Kagan caca: Gun ruling a “binding precedent”
From Fox News, no less, this piece of unmitigated liberal misinformation:
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan told her confirmation panel Tuesday that the landmark decision extending gun rights to all 50 states is “binding precedent,” despite a senator’s suggestion that the 5-4 ruling was on shaky ground.
As questioning of the nominee got underway on the second day of Kagan’s hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pressed her on the high court’s Monday decision affirming the right to bear arms everywhere in the country and a similar 5-4 decision two years ago. Citing the plague of gang violence in her state, the California Democrat said “metropolitan states” have different problems than rural states and suggested the court’s decision is challengeable.
“Why is a 5-4 decision — in two quick cases — why does it throw out literally decades of precedent?” Feinstein asked.
Kagan, in a to-the-point response, said a judge is obligated to respect prior decisions.
“Senator Feinstein, because the court decided them as they did — and once the court has decided a case, it is binding precedent,” Kagan answered.
This is utter nonsense, and almost certainly a planned pantomime between Feinstein and Kagan.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a binding precedent on lower court federal judges. But Elena Kagan is not up to be confirmed to some federal appeals court. She has been nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court, and, as she and Dianne Feinstein surely know very well, the concept of such “binding precedent” has no place and no bearing on the judgments of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. The notion of stare decisis has some weight on the Supreme Court — were certain long established, albeit conceivably questionable precedents to be overturned, chaos could ensue through American society — but it certainly has little weight when it comes to decisions made in the last several years. The Supreme Court has reversed itself before, and it should be crystal clear that the likes of Elena Kagan would gleefully participate in a reversal of a ruling such as that in McDonald vs Chicago, which confirmed a right to keep and bear arms as already explicitly stated in the U.S. constitution.
|
|
Kagan’s attempt, with Feinstein’s assistance, to obfuscate the overarching fact of what would be her complete independence as a Supreme Court Justice amounts (if you ask me) to perjury. It is hardly the only example of her perjuring herself in these hearings (see her ridiculous characterization of her actions at Harvard University regarding military recruiting), and this dishonesty, under oath, in and of itself, disqualifies her from serving on the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, we are told, she is virtually certain to be confirmed. Strange days, indeed.
