

+100000 if she says that they are “a thing that goes up”.

Rightwingguy on May 13, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Sorry, a “shoulder thing that goes up”

Rightwingguy on May 13, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Comedy gold: Kagan pretends to admire Orrin Hatch’s gun

That wizzened dangly thingy? Oh … wrong gun. My bad.

ya2daup on May 13, 2010 at 4:01 PM

…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.”

That tidbit’s currently headlining on Drudge, along with her more recent outrageously outrageous declaration as Solicitor General that the Second Amendment “provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation.” Just one problem: She’s right.

She is right, but that is not the problem.

The problem is reconciling the latter statement with the former position, which supported “regulation” by an outright ban on possession. How can you possibly say that an outright ban on possession in one’s own home doesn’t violate an enumerated right to keep and bear arms? How “strong” can can the Second Amendment protection be, if it doesn’t protect against an outright ban on possession in one’s own home for self defense? The impression she leaves is that she will pay lip service to the actual requirements of the law while she approves of illegitimate methods used to avoid those requirements.

Her use of the word “sympathetic” is also disturbing. Judges are expected to ignore their “sympathies” and other preferences and prejudices and make decisions based on the facts and the law.

This woman has virtually no experience in the actual practice of law, and no experience on the bench at either the trial or appellate levels. Her comments reflect either a failure to understand the duties and obligations of a judge, or a willingness to abrogate them to achieve a desired result.

novaculus on May 13, 2010 at 4:02 PM

“Can I get me a huntin’ license here?”

Del Dolemonte on May 13, 2010 at 4:09 PM

“Can I get me a huntin’ license here?”

Del Dolemonte on May 13, 2010 at 4:09 PM

+100

Inanemergencydial on May 13, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Her use of the word “sympathetic” is also disturbing. Judges are expected to ignore their “sympathies” and other preferences and prejudices and make decisions based on the facts and the law.

This woman has virtually no experience in the actual practice of law, and no experience on the bench at either the trial or appellate levels. Her comments reflect either a failure to understand the duties and obligations of a judge, or a willingness to abrogate them to achieve a desired result.

novaculus on May 13, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Experience on the bench wouldn’t necessarily make Kagan any smarter. But at the very least it would help her clean up her rhetoric a little bit.

After the first few summarily-overturned decisions, she’d eventually figure out it’s OK – even de rigueur – for liberal judges to be biased. But they have to remember to not SAY up front that they’re specifically predisposed against one side or the other.

Stupidity, all liberals are born with. But Socialist mendacity takes years of practice.

logis on May 13, 2010 at 4:31 PM

I hate hatch.

LtE126 on May 13, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Now I’m confused…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U&feature=related

What was she admiring?

Doorgunner on May 13, 2010 at 2:38 PM

hahahhahahhaaahhhhhhaaa

macncheez on May 13, 2010 at 5:05 PM

This turd (Kagan) wants to be a puppet of another turd puppet (Obama).
She says;

“She said she felt that the court was not sufficiently deferential to Congress,”

in the case, known as Citizens United. This was stated to Arlen Specter years ago.
This statement demonstrates she DOES NOT intend to support the Constitution, but support Congress!
YIKES!

Cybergeezer on May 13, 2010 at 6:06 PM

This thread’s gone cold; But I’ll post this anyway.

Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991, Kagan in 1986. Kagan joined the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School in 1991 and became a full professor there in 1995. Obama taught constitutional law there, though he was not formally a professor, from 1992 to 2004.

They have other things in common. Unusually for top law students who go on to teach law, they have published little: Kagan has written just five law-review articles, Obama none

Michael Barone at National Review Online.
Obama could not publish anything without plagiarizing someone’s work.

Cybergeezer on May 13, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Sorry; The rest of the article is here.
It’s a beaut!

Cybergeezer on May 13, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Actually, that’s very simple: The gun case involved a STATE law, and the speech case involved a FEDERAL law.

If you get confused about that – or pretty much anything else – of course it could not possibly matter less to anyone.

But if someone practicing law in America, let alone ajudicating Constitutional cases, can’t grasp this distinction, that constitutes (at the very least) gross incompetance.

logis on May 13, 2010 at 2:27 PM

So DC is a State now?

KZnextzone on May 13, 2010 at 8:49 PM