TexasCHLforum.com

boomerang wrote:He dissented on Heller. Nuff said.

03Lightningrocks wrote:I was thinking the new Justice would be equal or slightly more anti-gun.

Kythas wrote:Janet Napalitano is apparently also in the running.

chabouk wrote:Now if it was Andrew Napolitano...

Last Friday we told you that President Obama's short list of possible nominees to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the US Supreme Court contains fewer than 10 names.

We told you that 7th circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, DC Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano are on the short, list -- and now we've learned another.

Former Georgia Supreme Court chief justice Leah Ward Sears is also on the short list, a senior White House official tells ABC News.‬‪

Sears, who will turn 55 in June, was the first female African-American chief justice in US history, and when nominated for the state supreme court by then-Gov. Zell Miller in 1992, she became the first woman and the youngest person to ever sit on the court.‬‪

She stepped down from the court last year and currently practices law at Schiff Hardin.‬‪

A graduate of Emory University Law School, Sears was on President Obama’s short list last year. A member of the left-leaning American Constitution Society, she is also a friend of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.‬

LarryH wrote:Read on some e-newsletter this morning that Hillary Clinton might also be under consideration (or at least that somebody thought she should be).

HankB wrote:The ONLY good thing about Stevens is the certainty that he wouldn't be on the bench for much longer.

The problem with any Obama replacement is that we can look forward to DECADES of anti-Americanism from that seat; creative misinterpretation, "auras" and "penumbras" of meaning, cites of foreign law being applied to US decisions . . .

I wonder if a President McCain would have filled SCOTUS vacancies better than BHO would . . . an whether or not the GOP members of the Senate will muster the intestinal fortitude to stop the really, really bad nominee we can expect . . .

Purplehood wrote:
I still haven't seen any negative fallout from my perspective with the Sotomayor appointment, so I find it difficult to worry at this time.

Senator Grassley wrote:This past year, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Heller case that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, regardless of their participation in a “well regulated militia.” President-elect Obama stated that he supported an individual’s right to possess a firearm and signaled his support for the Heller decision. What is your personal opinion of the rights afforded by the Second Amendment?

Ms. Kagan wrote:The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Court granted this right the same status as other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as those protected in the First Amendment. Like other nominees to the Solicitor General position, I have refrained from providing my personal opinions of constitutional law (except in areas where I previously have stated opinions), both because those opinions will play no part in my official decisions and because such statements of opinion might be used to undermine the interests of the United States in litigation. I can say, however, that I understand the Solicitor General’s obligations to include deep respect for Supreme Court precedents like Heller and for the principle of stare decisis generally. There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

Senator Grassley wrote:If you are confirmed, will you commit to protect an individual’s right to possess a
firearm?

Ms. Kagan wrote:If I am confirmed, I will commit to show Heller and the principles articulated in it the full measure of respect that is due to all constitutional decisions of the Court. Only highly unusual circumstances can justify the
Solicitor General’s office in asking the Court to reconsider a decision, especially one as thoroughly considered as Heller. 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.

Senator Tom Coburn, in follow-up questions wrote:Please discuss your view of the Second Amendment, in light of the recent Heller decision. I would like to better understand the lens through which you view this right, as you will surely be faced with related legislation as Solicitor General.

Ms. Kagan wrote:The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. In light of this right, the Court invalidated a ban on handgun possession in the home. At the same time, the Court stated that “some measures regulating” firearms would comport with this constitutional right. Essentially, the Court made clear that the Second Amendment right to bear arms should be treated like any other constitutional right – the Court, for example, offered an analogy to the First Amendment – providing strong but not unlimited protection. As I indicated at my confirmation hearing, my concept of the Solicitor General’s role includes respect for Supreme Court precedents such as Heller and for the principle of stare decisis generally.

Senator Specter wrote:Would you ever give weight to other nations’ restrictions on gun rights when interpreting the Second Amendment?

Ms. Kagan wrote:A number of the Justices have considered foreign law in the Eighth Amendment context, where the Court’s inquiry often focuses on “evolving standards of decency” and then on the level of consensus favoring or disfavoring certain practices. By contrast, none of the Justices relied on other nations’ restrictions on gun rights in their opinions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and the grounded historical approach adopted in that case (and echoed even in the
dissents) would grant no relevance to arguments from comparative law in defining the scope of the Second Amendment right.