Kagan Anti-Gun

Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan is not supportive of second amendment rights. Kagan has said that “Once again, there is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation.”

This is not surprising. "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."

On it's face, it would seem she is supportive and middle of the road, but it also points out that she believes that government has a role in abrogating individual, natural rights.  Like most lawyers, she's a legal positivist, "There is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality". This is troubling, and probably why our government and others are so screwed up. The law has no higher purpose than itself or the politicians that write the laws. With such an outlook, any law could be valid. On the other hand, it doesn't seem she thinks natural rights are inviolate.

I haven't commented on Kagan at all because of what I believe would be the normal controversy surrounding any SCOTUS nominee. One side excoriates the nominee as the anti-christ while the other side plays the victim and pulls various cards of victimhood out of their bag to marginalize the attacks. It's as predictable as a spaghetti western.

The innuendos about her sexuality are specious. It doesn't matter and it shouldn't matter. Her not serving as a judge also is not something new. We have in fact had a president become a supreme court justice and not only that, but chief justice, and he had at most, 4 years as a judge. He was president for longer.

Kagan obviously has the pedigree. Princeton, Oxford, Harvard. President of Harvard Law. Solicitor General. One could certainly argue fairly easily that she's a far more qualified choice than Harriet Meyers. Even I could do that, with a clear conscience no less. Her positions worry me though, considering the administrations she has worked for, and the work she has done for them. You can research this for yourself.

The bottom line is that she is replacing John Paul Stevens, and it is doubtful that she will be any further left than he is, if that matters. Left and right fail to fully describe possibilities, and I prefer authoritarian versus libertarian. Obviously she believes the government has a right to moderate and control individual rights, particularly natural rights. To what extent? This is troubling. Still, since she is replacing someone on the left, somewhat authoritarian, it's a swap like for like and our energies, as vanguards for natural rights and liberties, should be placed on issues that will make a difference and not be a distraction and mud hole to get mired in. Like the birther non-sense, such fights as these serve nothing other than to make Obama and Co. look good. Why feed the insanity?

Right now the fight is to replace member of the house and senate with libertarian candidates (I say this philosophically, not in terms of political parties), and then focus on maintaining that in 2012 while supplanting Obama with someone who is also libertarian as well. Without this strategy, Obama wins, as nothing he has accomplished can be repealed. The other thing is, whoever else from the supreme court that retires next, we will need a senate that can moderate the process if under Obama or expeditiously push through our own under a new and libertarian president.

The future awaits, lets do the right thing.

Thank you for reading this blog.

PS, The Right Guy is recovering from knee surgery as he writes this and let's hope the pain meds haven't clouded his judgement. :)