Brady Bunch on Kagan
Denny Henny seem to like her because she has a fondness for the collective rights mythology:
And thus Elena Kagan made it clear that the Roberts Court, in its Heller ruling, had defied Supreme Court precedent (the 70-year-old Miller decision) – a hallmark of judicial activism. Ms. Kagan recognized in her testimony that Heller “is the law” and “is entitled to all the precedent that any decision is entitled to . . .” No doubt the irony has not escaped her that Heller “is the law” only because it showed no respect whatsoever for established precedent.
The Heller and McDonald decisions both defied precedent (to say nothing of the plain text of the Second Amendment) in fashioning a new right to be armed in the home for self-defense. Fortunately, and paradoxically, both rulings establish the foundation for the continued constitutionality of gun control laws that will make it harder for dangerous people to get guns, while still allowing gun ownership by law-abiding and responsible adults.
There was no supreme court precedent and to say so is bogus. In fact, you guys scrubbed reference to that lie from your own page.
BTW, Denny, you’re off the narrative. It’s supposed to be Heller was good because it takes gun bans off the table.
July 7th, 2010 at 9:45 am
The guy who famously misquoted the plain text of the 2A is griping about the SCOTUS not reading it properly?
I’ve had civil and polite conversations with Pete Hamm and Paul Helmke. Not sure I’d have much nice stuff to say to Henigan.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Of course they did not defy precedent, since Miller made no ruling as to whether the 2A was individual or collective.
The dicta in Miller clearly supports the individual rights view, but the holding was narrow and didn’t address the issue.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Not to mention that Miller is a poster-child for judicial and attorney misconduct. The whole thing should have been dismissed as moot when Miller died, SCOTUS should have refused to proceed when Miller’s attorney refused to appear for oral arguments, and Miller’s attorney should have been facing disbarment for failing to adequately represent his client’s interests for that same refusal.
At a minimum, Miller should have no precedental value since only the government was represented at oral arguments.
July 7th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
You expected consistency? Why exactly, when the only consistent thing they can say is “Guns R Bad” over and over and over….