Kagan: Obama in a black robe……and the saving of the 2nd Amendment by one vote.


A Well Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Ratified December 1791)
-2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States-

Today, the Supreme Court passed the ruling on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and everyone is jumping up and down celebrating it. But it is a scary thing. The vote should have been 9 – 0 for, but instead, it passed by one vote…..5 to 4. Looking at that, do you now see the direction Obama is leading us with of the latest nominee to the Supreme Court, Ms. Elena Kagan.

She is, as Rush so rightly put it today, a clean slate, and because of her lack of experience, the questions that she should be asked should be hard and tough.

From the Washington Post, George Will had a piece over the weekend called “More Questions for Nominee Elena Kagan,” And I would like to read some of it for you. Because in this are some questions that SHOULD be asked of Ms Kagan.

Here is what George Will wrote:

Pursuant to Elena Kagan’s expressed enthusiasm for confirmation hearings that feature intellectual snap, crackle and pop, here are some questions the Senate Judiciary Committee can elate her by asking:

Regarding campaign finance “reforms”: If allowing the political class to write laws regulating the quantity, content and timing of speech about the political class is the solution, what is the problem?

If the problem is corruption, do we not already have abundant laws proscribing that?

If the problem is the “appearance” of corruption, how do you square the First Amendment with Congress restricting speech to regulate how things “appear” to unspecified people?

Incumbent legislators are constantly tinkering with the rules regulating campaigns that could cost them their jobs. Does this present an appearance of corruption?

Some persons argue that our nation has a “living” Constitution; the court has spoken of “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” But Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking against “changeability” and stressing “the whole antievolutionary purpose of a constitution,” says “its whole purpose is to prevent change — to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away. A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that ‘evolving standards of decency’ always ‘mark progress,’ and that societies always ‘mature,’ as opposed to rot.” Is he wrong?

The Ninth Amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The 14th Amendment says no state may abridge “the privileges or immunities” of U.S. citizens. How should the court determine what are the “retained” rights and the “privileges or immunities”?

The 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”) is, as former Delaware governor Pete du Pont has said, “to the Constitution what the Chicago Cubs are to the World Series: of only occasional appearance and little consequence.” Were the authors of the Bill of Rights silly to include this amendment?

Should decisions of foreign courts, or laws enacted by foreign legislatures, have any bearing on U.S. courts’ interpretations of the Constitution or federal laws (other than directly binding treaties)?

The Fifth Amendment says private property shall not be taken by government for public use without just compensation. But what about “regulatory takings”? To confer a supposed benefit on the public, government often restricts how persons can use their property, sometimes substantially reducing the property’s value. But government offers no compensation because the property is not “taken.” But when much of a property’s value is taken away by government action, should owners be compensated?

In Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 election, seven justices ruled that Florida vote recounts that were being conducted in different jurisdictions under subjective and contradictory standards were incompatible with the Constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws.” Were they right?

In Bush v. Gore, five justices held that Article II of the Constitution gives state legislatures plenary power to set the rules for presidential elections. The Florida legislature fashioned election rules to produce presidential electors immune from challenge by Congress. But the legislature said that immunity depended on electors being chosen by a certain date, which could not be met if further recounts were to ensue. The court held that allowing more recounts would have contravened the intent of Florida’s legislature. So the recounts were halted. Was the court’s majority correct?

Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom you clerked, said: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” Can you defend this approach to judging?

You have said: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” But that depends on what the meaning of “is” is. There was no constitutional right to abortion until the court discovered one 185 years after the Constitution was ratified, when the right was spotted lurking in emanations of penumbras of other rights. What is to prevent the court from similarly discovering a right to same-sex marriage?

Bonus question: In Roe v. Wade, the court held that the abortion right is different in each of the three trimesters of pregnancy. Is it odd that the meaning of the Constitution’s text would be different if the number of months in the gestation of a human infant were a prime number?

Now isn’t that the truth. Questions like that should be asked. Because she is just what Obama wants. A person to swing the votes in the Supreme Court, so that votes like the one that happened today would swing the other way. You don’t believe that the left is trying to get rid of the Constitution? Keep watching. You will see it happen, if Obama gets his way. Because she is actually Obama, in a black robe.

God Bless America, her troops, her allies and her people
God Bless my readers, my listeners on BTR* and my viewers on You Tube….

-Robert-

NOTE: My Blog Talk Radio Show has changed days. It has been moved from Sunday at 7 pm to Saturday at 7 pm. And that is eastern daylight time. Come join me for the next show on Saturday, the 2nd of July.

About Robert P. Garding

I am a Reagan Conservative, who is very alarmed at the Liberals who have just lost their majority over our government, but continue to act like it never happened. They have to be stopped. NOW or even sooner.
This entry was posted in Conservative Talk Blog host. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Kagan: Obama in a black robe……and the saving of the 2nd Amendment by one vote.

  1. Edisto Joe says:

    No one will ever convince me that the Constitution is a “living” document, subject to change for political expedience, judicial philosophy, or by demands from any one particular part of society. The Founding Fathers set the foundation of America with this document. They realized that there may be need for adjustments and allowed for admendments to be added. Not an easy process by any means but it was not meant to be, yet it can still be done. These were very intelligent men then as they would be now. They were very straight forward in their thinking and they meant what they wrote. They would not be pleased that in todays world there are those who would try to second guess them are think that their words were open to interpetation. God forbid that the liberals ever get a majority on the Supreme Court. They might as well send our Constitution to the paper shredder.
    reply from Robert: You are so right my friend. That has been the catch phrase for the constitution for a long time for the liberals. “the constitution is a living document.” And you are right. As a living document, it isn’t worth the price of the paper it was written on because none of the words mean what they say. They can always be changed, according to the liberals. But that is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. It was written to be the guide for the way this country conducts itself. Something the libs are always trying to change. The founding fathers knew this would happen and wrote fail safes into the Constitution, making it the document it is and should be. It was written as it was, divinely inspired I think, to mean just what it says. I pray to God that a liberal majority on the Supreme Court never happens in this day in age. If it does, we are as good as toast when it comes to being freedom loving Americans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s